Liberal Arts and Minds

Governing in Canada - Looking backward

2011-10-25T13:14:00.006-04:00

It seems to me that most countries elect a government that provides a vision that is meant to move the country forward.

Not this country. Nope. It seems that we elected a government that is fully committed to looking backwards and avenging old grudges.

Today's latest? Abolishing the gun registry. Oh, I know the Conservatives have been talking about this for years so it's not new, but what is new is that included in Bill is the directive that all data be destroyed. This, in spite of provinces having requested the information so they might develop their own registries.

The Fed's know the provinces wanted this information, so stating that they will be destroying it is quite remarkable. What's more remarkable though is a comment made by Vic Toews today. When asked about this provision in the Bill, he gave us the real reason. You see he wants the data destroyed so that no Federal government in the future could re-construct a registry. Seriously, he said that.

There you have it folks. The Conservatives are running this country, focused on revenge and settling old scores, not good policy.

I hope your rear-view mirror is clean. You're going to need it for the next 4 years.

Bob Rae's Speech to the House of Commons on Libya

2011-09-27T16:28:00.004-04:00

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to all of the resolutions in the House on Libya and I am glad to be able to participate in the debate today.

I will be indicating to the House our support for Canada’s staying the course with the United Nations, to our staying the course with our NATO allies, and to our staying the course with our friends in the Libya community both in Canada and in Libya. I will be asserting very strongly the need for Canada to in fact expand its engagement with civil society in Libya and with the broader issues of governance and reform, not only in Libya but in North Africa.

We do not agree with our NDP colleagues’ position that it is time to withdraw our support for the UN- and NATO-led efforts and stop protecting civilians in Libya through international action.

I find the NDP position described by the hon. member for St. John’s East completely inconsistent. First of all, one cannot agree with the NATO and United Nations position but also say that once the Gadhafi regime is defeated and the people are no longer being oppressed, that is when Canada should withdraw. It makes no sense.

I understand where my NDP colleagues’ reasoning comes from, but their position is completely inconsistent. It is as though we had to choose between two UN resolutions—resolution 1973 and resolution 2009—and the NDP has chosen the one that deals with the civilian situation in Libya and is ignoring the resolution that deals with the military situation. It makes no sense.

We have to be consistent. I must say I am very disappointed in the comments from my colleague from Newfoundland. He says we do not want to take sides in a civil war. The implication is that he is indifferent as to whether the regime of Colonel Gadhafi stays or not. I cannot believe that is the position of the official opposition of Canada.

We on this side are not indifferent with respect to what happens in Libya. We want there to be the emergence of a civil society and of a civil government that represents the broad interests of the people of Libya. That is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada, and that should be the position of the House of Commons as well.

There is the notion that somehow it is too delicate to say, and I heard the member from Newfoundland say it, “We don’t want to take sides”. Why did the United Nations pass resolution 1973? It passed resolution 1973 because there was a government in Libya that was about to attack its own citizens and its own people. That is why it went in.

Now the question becomes, what has changed? Well, things have moved beyond where they were. It is true that the regime is apparently on its last legs. We know that its members are hiding in two cities.

However, I have to say I am not going to substitute my judgment for that of the United Nations or that of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has asked Canada to continue in this role. I am not going to substitute my judgment for those or for those our allies our in NATO, who say it is important for us to continue with this mission under the umbrella of the United Nations. I am not about to substitute my mission and say that I have been reading the newspapers over the last couple of days and that I know better what is going on in Libya and that I know the right moment for Canada to withdraw. It is a fundamentally absurd proposition.

Because of the internal workings of the New Democratic Party, its members say that it has to be the party of peace. We are all the party of peace, but being a party of peace does not mean that we have to be a party of appeasement or a party of indifference. We in the Liberal Party are not a party of indifference and we are certainly not a party of appeasement.

The lesson of collective security, which we learned as a planet throughout the middle of the 20th century, has now been furthered by our obligation to be concerned about what happens inside a state.

The great revolution in international law that my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, has had so much to do with and has had so much to say about is the revolution that says what happens inside states is every bit as important to us and our obligation as citizens as what happens between states. That is the simple message of the responsibility to protect.

I know that the government opposite is reluctant to talk about the responsibility to protect and that we want to put this language into the resolution, but it is very important for the House to understand that the reason the United Nations took the unusual step of asking for a military intervention in Libya was precisely to protect the civilian population and that there was no other way in which that could be done.

Gadhafi had threatened very clearly that he was going to go house by house to cleanse his country of dirt, which is language reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Rreducing people to microbes very quickly establishes what the real objective is, and they are now discovering mass graves in which hundreds and hundreds of people are buried.

I cannot believe my ears when I hear the New Democratic Party spokesman say we cannot take sides in this dispute in Libya. It is a truly preposterous statement. Those NDP members do not have the courage of their humanitarianism to understand what it takes to ensure that the humanitarian goals are accomplished.

The New Democratic Party says we have to change course.

No, we do not have to change course. We have to add to the course. We have to continue to do what we are doing with respect to our obligations under our treaty obligations with NATO and with respect to the work we have undertaken with the United Nations.

At the same time, it is important for us to ask whether the civilian work has to be added to. Of course, it does. Does the work that we are doing on the humanitarian side have to be added to? Of course it does. Does there need to be a more robust strategy with respect to civil governance in Libya? Of course there does. Does there need to be a democratic strategy with respect to what is taking place in North Africa? Of course there does.

Do we think, inside the Liberal Party, that the Conservatives have done enough in that area? Not at all.

Lastly, there is the risk that all the non-governmental organizations that have been doing crucial work in this area for decades will collapse because of a lack of funding from the Conservative government.

There is no consistent program, either within CIDA or at the heart of government, to help ensure good governance when it comes to foreign affairs. That is a real problem. We recognize that and want to point it out. There are all kinds of organizations across the country that have worked hard to support good governance in this transition to democracy, which we want to see around the globe. However, while the Conservative government likes to talk about human rights, it does not seem to want to move things forward.

As Liberals, we find ourselves in the situation where we do not see a government which is willing to live up to its words about good governance and its words about human rights, and it is not following that strategy effectively in terms of giving the assistance to the non-governmental organizations which have been the lifeblood of this movement in Canada over the last 30 years.

I can give any minister first-hand knowledge to say that they are not living up here and not living up there. The Europeans have now developed a robust program with respect to assisting democracies. The Americans have a robust program with respect to supporting democracy, good governance and a new way of life.

However, the government of Canada is retreating from those policies. It is moving away from those policies and not sustaining those organizations and institutions. It is talking the game, but it is not playing the game. It seems to me that it is time as Canadians we learn to do something very simple: walk and chew gum at the same time.

We believe very strongly that it is important for Canada to have a coherent and credible policy. What is being proposed by the official opposition has no particular credibility. To suggest that we were there at the beginning but we are going to leave before it is over is just ridiculous. We did not pull back from other situations until the victory was assured. That, it seems to me, is critical. We go in with the United Nations and NATO, and that is when we come out. That is how we do things. That is what builds the credibility of this country.

On the other side, what builds the credibility of this country is for our foreign policy to reflect more than just a military policy. Our foreign policy cannot just be a question of which military interventions we want to support and that be the end of the subject. It has to be engaged much more profoundly on a whole set of levels with Libyan society, with the changes that are underway in north Africa, with the changes that are underway around the world.

We are not going to be able to sustain that credibility unless we are in a very clear position to do both things. We do not have to choose between resolution 1973 and resolution 2009 of the General Assembly of the United Nations. We can actually do both. We can say that we are there to see this conflict through and the emergence of a government that speaks for the people of Libya. We are also there to assist in the achievement of better governance in the country itself.

There are serious issues. My colleagues have mentioned that there are serious issues: what kind of a transition it would be; what assurances we would have that there would be no reprisals; the situation affecting migrant workers; as well as the situation of human rights, the promotion of human rights and the equality between women and men, which is such a critical feature of our own lives here in Canada.

We cannot walk away from these issues. We cannot say that we are interested in doing business in Libya, but we are not interested in the human rights situation or democracy in Libya. We have to develop a foreign policy that is robust enough and intelligent enough to do both things in harmony. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, says that we do.

I can tell my good friend that it just is not the case that Canada has maintained its credibility with respect to all the other things that go into making good governance. CIDA has downgraded it and is not doing it the way it used to do it before. CIDA is not involved in the governance field the way it used to be before and it is not supporting these changes. The Department of Justice is not supporting these changes. The budget for it in the Department of Foreign Affairs is under constant threat and the member should know that. He should understand the budgets for which he holds some responsibility. That is something that has to continue to be emphasized. We say very clearly that the government is not broadening the base of the mission sufficiently in Libya.

We want that mission to be broadened in its civilian, humanitarian, legal, and human rights orientation. We know that needs to happen and we want it to happen. We would not use the excuse of having a different perspective with respect to how it needs to be broadened, or invent some reason now as to why, a few weeks away from the culmination, we hope, that Canada would say it is sorry but it does not really want to be engaged, or in the words of the member from Newfoundland, “We’ve done more than our share”.

Is this really the vision of Canada the government is proposing? This is not a little matter of accounting: we put in a few more bucks than somebody else. It is this small mindedness, frankly, of what we are seeing here that takes away from what needs to be a big, generous and, may I say it, Liberal vision of a foreign policy for this country.

Yes, it needs to be robust enough that we can deal with crises and have the courage of our humanitarian principles to say we will intervene, even militarily, if that is what it takes to stop tyranny from having its impact on its own citizens. We are not afraid to say that.

We also know that military solutions alone are not enough, that what comes after the change of government is every bit as important, and that requires an equally robust commitment to aid, assistance, advice, and presence. But I can tell members opposite, the Europeans are doing it, the Americans are doing it, and Canada used to do it under a Liberal government. It is time that it did it for the future of Canada and indeed, for the future of the region.

H/T - Honourable Carolyn Bennett

Hudak Rhymes with Fear Merchant

2011-09-06T16:50:00.005-04:00

I can't help but think that Tim Hudak knows he's behind the eight ball in this race and is therefore grasping at anything that may improve his chances. Fair enough I suppose. It's what many politicians do, but to deliberately deceive, lie to be frank, and push a xenophobic message? Well, yes, that is what he is up to in my opinion.

See for yourself.

There is not an ounce of truth in that ad.

Money is not going to workers, let alone foreign workers, in fact what McGuinty is proposing is a tax credit to businesses that hire immigrants, for a year, in an effort to provide them with work experience so they may pursue their intended career in Canada. This program applies to Canadian citizens, (of at least 5 yrs) and residents of Ontario. So, you know, people who we've appealed to, to immigrate here. People we have selected in an effort to build our work force and economy. Engineers, accountants, etc. who are now, wait for it, Ontarians!

It's frankly disgusting to me that Hudak is suggesting that this program is somehow taking anything away from anyone. It's not. And, oh by the way, do you know how many other similar programs exist to help ALL Ontarians? The cost for those programs is in the billions for the record. This is just another program designed to get people into jobs they qualify for, rather than the oft lamented 'doctors working as cabbies'.

But wait. It doesn't stop there. The calm, reasoned voice of Dean Del Mastro, on behalf of the Federal Conservatives has also weighed in.

As a "young white male" at the time, Mr. Del Mastro said jobs were few and far between as a result. "And here we go again, " he said.

Yeah, he actually said that. Between the two of them, (Hudak and Del Mastro as Harper's rep) it's pretty tough to come to any other conclusion than they are pandering to some pretty ugly views held by some.

Oh, and if you have a sweet tooth and are looking for the icing on the cake? As it happens, Hudak himself proposed a PMB (private members bill) essentially outlining what McGuinty and the Liberals have as their plank.

Isn't that a kick in the head? One strong enough to have you spell hypocrisy, H U D A K.

Jack Layton

2011-08-22T17:41:00.002-04:00

July 18, 1950 ~ August 22, 2011

Many articulate pieces have been written about Jack today. Seek them out and read them.

I'd also offer, that if you have not read Jack's letter to the nation, you should.

I'll say this about Jack Layton and his legacy.

If each of us spent just one day feeling and acting on the passion for justice Jack experienced throughout his life, the world would be a different and better place.

Sactimony Unbecoming

2011-06-29T13:06:00.003-04:00

Michael Ignatieff wrote an interesting op-ed today, presumably prompted by a recently published report and article examining expatriates. In it Ignatieff shares his less than pleasant experience on the subject, thanks to the political games employed by the Conservative Party of Canada, but he speaks to the broader issue and what it might mean for the future.

The general thrust is the impact of attacking people who choose to live or study abroad when they return home and offer to contribute. It's a conversation worth having in my view and he simply shared some of his thoughts.

That seems to have bothered the predictable suspects. Snide comments on Twitter appeared this morning, then I caught Tim Powers contribution. I have to say, I did not expect it from him. Now, we know that Powers is often called on to be the Conservative talking head on TV panels, but this isn't that.

This is nothing more than a cheap shot by someone I thought had more decency. He not only implies that Ignatieff believes that his being an expat was the reason for the election results, he distorts what the Conservatives actually did do to his reputation.

Tim suggests that Ignatieff played into/fit the Conservative narrative perfectly. No, he did not. The narrative was designed and all the material they used to support it was contrived. Quotes taken out of context, juvenile photos and all nuance expunged. Those lies fit the narrative and were torqued. Tim then goes on to say that this particular political calculation was sophisticated. Again, no. It's old school, good 'ol boy, nasty politics, but then again, perhaps that passes for sophistication in certain circles.

The fictional picture that the Conservatives drew of Ignatieff, did indeed have an impact on voters. If you knocked on doors or did any work during the election, you'd know that, but that isn't really Michael's point.

To continue to attack him as if he is still a political opponent is crass in my view. He's now a private citizen who has the right to express his opinion and actually contribute to an important discussion. That opinion, can of course be debated, but sitting on high horse tossing out sophistry does not qualify as debate.

In Tim's case, it's both surprising and unbecoming.

Me, Myself and Aye

2011-05-17T13:17:00.010-04:00

While it has been interesting to read the various post-mortems of the election and the pages and pages of advice being offered to the Liberal Party, my mind keeps drifting back to some reading I was doing pre-election.

It started with some of Susan Delacourt's writing, (and her links to others) on politicians and political parties shopping for votes. More specifically what she often refers to as Value versus Values. It's not only an interesting look at contemporary politics, but in my opinion a vital one.

While this is a simplistic overview, my interpretation of some of what I've read is this. Over time some political parties or machines, have developed methods of segmenting populations, examining their needs, producing a product/policy to fit that small segment and selling it to them. Not just selling it to them actually, but actively convincing them that they are right to want it, thereby validating their choice. Boutique politics providing value to that specific tax payer. Some argue that this kind of political marketing is just a natural evolution that fits into our 'consumer society'. Maybe, but I think it goes further than that. I think it's a strategy that feeds itself, encourages segregation/isolation of specific groups and discourages citizens from feeling part of the 'whole', or even a need to.

People end up voting for narrow issues that affect them without regard, or perhaps a realisation, of the impact elsewhere. Me, myself and aye, at the expense of the country as a whole, or at least a vision for it.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with a certain amount of individualism, but not in the classical sense that excludes any form of communal responsibility and regard. That, I believe, is both unhealthy and unwise in a society.

So, why have I been thinking about this? Well, I believe that the Conservative party excels at 'value' politics and while the Liberal party is at the rebuilding stage, I'd hate to see us go in that direction. Furthermore, I think the crux of the 'value v. values' argument can be made within the party at this stage and may be a place we can focus on as we move forward.

It's clear that most members have no interest in the top telling or feeding it's members the goodies they perceive we want. The argument has been made by many that the desire now is to work collaboratively for the common good. That is complex, painstaking and requires compromise in order to arrive at that broader vision, one that ultimately serves all. It's an open process that moves from the traditional, 'let's find out their problems, then go away for a while so we can come back and give them the solution.' The onus is not on one person, nor one entity. It's up to all involved to work together on an ongoing basis, each playing a vital role, each with something at stake.

So, not only do I see this as an important discussion for the country, I think it may have some applications to the Liberal party as it moves forward to rebuild and clarify it's values.

It's Friday so....Promises, Promises

2011-05-13T21:27:00.001-04:00

Read whatever you like into this choice.

(via ~ Jian Gomeshi)

REFLECT ~ RENEW ~ REBUILD ~ RETURN

2011-05-03T15:37:00.003-04:00

Election Day

2011-05-02T07:11:00.002-04:00

Well, I don't have to tell you that today is the day. If you didn't vote at the advanced polls, be sure to get out and have your voice heard.

I have to say that the level of engagement that I have witnessed on-line and in my day to day life has been really heartening. It remains to be seen whether or not that will translate at the polls, but I'll be surprised if it doesn't. It seems to me that Stephen Harper's strategy for years has been to suppress the vote and it would be lovely for Canada to see that backfire.

So, get out there and vote and, if you are able, contact your candidates office to offer your help.

See you once the counting is done!

Take a Closer Look

2011-04-29T11:59:00.002-04:00

Bob Rae asks you to take a second look at both the Conservative and NDP platforms. Take your time especially with the NDP list of promises. They don't make any sense.

NDP platform here.

Ridings Only Get Money if MP is in Government?

2011-04-28T14:25:00.004-04:00

The latest offering from Conservative candidate in my riding, Stella Ambler, is telling us that you must have an MP in government in order to get dollars to the riding.

Here's the line:

As Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Chief of Staff in the GTA, I saw first-hand how much more we could have benefitted [sic] here in Missississauga South if we had an MP on the government side of the House working for us. (bold: hers)

First of all, this Chief of Staff stuff is a party designation and has nothing to do with government. She seems to have inflated sense of self and in my opinion is misleading the riding.

More importantly though, what is she really saying? That Flaherty purposely denied this riding it's due because there is a Liberal incumbent? They only reward their own? They don't work for all Canadians, only Conservative Canadians? I'm sure Hazel McCallion would be surprised to hear that.

She goes on to point out that our MP Paul Szabo says he works hard in Ottawa. Horrors! Of course she's again insinuating that he didn't work hard for the riding, which is nonsense. If you recall, the majority of project spending goes through the municipality. Furthermore, I happen to know that this area had one of the highest up-takes on the Home Reno credit, which does not involve an MP.

What's this election about again? Trust, honesty, contempt for parliament, our democracy?

Ms. Ambler doesn't seem to realise that with every piece of literature that she drops, she just reinforces why the Conservatives should not be in power.

It's Meant To Be Shared!

2011-04-24T18:12:00.003-04:00

If you still have friends and family who don't know who Michael Ignatieff really is and what the Liberal Party of Canada stands for in 2011, please share this with them. It's a Town Hall for Canada.

Election day is coming and everyone should have the facts, not the myths created by others.

Share!

Remember to Tune In

2011-04-24T10:59:00.002-04:00

Today, Michael Ignatieff is doing a Town Hall for Canada.

For information about where and when you can watch, go to the Liberal Party of Canada website.

Tell your friends and family.

Canadians Cynical? Nope

2011-04-23T15:43:00.002-04:00

It's been suggested during this campaign that Canadians are disinterested and cynical. That statement has been made in large part by Conservatives and some media.

I think they are in for a surprise.

This song was written and performed by Melissa D'Souza. She is an artist from Calgary. She got no help from the Liberal party in producing this song or video. She simply says that she was inspired by Michael Ignatieff's speech.

Well done!

Resume Check Required - Stella Ambler

2011-04-23T09:04:00.006-04:00

In my riding, the Conservative candidate featured above, seems to have a number of jobs. The problem is some are real, some appear not to be.

It's one thing to try to be all things to all people, but if you're not being completely honest about it, I think voters have a right to know, don't you?

In our local newspaper, Ms. Ambler submitted a profile of herself. You'll note that she lists her occupation as Jim Flaherty's Chief of Staff. As far as I can tell, that is not true. That job actually belongs to Kevin McCarthy.

Furthermore, on the literature she drops in the riding, she tells us that she is Regional Director to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. I'm told that her nomination papers filed with Elections Canada state that she is a "Mother and Political Staff".

It seems she is telling constituents that she has a heck of lot more influence and information than she actually does. That is, that she knows everything about Flaherty's office and work.

I think it's time someone ask her some questions, don't you?

Hometown Glory

2011-04-22T22:07:00.002-04:00

Taking a page out of Impolitical's book...it's Friday. Music!

It happens to be music I like and a singer who has a message.

I'm also old enough to have had numerous 'Hometown's'

Enjoy

Rise Up Canada

2011-04-16T14:08:00.000-04:00

I'm Engaged

2011-04-15T21:58:00.000-04:00

Odd Sensibilities

2011-04-13T15:19:00.004-04:00

As we near the second and final debate tonight, I've been thinking about some of what has been written and uttered about last night. There seems to be a need by many to identify who won and who lost.

So what are people saying? Well many seem to 'feel' that Harper won because he stayed calm, didn't get angry, kept his cool and was able to deflect issues by saying that's not true or bizarrely, "I don't accept the truth of those facts".

I don't know about you, but that seems faint praise indeed.

I thought Ignatieff was strongest when speaking to the 'democracy and parliament' issue, though he more than held his own throughout. That particular issue though is one that he is clearly passionate about and one that resonates with people. Oh, not the nitty gritty detail of parliamentary procedure etc., (though some of us do love that!), the more fundamental case that he puts forward outlining Harper's style of governing and lack of respect for our democractic institutions.

When faced with these issues, Harper cheerfully (actually sullenly) obliges by arrogantly dismissing any such claims, then goes on to say things like: 'What worries me about having a minority is my fear that we'll have a 5th election, then a 6th election....' (paraphrased). That is an astonishing statement. He also, once again brushed of the contempt finding and referred to it and other such issues as 'bickering'. I think Ignatieff landed a great line at that point, 'Mr. Harper, that is not bickering, it's democracy'. (also paraphrased)

So, I look forward to tonight's debate, not really to see who wins, but rather to see who best demonstrates the sensibilities that I look for in a Prime Minister.

It's Over Steve

2011-04-11T16:05:00.000-04:00

Response Too Large

2011-04-09T09:39:00.003-04:00

Last week I mentioned that there was a meeting scheduled for today with Michael Ignatieff. It was meant to be a policy briefing on family issues.

I'm told that the response was huge, soooo, the meeting has been postponed and may be a national on-line chat in an effort to accomodate everyone.

I'll keep you posted.

Harper's Final Battle Cry

2011-04-08T18:49:00.006-04:00

Those of you who have read me for a long time know I have always shunned the argument that Stephen Harper has a secret, 'social', agenda. I have never believed that, though I do believe with power he would have implemented legislation to turn back the clock only to satisfy and grow his base.

Oh, he does have an agenda. It's just not based on abortion, etc. and to be honest, I wish the opposition parties had focused on that reality more emphatically these past 5 years.

His dream is to turn this country away from L/liberalism in any form. He claims that means small government, but please, check the record and you have to analyse what 'small' means. (Oh, so tempted to go to male metaphors, but I will resist.)

It doesn't really mean less spending. It doesn't really mean less bureaucracy. It really means re-directed money, and lots of it, to what they think is important as a federal government. It's the federal government and it's responsibility that they want to, (and are) changing. Military, corporations (capitalism) and justice. That's the range.

Now, before anyone thinks I've gone rogue and flown left, I think all of those concerns are valid for a federal government to be involved in. What I don't think, is that federal government should be restricted to just that. That is not what this country is nor what it is about.

Harper is talking a game about social issues right now, a game to care, but that is 'the very pretty lure'. Lures are designed to deceive.

Tonight I watched Harper change his speech a bit. There was a bitterness to it. There was the Harper of old coming to the fore. He is now evoking the Trudeau era without mentioning his name. He refers to the Chretien time as one of the most dire times in history and he quietly brought up sponsorship. His tone is all about the evils of Liberal government and he is becoming far more honest about his hatred of that.

I truly believe he thinks the country is ready for a new face and this is his last chance to bring it, as the saying goes. The "Canada's back" statement on Canada Day, will never leave my memory.

To anyone who has watched the man and has not fallen into the claptrap of, "oh look, he's such a centrist!" as many in the media sadly have, his speech tonight gave him away. I'm perplexed that so many clever people have ignored who he is, but they have and we are poorer for it.

This is his last battle cry and watch it ratchet up. Smart folk will see it. Blinders will continue to be distributed to others.

Calling Bloggers Interested in Family Policy

2011-04-07T13:12:00.004-04:00

*** Note new time, 1200 pm. ***

Michael Ignatieff will be holding an informal policy briefing this Saturday morning at 1200, in Toronto.

George Brown College - Casa Loma Child Care Centre

160 Kendal Avenue
Toronto Ontario

If you blog about family issues and would like more information on the Liberal position, RSVP here.

It's free, open to all, not just party members and I'm pretty sure there will be no Facebook profiling!

Wait Times

2011-04-04T16:10:00.007-04:00

So what's been happening on the policy front during this election?

Well, Stephen Harper and his party have the wealthy, healthy folk covered. Yes, he cares about them, or rather he will in about 5 years...maybe. He also cares about families who decide to have a parent stay at home to raise our future, or rather he will care, in about 5 years....maybe. He's also got duck hunters covered. That's right. He's once again promising to get rid of the long gun registry if, and only if, he gets a majority, because...um, well there is no good reason really, certainly no logical one, but hey, it gets those hunters chanting and that is always fun!

What is he not delaying? Corporate tax cuts and the procurement of the F-35's. Nope it's full steam ahead on those issues. You see, apparently we have danger lapping at our shores, so now is not the time to focus on Canadians. Lapping danger means you must immediately take your gaze away from families. What? You didn't know that?

Now, to be fair, the tax cut for major corporations has already been implemented, but just. Three short months ago, the rates were set at the rate that Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals intend to temporarily return them to. Yes, I said temporarily because that is rarely mentioned. Tax cuts will begin again once we have eliminated the deficit.

As for the F-35's, well the Liberals are not disputing the fact that we do have to replace our current equipment, but they want an open bid and the opportunity to review other aircraft, not to mention the fact that some real numbers on what the Conservatives are proposing have still not been put forward.

So, I guess it would be fair to say that the Liberals have a platform for today based on delaying a tax break for corporations until we can afford it and the Conservatives have a plan to delay anything for Canadians until some time in the future, but will advance breaks for large business today.

Wait times. You decide who should be experiencing them.

Idle Thoughts on Week One

2011-04-02T14:55:00.013-04:00

It's hard to believe it's only week one actually, so much has happened. That said, a few things stood out for me.

Other than policy issues, (which I obviously do care about), I've been struck by the mood and the tone of the election thus far. From the beginning there were notable differences.

The Ignatieff campaign started off excited, happy and from the get-go journo's travelling with the group were tweeting fun stories and background. As one friend put it, 'sunshine and puppies' were often featured. As cavalier as that perhaps sounds, you did get the sense that everyone on the Liberal team was ready and happy to be there.

As for the journalists, I'm certain it's gruelling work but they held Ignatieff's feet to the fire while not experiencing huge limitations while doing their job.

Conversely, the Harper campaign began on a sour note that quickly shifted to fear mongering and predictions of impending doom. It was the 'be afraid' campaign from the start and was jam packed with lies and fiction. There was no joy in Whoville and it showed right away.

Instead of actually, you know, participating in the election, a great deal of time was spent telling everyone who was within earshot that the election was a waste of time, shouldn't have happened, etc. Not the most inspiring way to get your supporters to listen to you. Thanks for coming. Wish you weren't here! He'd lost his grip on control and it showed.

In both cases the feelings lasted and by the end of the week more than one story had the Ignatieff team with the momentum. That in part because of how well the campaign was being run and of course in part due to the gaffes being made on the Harper team. Coalition fiction, debate dares and media control.

Now, it's only week one and we've got a long way to go, but watching both men is interesting.

Because I have met and seen Ignatieff a number of times, I'm not surprised by his ease and strong delivery, though I'm delighted to see that others are. All it took in some cases was one look at a Liberal rally to dispel the idiotic ads that have attempted to paint a man who does not exist.

No, the one who has surprised me is Harper. Think back to when he first came on to the political scene, full of ideas, whether you agreed with them or not. He held his political views fiercely and articulated them with strength. Watching him this week, I no longer see that. Oh, I still think he holds those views and has been implementing them, but he couches them in an effort not to frighten and as a result, he seems somewhat cowed.

Being nasty and trading in fear does not exhibit strength in my opinion. It simply paints a picture of a rather desperate man, prepared to do or say anything to maintain his position...but that too has me a bit puzzled. I don't see a man who really wants to be PM, save for the fact that it is the only way to implement his ideas. I think had he been able to have influence from the outside, and he tried, he would have much preferred that.

I don't think he likes much of anything to do with electioneering. Rallies, people and dealing with media don't strike me as his favourite pastime. As for the job he held pre-writ, I suspect he relishes the opportunity it provides to actualize strategy to implement his agenda. Much of what else goes with the job...the sales job? Not so much. Don't get me wrong, he still wants the job as he hasn't completed what he started, but if he had another way, could trust someone else to finish the work?...my view is that he'd take it.

It's only week one and I'm taking nothing for granted, but I'm excited to watch this play out.

Ignatieff on Family Care

2011-03-30T09:45:00.001-04:00

A Canada we can all be proud of

2011-03-30T09:44:00.000-04:00

Demand Better

2011-03-09T16:44:00.000-05:00

When a Voice is Silenced

2011-03-06T19:16:00.004-05:00

When an important voice in this country was silenced this week, I confess I was stunned.

Jim Travers looked to places that others didn't and seemed to have a wide-angle lens going on in that mind of his.

I knew him best through his work, but was fortunate enough to have met him. He struck me as the most gentle bear of a man. A grin that came naturally and a mischievous glint in his eyes that could not be concealed.

His voice was important, very important in fact, as it relates to the democracy of this country and it will be sorely missed.

He lived in the same sound-byte world that all media does these days, but he was different. He took the time to ponder an issue, despite the pressure to file, and perhaps that just made that sharp mind of his process a little faster.

Here is a column I thought important, though, there are many and I will refer to them in the future.

OTTAWA—Identity has long been a Canadian crisis. Living next door to an economic and cultural giant makes we-the-pygmies a little nervous and a lot self-conscious.
Understandable as that entrenched uncertainty is, it masks a more immediate challenge. If the 21st century is to belong to Canada in ways the 20th never quite did, Canadians must abandon the notion that they are merely clients of the state and assert their rights as owners of the country.
The difference between customer and proprietor is pivotal. Customers are content with the timely delivery of pleasing goods and services. Proprietors must safeguard the long-term stability, growth and competitiveness of the enterprise.
Nothing in 2010 better defines us as country of customers than the wanton destruction of the mandatory long-form census. A vital management tool was discarded as carelessly and with as little concern for consequences as a service satisfaction survey.
Like those ubiquitous surveys, the census is now missing a sense of protracted engagement. Leaders looking ahead only as far as the next election find no more benefit in requiring citizens to commit time to shaping the future than casual, one-time dinner and hotel guests see in filling out tell-us-how-to-serve-you better forms.
What’s astonishing is how much is being sacrificed for so little political advantage. Information essential to planning everything from national services to local transportation were tossed away to please a splinter minority encouraged to mistake its collection as yet another threatening manifestation of big government’s Big Brother curiosity.
Worrying as a misconception, the resulting erosion of the country’s database is much more troubling as part of a trend. Federal policies too often respond now to widely-held perceptions rather than to closely-examined realities.
If that pattern fails to move the country forward it at least creates a comfort zone for politicians. Freed from the discipline of fact-based analysis they promise to hog-tie complex problems with simplistic solutions.
So it is that we plunge into a new year in politics full of hope. Escaping shackling deficits requires no painful collective choices, just a tug or two on fat-cat bureaucrat belts. Cutting corporate taxes will somehow trickle down into jobs and productivity. Building super-prisons will make safe streets safer as surely as the threat of merciless retribution will end crimes of passion and desperation.
TV shoppers will recognize the shtick. Anything is possible in a caveat emptor universe where a vegetable chopper puts happy faces on sad lives and just five fun minutes per day stands between obesity and buffed.
Hard as it is to disappoint those operators standing by for calls, truth is harder. Miracle gizmos have roughly the same success rate changing lives as quick fixes have in advancing the lasting interests of nations.
It’s probably true that the natural and inherited blessings of this peaceable kingdom mean we can survive, perhaps even thrive, for a while longer as bargain-hunting consumers instead of concerned proprietors. But it’s also true that, without effort and maintenance, nothing this good lasts forever.
The officially vandalized census is one of many signs of a country no longer willing to make the modest effort needed to maintain itself. Others include our studied silence on what will be required to balance budgets while preserving world-class public health care, ensuring global competitiveness and cleaning up our environmental mess.
Citizens content to be clients can shrug away those concerns. Canadians who remember that they own the place can’t afford to be so complacent.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.

I will miss him greatly.

When a voice is silenced though, we look to another to carry on. In my opinion, Susan Delacourt has kind of picked up, nay, started the ball rolling on the topic of this column.

Read her. She will use her strong voice to keep his alive.

Harper Hard at Work

2011-02-22T18:04:00.002-05:00

h/t - Impolitical

A Big Heart

2011-02-10T12:26:00.004-05:00

You may not recognise the woman on the left in this picture, but I suspect many of you interacted with her.

On Twitter she was known as Penlan and her blog was Politics for the People . You'll notice that her last post was about Ignatieff coming to her town and that is where this photo is from.

I'm sure I'll have much more to add to this post a little later, but for the moment, I wanted to let you know that Penny passed away yesterday.

She was a very passionate person, who cared deeply about democracy and made her voice known, while encouraging others to do the same. She had a huge heart and fought against injustice.

I will miss her.

Forget Prorogation...

2010-12-09T18:33:00.004-05:00

Have you read John Ivison's latest column? In it he speculates, nay, argues, for the rejuvenating effects of prorogation.

The advantage of a Throne Speech would be that it would give the Conservatives a pulpit from which to pontificate. It’s a big set-piece event that allows the government of the day to look active — even if it subsequently proves somewhat flexible in the application of its promises, as happened with this year’s competitiveness agenda.

Yes, well, maybe, and to be sure there are people, including media on Twitter agreeing with this particular argument however, that is not the most interesting part of the piece to me, though, the pulpit from which to pontificate, does touch on what intrigues me.

Here's what struck me:

“I’ve been asked to provide some wording for the Speech from the Throne,” said my confrere.

My confrere? The government is tapping the media, to pen portions of the Throne Speech?

Call me crazy, but I think that is far more concerning than the possibility that Stephen Harper is calculating how his government might be shown in the best light.

AT Issue : Vaughan

2010-11-26T11:05:00.001-05:00

Calling All Liberal MP's and Senators

2010-11-17T20:53:00.002-05:00

Yes, dear caucus I am speaking to you. Today, a day when I had hoped to see outrage at how the Harper government abused power in the most blatant manner possible in the Senate, I saw the weakest complaint imaginable in Question Period and then nary a sound....crickets in fact.

Oh wait, I did hear a little something. It was a plaintive, drip, drip, drip...look at me, I want to be important but don't have the courage to tell you my name, leaker, who ran to Jane Taber to tell all what was meant to be debated behind closed doors.

If you are not ashamed, let me tell you...we who normally support the party, are. Your self serving nonsense neither serves you, because you are a coward who won't allow Jane to tell us who you are, nor does it serve the party and Canada as a whole.

You seem to be someone inclined to keeping Harper in place. That's fine, but let me be the first to escort you across the aisle and let's be done with it.

Do I sound angry? You bet I am. I have never suffered fools gladly and in this case, where democracy and the future direction of the country are involved, believe me, you do not even merit the moniker of 'fool'.

I want to be clear. I am all for dissent within a party. I think healthy debate is not only good but necessary and I get that Afghanistan is contentious, but if you aren't able to debate it amongst yourselves, or maybe poor baby, you weren't heard, running to Jane has not helped you and yours in the past and it won't in the future.

Do us all a favour. Resign. Those who quote you as a source won't be happy, but trust me, the rest of us will be thrilled.

We Will Remember

2010-11-11T09:09:00.003-05:00

It Does Get Better

2010-11-10T19:09:00.002-05:00

If you don't know what that means, I invite you to google the line and support the campaign.

That said, I was happy to see this today:

Participate however you can, including spreading the message.

Principle versus Perfidy

2010-11-06T11:49:00.008-04:00

Don Martin wrote an interesting piece today on Jim Prentice. In it he speaks to the respect Prentice earned among all, in the House of Commons. He briefly outlines his journey in the world of politics and points to some accomplishments that I suspect many have forgotten.

While the article is a good read, one passage in particular caught my eye.

...., there were times when Prentice appeared uncomfortable with the government's direction and would commit the Conservative equivalent of treason by ignoring a PMO command.

When approached as industry minister by senior political operatives demanding he end the mandatory long-form census, for example, he told them to take a hike.

Approached by senior political operatives? Nah...couldn't be. After all, Tony Clement has been nattering on for months about how he decided to change the long-form mandatory census based on complaints concerning an intrusion of privacy. There was nothing political about it, he insisted.

What absolute BS. We've always known that it was an idea concocted by a political party determined to eliminate that which they deemed worked against their doctrine and while that, in and of itself doesn't seem so unusual, when you consider that much of their social policy relies on convincing the public of a non-existent danger or threat, you can understand why eliminating facts that contradict their imaginary worldview, was important.

Lawrence Martin, in his book Harperland, notes that the Conservative Party was/is obsessed with the public service. The animosity that Harper held for the bureaucracy rivaled that which he felt for the Liberal party itself and far surpassed any such feeling exhibited by previous Conservative PM's. With that in mind, is it any wonder that Tony Clement chose the party line over logic and the advice offered by Statistics Canada? Is it surprising that senior bureaucrats are either humiliated, dismissed or forced to resign when they stand up for reason?

Unlike Jim Prentice, who didn't ignore reason and was a principled man, Clement spends his time calculating political points and driving the party line, even if it runs counter to conventional wisdom. Who he appealed to is still a mystery, save those few diehards who don't understand the issue and/or would agree with and argue for this government, no matter what policy it put forward.

Clement is doing irreparable damage to our county's reputation and it's ability to set sound policy in the future. He is unapologetic and content to put forward dishonest rationale that even the town idiot would ridicule.

I didn't agree with everything Jim Prentice did while he was in cabinet, but at least I could respect the man.

Our Place in the World Under Harper

2010-10-12T15:21:00.003-04:00

So, we lost/abandoned our bid for a spot on the UNSC.

To no one's surprise, the first course of action by the government and Lawrence Cannon , was to blame the Liberals, specifically Michael Ignatieff.

The claim is preposterous of course, but I guess they get points for being consistent. No, I suspect there are a few reasons that we lost the bid, but they would relate to our government's foreign policies, not an opposition leaders answer in a scrum.

Should we take a brief walk down memory lane and recall what Harper promised Canadians?

Here are some excerpts from a speech Harper gave shortly after winning the 2006 election.

So what I want to talk to you about tonight is something I hope to accomplish in the longer term – if Canadians grant us the opportunity.

That objective is to make Canada a leader on the international stage. We want to ensure that we can preserve our identity and our sovereignty, protect our key interests and defend those values we hold most dear on the international scene.

If there is any one thing that has struck me for the short time I have been in this job, it is how critically important foreign affairs has become in everything that we do.

----------

So, during the time in which I am privileged to serve as Prime Minister, I intend to make this a country that leads.

----------

But we will only merit this honour if we lead the country – and if we lead it in understanding that all nations of the world will share a common future for better or for worse.

We will lead Canada toward that better world.

No, apparently we won't.

Via David Akin, here is Ignatieff's response to the loss.

Drip, by Single Drip

2010-08-14T17:52:00.003-04:00

Jim Travers wrote an interesting piece today. I know that some Liberals aren't pleased, but I would ask them to sit back for a moment and consider what he is really expressing. (It's important to note that he is a columnist. I saw some right leaning friends take issue, as if he'd written news, but please, can we keep things in perspective here?)

That said, I think he is expressing a sentiment that many share. This Conservative party, under Harper, is dismantling the Canada we know. Now, this seems to be coming as a surprise to some, which frankly I find both appalling and hilarious. Either you were too lazy to do your homework, or too cynical to believe that there really was an agenda with Harper. Either way, it's time to wake up.

Does that expression of frustration make Travers a Liberal? Absolutely not and I think it's time for us all to realise the incredible country and people we've become. That is to say, we are a tolerant nation that does have social values and believes in the structures that have brought us here. Is that the majority of Canadians? Yep, pretty much. The only group who is contrary to that opinion, happen to be the party in power and they command only 1/3 of opinion and truth be known, they are a pretty splintered group. That said, they would only vote Conservative, or not at all.

The rest of us, so 2 thirds of the country, do not applaud what Harper has done, but we know we are between a rock and a hard place. Travers is so frustrated, that he lays blame at the feet of the Liberals. Essentially: how could you let this happen?

Well, I would ask that he too step back a bit and reflect on how the media treated the Liberals every time there was a move to topple. Headlines went something like:

- Arrogant Liberals believe they deserve power
- Liberals still have not rebuilt
- Liberals misguided
- Liberal leadership woes
- Lib's still think they are the natural governing party
- Lib's haven't cleaned house

It went on and on and on. And yes, Travers played a part in that narrative. Was there deep analysis into what the Conservatives were doing/planning? Little to none and I'm still trying to put together that entire beating drum.

When the Lib's thought they should move, BAM!...30 seconds later the headlines rolled.

Now, the realist in me admits, the Liberals have made mistakes. I have not supported every decision taken and I too want to put this government out of the misery it is causing most of us, but Travers has to take into account some reality too. Not blaming, but the media played a role.

Here's what isn't said, though I think Travers was on the Liberal Express briefly. Those who are negating the value and benefit of the tour Ignatieff is doing this summer, are doing it at their peril. He is speaking to both small and large groups, listening to them and gaining a sense of how to connect the dots.

Sound simplistic? You'd be wrong in my opinion, to draw that conclusion. You see, with every drip, (dot), a greater mass develops and it is much easier to hit a larger target.

Harper may have thought he was clever to put out controversial policy in the doldrums of summer, but he has provided Ignatieff with more fodder and that makes it easier to develop a narrative.

Don't count the Liberal party out...lest you want to join the pool of drips.

So Very Sad

2010-08-12T15:06:00.003-04:00

Mario Laguë

1958 - 2010

Such a tragedy. He was a lovely, generous man.

Much more information here and more photo's here.

Tony Clement Got New (Ridiculous) Talking Points

2010-08-05T18:19:00.004-04:00

Well, here is latest, ridiculous, excuse from the Government, specifically, Tony Clement on the idiotic change to collecting data in this country...yes of course I mean the mandatory long form census.

“Yeah, there are groups that are upset about that. Hey, listen, they had a good deal going,” Mr. Clement told reporters after the Conservative caucus meeting Thursday in Ottawa.

“They got good, quality data and the government of Canada was the heavy. We were the ones who were coercing Canadians on behalf of these private businesses, or other social institutions, or other governments and provinces, for this data.”

Is it me, or did you just hear Tony admit that the data was good, reliable and that by making it voluntary will compromise that? Oh and, hey, the government isn't responsible for providing the country with this data.

Wait, it gets better.

Mr. Clement said opponents are free to spend their own money to gather the demographic data they need in others ways.

Translation? Hey...you want information? Free market have at it! Forget altogether that government is the most secure, most efficient way to gather that information...go for it! Decades of data? Pshaw..means nothing. This government is out of, well, just about everything. Defense, Crime...oh, we're there. All else? Get off your duff and fend for yourself!

It's not that he doesn't understand what the Census gathers and it's importance to the country, it's that he does, that is so galling. Willfully admitting and denying it, in one breath. I can hardly breathe reading it.

Think people. This has been the agenda that media mocked and insisted on calling 'hidden', but it never was. The media's role however is for another post. Harper set out to do this and is doing it with the following of a small number of sycophants. What a way to run a country!

More Clement:

“All these provincial governments and these social institutions and private businesses – we'll get them some data that will be useful and reliable,” he said.

“If they don't want to use that data, it's up to them. They can pay for it another way. There are lots of other ways to gather data from Canadians that is legal and verifiable. You don't have to rely on the government of Canada.”

Note the 'lump in' there. Provinces and those...social institutions? Ahem! Tony obviously has a short memory. And...we'll get them data? Flawed, unreliable data that we are going to spend more money gathering, type of data? You betcha!

That our government has really become this bereft of intelligence should be a surprise to no one.

Making It Up As They Go Along

2010-08-03T13:58:00.002-04:00

I can't keep track of how many reasons we've been given for this government's ridiculous decision to scrap the mandatory census (long form), but Stockwell Day certainly topped them all today.

I confess, this presser, was one of the most incoherent I've ever witnessed.

Not only did he not make any sense when articulating the rationale for the decision, he made matters worse by going on about the alarming rate of unreported crime, which is about the oldest tactic in the book for explaining increased spending and tougher crime legislation.

Furthermore, the last stat's available on unreported crime were from 2004.

The full presser is available through the link in the second paragraph, but here is a small portion that was particularly funny...or sad really, when you consider that this is the calibre of Minister we seem to have running the country.

Coming to My Senses v My Census

2010-07-26T18:21:00.005-04:00

Before one of my staunchest detractors accuses me of choosing a photo that has either been doctored, or meant to represent the person in the worst light, let me say that Tony Clement has plenty of bad photo's out there. This isn't one of them and was only chosen because it shows him sitting so 'right' of centre, he leaves the frame.

With that out of the way, I'm focused on tomorrow's Committee on Industry, Science and Technology meeting. It risks being too long, resulting in a lot of banter, but I'm not clear where it will come out. By that I mean, the case against the government decision is pretty hard and fast. Their (the gov't) defense is beyond weak, so where will it net out?

To underscore how weak the government argument is, you have only to recall their defense on the issue and how many times that has changed. Too intrusive, 1000's of complainers, other countries have abandoned it and of course the ever popular, government coming for you in the middle of the night...jail...threats...jackboot...there are more.

Not one of their stances has stood the test of time...and by time, I mean weeks here. Telling? Yes, I think so.

The questions are not intimidating, nor intrusive and to make it more delicious, government Ministers have been lying as to what those questions are.

Oh, and the countries they cite as having abandoned the long form, or the census all together? Well, that is true but what they omit is that they are far MORE intrusive and data mine from cradle to grave. And then there is the fact that no one has gone to jail, nor has anyone been pulled out of bed, in the middle of the night.

In short, there is no sound rationale for the decision. There is plenty of ideological rationale for it and I'll get into that after the hearings at committee, but to defend this choice? Sorry, there is no defense and those who do sound ridiculous.

I would argue in fact, if you offer a defense for this specific choice, you simply do not understand the census. That became very clear today reading articles, listening to interviews and hearing 'infamous' talk radio. And if you aren't one of those, you are an intelligent person that argues from ideology...yes Jonas I'm looking at you.

My reading tells me the majority of those who defend, haven't a clue. Nary one. The intelligent arguments are only made by those who have the 'small to no government' lean.

It's an argument to be had, but the Conservative government under Stephen Harper did not have the courage to do that. He never does. His choices come down by fiat...a completely arbitrary decision. Sorry people, Kings of old ruled this way as they thought they had absolute authority.

This is not how our country works. Harper is now trying to get in what he can, but stuffing this policy now, when you think no one is looking, is about the dumbest way to do it. Hello? Media looking for news?

I'm hoping this has exposed him once and for all. Media and your own eyeballs, will tell the tale. Watch or listen if you can.

See you tomorrow.

Taking Leave of Their Census

2010-07-20T18:01:00.002-04:00

Well, the latest group to come out against the government's decision to scrap the mandatory participation in the long form census is none other than the Premiers. While every group that has come out is important, this development puts a bit of a new spin on it.

You see until now, the government has insisted that those who oppose the decision are liberal flacks, which is asinine, and when that doesn't work, they default to loons who answer the religion question as 'Jedi'. For the uninitiated, there actually is a church of Jedi, and one that has encouraged their members to fill out their census forms claiming as much, in an effort to have the government recognise them as a church. Crazy? Well, yes of course! A massive movement that should derail scientific data collection, aggregation and dissemination? Obviously not.

The question that is being asked at the moment is why the government went in this direction. Most seem to suggest that they were appealing to a portion of their base that they hadn't spoken to in a while. Specifically the Libertarians. While I understand why you'd make that argument, it seems to me that Hoeppner's private member bill to get rid of the long gun registry did that in spades. So at this point, I'm not buying.

More likely for me, is what data the 2011 census would be accumulating. Of course it would be used, in a sense, to examine/dissect the policies that Harper has or has not, brought to bear. Given that we see most policy driven by populist notions, this could present a problem. Further, most if not all, policy has flown in the face of evidence and fact. The government, specifically on Environment and Crime, has ignored all the data.

Oh they have done it elsewhere too, but all of that to say, if you have to keep fighting stat's to get your policies through, why not eliminate or distort the data beyond use? Wouldn't that make life easier?

Harper won't be in power by the time this data is collected and sorted, but I suspect that he and his advisers are covering their bases here. Should he be in power, no data is good for him. If he is gone, his legacy will not be tainted by facts that prove all his theories wrong.

Clever, but not very smart.

A Little Sunshine - Best Disinfectant

2010-07-10T17:50:00.002-04:00

I saw this article linked on Twitter by my friend BC'er and to be honest, at first I thought it was a joke. A joke in bad taste, but a joke none the less. Then I thought about it for a minute and realised that this attitude is one that you often see on right-wing blogs and hear on talk radio.

To my mind, it's bigotry that has found a convenient issue to hide behind. Political correctness is the straw man that c/Conservatives drag up whenever they want to express an ugly view while claiming that their voice is being stifled. I give you Ezra Levant as an example, or Michael Coren. (If you are not familiar with either, Google is your friend.)

That said, if this is the kind of pithy, exciting discussion that Kory thinks we are missing in this country, I may have to change my opinion of the new station he is pursuing. What I mean by that is, maybe this vile, low rent discourse needs more exposure. Yes, I know it's already out there in print and on radio, but maybe up close and personal, in your living room, is what this country needs to wake up to what some of the right and frankly some of your government, stands for.

What is especially delightful, is the zinger that the author throws in at the end:

The CBC, however, must feel absolutely shattered.

The last two GGs -- Adrienne Clarkson and outgoing Michaelle Jean -- both had the CBC's turgid blood coursing through their brains.

But no CT scan is needed for Johnston.

He is CBC clear and bias-free.

You can practically hear the giggling 'gotcha' can't you? Except the author has exposed him/herself to be ignorant of the facts. I know, you are shocked. Though not the best source always, Wikipedia says this:

Johnston has also acted as moderator of two public affairs panel discussion programmes, The Editors and The World in Review, which aired in the 1990s on both CBC Newsworld in Canada and PBS in the United States.

So while Johnston didn't have extensive history with the CBC, 'CBC clear' would not be accurate and to throw a little PBS in there? Well, what can I say?

In fairness, we weren't expecting accuracy or fact from this group, were we?

Reflections and Unpopular Positions

2010-07-03T16:41:00.002-04:00

Is there more to read on the G20 Summit? I have no doubt there is more to come, but I've read and heard about as much as I can take in at this point and I have a few observations.

To begin with, I think calls for Toronto's Chief Blair resignation at this point is ill advised and a knee jerk reaction. Now before you scream, I firmly believe that things went horribly wrong and I do think we need a full enquiry, but there is just something about this that doesn't quite jive for me.

First of all, having lived through having Julian Fantino as Chief of Police, Blair was a real breath of fresh air. I'm no expert and don't know everything about the man, but in a general sense, I much prefer his method of policing. By that I mean, he is a chief that believes in intelligence gathering, working with communities, building trust, overall a progressive approach versus Fantino's methods that more resembled the ill-advised, non affective, 'let's knock some heads', 'tough on crime' mantra of the Conservatives.

So with that in mind, what to make of what happened? Let's start with the request to the province for the PWPA. I've heard Blair interviewed and understand now, that it was not he who made the request. Blair said ISU and 'other' parties were involved in obtaining the special regulation. Sadly, he was being interviewed by John Tory and follow up is not Tory's forté. So, I think we need to know that. Did he misread the regulation? Absolutely and of course that is concerning. That said, he claimed once realising that, (actually being advised by lawyers), he immediately informed the forces on the street. Should the public have been told? Yes.

Given that he informed his forces, what happened on Sunday? Why did we see so many having their rights violated? At this point all I can see is that there was a hyper-vigilant atmosphere that was not reined in and that was the responsibility of either Blair or the ISU and to be frank, I'd like to know how much power the RCMP had. I'm given to understand that authorities had information about the Black Bloc and were being led all over the city, a Black Bloc tactic, with a main objective of breaching the main perimeter. Did that necessitate the action taken? In my opinion, no. I think we've all witnessed a gross abuse of power and we have to understand how and why that happened.

Given the information I have at this point, I do think rights were breached and the Charter was either ignored or abandoned. Innocent people were rounded up and held unnecessarily and overall, I'm appalled and to be honest, saddened at what happened. I want due process and answers. I see no value in being equally as hyper-reactive as what we want to counter. We need more facts and we need them to come out in an unbias way, so an enquiry makes sense to me. What form that takes, I'm not sure.

I want to know what the province actually agreed to and how unprecedented it was. I think they have been too silent. I want to understand the entire chain of command and how the ISU fit in and along with that, how large a role the federal government had. And of course, I want to see how Chief Blair went about making the decisions he did that day, how far reaching they were and why.

I don't call for resignations lightly and I try not to defend people blindly. If it turns out that this all lies on Blair's shoulders, so be it, but something is telling me that is not the case and until we have all of this aired, I'll wait for the facts.

This must be done now though. Not in months. Now. Sod the predictable, 'there are law suits in the works, so we must wait'. No, we can't wait. Write your MP and MPP and if you live in the city, get on to your councillor.

Push for truth and we might get somewhere. Making accusations and demands without fact, tends to push things back in my experience.

Total Disregard for Thee

2010-06-28T15:42:00.004-04:00

Photo by Chris Wattie/Reuters

The title of this post, in my opinion, is at the core of the Conservative government's message and it's not a recent phenom just articulated this past weekend. It's been a theme that Canada, the majority of us, do not condone.

I'd like to say that I've calmed down after watching the G20 goings on, but I haven't. In fact, reading and watching statements being made by our government and their talking heads, have actually made me more angry. I realise that is their intent, but consider that ploy for a minute.

There is such a cavalier attitude being demonstrated by them and it does nothing but infuriate me. With every shoulder shrug and smirk, it really paints a clear picture as to what the Conservatives think about Toronto, it's residents, it's small businesses and those who opted to march in peaceful protest. Indeed, it speaks to how little they care about the citizens of this country and their rights. Never mind TO...we're all caught in this net.

With every shrug from Minister Cannon and every smirk from Minister Toews I shudder to think, no realise, what their view and aspiration for this country is. Those reactions relate to both cost and outcome to the city of Toronto.

This weekend was beyond description in Toronto. The most galling point is how Harper chose, yes he chose, to ignore the requests of the city. If you don't know, the city said NO! We do not want this held in the core of the city.

It's clear he has no seats here and after this, he guaranteed no Conservative seat for a very long time. To use that fact though and proceed as he did is downright maniacal. I use that word with caution but he was playing to his base on this one and Flanagan, who was actually starting to sound like a reasonable rightie, spewed the party line. '900 arrests? Of even innocent people? No problem. They were idiots to be there and should be locked up for a long time. No one in the rest of Canada cares, in fact they applauded.'

I was gobsmacked with Cannon and Toews and Flanagan's comments, but Flanagan has the luxury of turning up the heat. That's not to say they don't share intent and ideology, they do of course. To see our government though, not caring a whit about what went on should be disconcerting to all.

Look, the Liberals have not always been lily white, but the disdain that the current government is displaying is beyond belief. I think, contrary to what Tom Flanagan professes, people across this country do care about our Charter rights and my hope is that will show in the next election.

Not the most coherent post, I know, but it's not the most coherent of times.

Peaceful G20 protest at Queen & Spadina from Meghann Millard on Vimeo.

SunTV - False Premise, False Dichotomy

2010-06-15T18:45:00.003-04:00

While this blog has been dark for a while, I need to weigh in here. Be prepared, I intend to ramble a bit.

Let me start by saying I burst out laughing a few times today when Kory Teneycke (pictured here), sought to rebut any criticism of the station, SunTV, being compared to FOX NEWS. His comment? Their 'potential' competition was simply bashing the station before it had been established.

No, no, no Kory. A) Your friends at Fox would be insulted, B) Your stance and use of the term MSM is precisely what FOX is known for and C) it would be you who is doing the bashing.

Of course they are following the FOX NEW model! Is anyone surprised? Can't think of why he'd deny that...oh wait, there is a CRTC ruling yet to happen and that might, just maybe, explain that bit of nonsense.

In later interviews, without mentioning the name of the station, or answering simple questions, it was clear that a formula was being followed and it is that of FOX. Kory can try to include CNN and MSNBC in that group, but he cannot deny his political stance, ergo...FOX NEWS is what they are presenting.

What is astonishing, is the false premise that is being put forward. Now, the Conservative party is famous for both false premise and false dichotomy. That is their raison d'étre. It's all about duping you and sadly, many buy the pitch. Black and white is their deal. False dichotomy has no grey...yet that is where intelligent debate, throughout the ages, has occurred.

Their false premise being that in Canada, we do not have real debate and all news stations basically echo each other. They are too politically correct and to use his term, (which is a good one), they "file the edges" of debate. In my world, that would be translated to, keeping it civil...but whatever.

Underlying all of this of course is that the 'right' want to establish a greater voice. The irony is that the 'right' controls most media in this country, and their voice is predominant. Talk radio, Sun media, most editorials in major papers, (recall Harper endorsements) come from the 'right'.

The false premise, inferred, though not articulated, is that the evil MSM is bias...toward the 'left' of course. What utter BS! What is not 'right' leaning is balanced overall. Kory may not like the fact that people in this country actually fall to the middle and look for news that is factually accurate, but that is indeed what most want and what we get. Indeed, Kory is not keen on fact.

The serious side of all of this is one that worries me. We saw this assault in the States under Bush, Rove...etal, and then saw the US media over-compensate. I see that happening here since Kory made his outrageous claim over the pollster used by the CBC.

I don't know why, but when this government says jump!, the media in this country don't seem to ask how deep the abyss they might descend to is. That makes me a bit crazy, but that said, I think the last thing we need is FOXNEWS 'like' station here.

If the premise had been to invigorate a real news network more competition, I would have applauded. That is not what this is. It is a blatant attempt to skew news and tempt the competition to provide an out of reality balance...false dichotomy engagement, intended to dumb it down. This, we do NOT need in this country.

I have to make a couple of personal comments here. Two people have been announced. David Akin and Brian Lilley. I've met David and have had conversations with Brian. They both strike me as good people. David I think is a really professional newsman, and I went after him the other night on Twitter for his buy in (read: sell out) to this. I've since apologised and David, ever the gentleman, told me not to sweat it. I still don't see it as a good move for someone of integrity. In fact, I'd love to see him do CBC Politics and Power. I guess that was not an option.

Brian Lilley I know from his reports on CFRB, now Newstalk1010. He also reports for CJAD in Quebec if I'm not mistaken. Both stations are decidedly conservative and while Brian reports the news as it happens, he brings a slant to it. He's also on some of the shows and panels, and it's clear, he takes a Conservative view. That said, I do not discredit him, I just think it is disingenuous to portray him as having no position. He is a serious reporter though. He doesn't ignore fact.

So, here we are. The "Far Right" is making a play for the airwaves. You knew it was coming. I have to say I don't think this would have happened had the current government been defeated, but here we are.

What say you? I think you know where I stand.

Jason Kenney - The Irrelevance of Facts

2010-05-27T14:21:00.003-04:00

Via - Susan Delacourt

Sanity and Parliament Prevail

2010-04-27T16:56:00.002-04:00

Statement from the Liberal Party of Canada:

HARPER GOVERNMENT MUST COMPLY WITH SPEAKER'S RULING ON AFGHANISTAN

Published on April 27, 2010

Ottawa – Liberal MPs are declaring victory in the wake of a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons that reaffirms the right of Parliament to review Afghan detainee torture documents.

“The Speaker’s ruling recognizes that in our system of government, Parliament is supreme – not the Prime Minister,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale. “The Harper government must abide by the Speaker’s ruling and negotiate the disclosure of the documents in question in a way that is mindful of national security – as we have agreed to do all along.

”In his ruling, Mr. Milliken gave the House Leaders, ministers and party critics two weeks to address the impasse by establishing a mechanism for MPs to review the documents without compromising national security. He also reaffirmed the role of parliamentarians to hold government to account as an indisputable privilege and obligation, which entails a broad, absolute power to order documents, without restriction or limit by the Executive. The Speaker expressed his hope that accommodations could be made that allow MPs to be entrusted with the information while protecting national security, in keeping with the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials.

“Following Mr. Milliken’s ruling, the government now has a window of opportunity to negotiate in good faith a reasonable process that respects Parliamentarians right to review this documentation,” said Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae. “We believe that it is possible to satisfy the opposition’s demands for openness and transparency on the detainee scandal while maintaining national security.”

“Where there are legitimate national security concerns revolving around this documentation, we will most certainly consider the government’s position,” said Liberal Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanjh. “But let’s be clear: we are not prepared to allow the government to hide behind national security issues where none exist.

”On December 10, 2009, the House of Commons passed a motion requesting disclosure of Afghan detainee documentation. The Conservatives refused to comply with the motion, even going so far as to shut down Parliament entirely.

The Conservative government has continued to cover-up politically damaging information, using national security as a blanket excuse. Most recently, hearings by the Military Police Complaints Commission into the handling of Afghan detainees have been put in jeopardy again because the government refuses to disclose requested documentation.

“We want a reasonable approach to these negotiations that will satisfy us that there is not simply more political interference taking place,” Mr. Goodale concluded. “We are willing to address the government’s legitimate concerns, but the Speaker has made it clear that more stonewalling will not work.”

Making (up) Enemies

2010-04-20T09:21:00.003-04:00

I continue to be frustrated at the level of debate in this country. Yesterday I saw a couple of panels on the political shows this country offers and was infuriated at both the lack of the ability of the moderator/host to forward the discussion and the ridiculously juvenile level at which the debates took place.

One of the subjects was the pardon debate that has been raised by Harper. The way it has been presented by the PM and Vic Toews is beyond disingenuous. It's as if they just came to power yesterday and haven't known about this before now. What nonsense. They have already actually looked at and tweaked this law. The fact is they missed this whole issue and now need to find someone to blame.

Who are they blaming? Well that leads me to the title of the post. I heard a theory this morning that fits completely with how I feel about this.

At this point, Harper is blaming this problem on a 'soft on crime' culture that preceded him. It's not true, but it serves him well at this point to bolster his 'tuff guy, tuff on crime party' image. What's glaringly obvious is that this government is incapable of taking responsibility for an issue and that they have been incompetent in fulfilling parts of their campaign platform, especially as it relates to crime.

Here's the thing. Harper can't advance his agenda without having an enemy to focus on. He consistently places his party in the role of victim. He can't get things done because everyone is against him. He's blamed the civil service, the Senate, the opposition, the press, whomever is close at hand.

He's often cited as being a strong leader, but to me, this demonstrates that he operates from a position of weakness. There is a basic lack of character on display here that for whatever reason, it is rarely discussed.

Part of the problem of course is that the crime legislation that is put forward is often not based on good research or fact. Indeed, more often than not it flies in the face of fact. So, if you can't make your case logically, you have to create a sentiment, a mood, that enables people to back your case and what better way to do that then to scare people? Witness invoking the spectre of Karla Homolka. (To be honest, I have visions of Harper instructing his staff to find him the name of someone coming up for pardon that would scare the bejeesus out of Canadians, after learning about the Graham James case.)

This isn't the only subject where this occurs. The Afghanistan detainee issue? He maintains his stance by suggesting that any question is both unpatriotic and endangering out troops. Not an ounce of logic there, but his supporters lap it up and regurgitate it, because there is just enough there to play on their emotions.

Is this clever? No, I'd say it's duplicitous. I'd also say that it's a clear sign of a weak leader who is incapable of selling his ideas on their merit.

If you have to deceive the masses to get your ideas through, you are not a leader, you are a misleader.

That is who we having running this country.

Facts - An Anathema for the Conservatives

2010-04-18T17:28:00.002-04:00

I don't know how many people have followed this story, but my sense is that it's one that has travelled under the radar. That is a shame because it is precisely this kind of whittling away of good policy that is going unnoticed.

I happened to see a Committee meeting on this issue and was astounded to see witness after witness speak to the efficacy of the program while the government ignored every single fact presented. They fell to their manufactured line, that agriculture is not a marketable profession.

That of course is not the intent of the program, though surely some prisoners upon release may choose to work on a farm.

There was a former participant who testified that day and who has been a good member of society for 19 years now. He is not working in that field, but he spoke to the benefits of the program in terms of developing a sense of team work, routine, responsibility, etc.

The government is making a big mistake here in my opinion and I can only put it down to ideology. Rehabilitation isn't their primary focus, which is ridiculous on it's face, but rather appearing to look 'tough' on crime drives everything.

By way of comparison, take a look at what they are doing in Australia.

This isn't the only area where the Conservatives have ignored the facts of course. We all know that crime is going down, but they say it isn't. The police want to maintain the gun registry, the Conservatives say that is not the case. The list goes on.

Sadly, bad policy makes for good optics for this government and the country is poorer for it.

Access

2010-04-08T13:38:00.003-04:00

So by now everyone has read this story in the Star, by Kevin Donovan.

It's a fascinating read, but it leaves some questions out there doesn't it?

Jaffer, as he often does, told businessmen that he and his company, Green Power Solutions, were experts in obtaining government money. “I can get it, no problem,” he said. His company’s promotional material boasts a “thorough knowledge of government policies and incentive programs.”

“I have access to a green fund,” Jaffer said at the table

A few weeks before the Harbour 60 dinner, Jaffer and Gillani held court at another steak restaurant, La Castille in Etobicoke. Gillani told a group of invited businessmen that his company could arrange start-up financing, and that Jaffer could come up with federal government funds. Jaffer explained that he had expertise, particularly in securing what he called “green loans” at very low interest rates.

Though Jaffer has not been an MP since he lost an election in 2008, he still gives out his MP business cards and did so at La Castille.

Now, the PMO has flatly denied that Jaffer has any access and given that, it's easy to put his comments down to boasting, but if you're making such claims don't you at some point have to come through with the goods?

I'd say that it's likely, he doesn't have any personal contact with the PMO, but certainly he has access to cabinet members who do. While it's safe to assume that his wife is not on any favoured Ministers list at the moment, how friendly was he with past and current environment Ministers?

Additionally, it seems his partner at Green Power Generation, Patrick Glémaud, has had his share of access to the government.

My guess is that we haven't heard the last of this particular story.

Issue Framing

2010-04-07T17:49:00.003-04:00

The Afghani detainee issue gets more heated by the day. There is a slow drip, memos being given to the media etc., and in my opinion, this is happening because the government is insisting on being so secretive.

I think if they had acquiesced to the opposition and given them access to the documents in question, this all could have been avoided.

Let's start with the issue of framing. Time and time again, we are told by pollsters and talking heads that Canadians don't care about the issue. Specifically, they don't really care about prisoners who may have harmed or killed our military. That may be true, but isn't that a ridiculous frame or in the case of pollsters, a ridiculous question to ask? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask what Canadians feel about Canada's reputation in the world and the potential that we could be contravening the Geneva Convention and our own laws? I suspect we'd get a different response and a real sense of concern if the right question was asked.

Over the past couple of days, we have learned that the government knew more than they have let on, thus far. Indeed, they have said they had no 'credible' information of anything untoward. That we know is false, based on leaked documents.

As I mentioned earlier, I really think much of this speculation and sensationalism could have been avoided. Now, by that I do not mean that the issue would have gone away, but with information being leaked from the MPCC hearings this week and the slow leak of doc's, no one, including the government, is being given any favours.

Kory Teneycke, former Comm's director for the PMO, presented his own framing tonight on CBC, which in my opinion, falls pretty close to the current talking points issued by the government. He began by suggesting that the new revelations were much to do about nothing, then said that they have now moved the discussion to an esoteric level, meaning I suppose that few of us understand the reality of being in Afghanistan and the day to day of war. On one hand, he is right, but in the grander scheme, his argument is one that I take issue with. It's the oft used, black/white argument that is put forward by the Conservatives that really doesn't exist in the world. Yes, there is indeed grey in the world we live in.

What really exists and what can be balanced are our obligations in concert with the realities of the immediacy of war. I'm certain Kory did not mean to imply this, but his argument made the case for allowing torture, because you know what? We may just learn valuable information for our troops and what are we supposed to do? Ignore that? Compelling? Nah, simplistic.

No, we are supposed to prevent that in the first place, use interrogation techniques that work and don't contravene our laws or the Geneva Convention and move forward.

The framing of this issue has been so twisted, it's difficult to recognise it for what it is. The media are now dogged in their pursuit of uncovering what the government has been obvious in hiding, (don't scream, that's their job), it's inevitable that it won't end well. It didn't have to come to this.

I'm not sure this is possible, but if a sincere move was made to change the structure of the House committee, meaning, they could run meetings for extended periods of time, were not limited to ridiculous 5 minute rounds and obviously were sworn in, so as not to breach any security but had the same access the witnesses had to documents, that would go a long way.

As it stands, the government is digging itself into a deeper hole with every day that passes. I can't say I'm sorry to see that, but in the end, I just don't think it's good for Canada.

There is framing an issue, then there is framing yourself in.

Expectations

2010-03-30T15:52:00.003-04:00

Expectations are funny things aren't they? More often than not they aren't based in fact, but rather developed by individuals to suit their own agenda.

I bring this up, because having read editorials, articles, blogs and tweets over the past few days, primarily by people who did not attend the thinkers conference, I noted that many claim it did not meet expectations. The unmet expectations they cite are their own and were never articulated by the Liberal party, but apparently that is unimportant.

That said, I can say that I went to the conference without expectations. I had a general idea of the agenda from going to the site and I knew that the exercise was not meant to result in policy, but beyond that I was open to whatever came.

Overall, I found the conference fascinating. It was a chance to hear discussions and debate on a range of issues that interest me and affect the country. It's no secret that I follow such issues as a matter of course, but to have so many convened in one place was a bit of a luxury. Was every panel riveting and every speech a barn burner? No, but on the whole the conference was a thoughtful, meaningful exercise that looked at issues that I think all Canadians should be engaged in or aware of. It was not limited to L/liberals and indeed there was criticism of the party on a number of fronts.

As one example of the kind of nonsense being written today, I read Wente's column in the Globe and burst out laughing. How one person can get so much, so wrong, is a mystery to me, but she seems to excel at it. She quotes Conservative talking points and bases her ridiculous assertions on a poll commissioned by the Manning Institute. What an objective way to approach what happened at the conference, don't you think?

After most of her ink is spilled bashing Ignatieff and the Liberals, she closes with this gem:

Meantime, Mr. Harper is steadily shrinking the role of federal government, beneath the radar, without debate. He is quietly transforming Canada into a more private, more regional, more entrepreneurial country, with more prisons, less shared purpose, and health care that is fragmenting into many different variations. We really ought to talk about this. But Mr. Harper isn't about to bring it up. And Mr. Ignatieff has no alternative to offer.

She is absolutely correct about what Harper is doing, but her last three sentences, especially, we really ought to talk about this? Seriously? The woman defines obtuse.

Anyway, she was not alone today in making ridiculous points. Numerous editorials chimed in, both missing the point of the conference while demeaning the very idea of holding a such a gathering. In other words, the people who share their opinion with this nation, seem to think it's wrong to debate the challenges we face in the country. They appear to be taking the stance that thinking is bad.

I find that remarkable to be honest. Some of these people are big thinker's themselves, yet their columns today are devoid of fact and/or reason.

To what end?

Well, I suppose they have to justify their widely touted and now proven erroneous expectations that they proudly spouted prior to the conference.

Thoughts on the Thinkers

2010-03-27T17:54:00.004-04:00

While there has been more than one success here at the conference, what stands out at the moment for me is the interaction that the Can150 site is driving.

I think the organisers did a terrific job of putting that feature together and if you are someone who has been following the conference on line, or just checking in on Twitter, it's clear that many across the country are engaged.

Sure, many of those people are Liberals, but it's clear that not all are.

When the conference opened, at a presser, Michael Ignatieff said the purpose of the conference was to put the ideas that were about to come in the window for Canadians. He mentioned opening the doors, doing things differently, and encouraging participation. The objective was to talk about ideas for the country out in the open and not behind closed doors.

That I think has been accomplished in a way that will necessitate that more of this be done in the future. To me, it's one of those things that you cannot do just once, then fall back to business as usual.

I'm not suggesting an elaborate conference every couple of months, but I think it is important to maintain this open ongoing dialogue with the country.

I have heard many people here say that's it's time for an adult conversation in this country, about the issues of our time.

No one was so crass as to suggest that due to the current government, this has been missing since 2006, but I won't stand on such ceremony.

Since coming to power, the Conservative party has made it a mission to dumb down the conversation. This conference tells me that people are less pleased with that than they, (the Conservatives) may think.

Personally, it's been a breath of fresh air to sit at the adult table for the past couple of days. I get to have wine, instead of whine.

Montreal

2010-03-25T14:02:00.002-04:00

I'm off to Montreal for the Can 150 conference.

I hope to have some interesting things to report back. If you have any questions, feel free to ask in Comments.

Terms of Reference or Terms of Endearment?

2010-03-13T16:57:00.003-05:00

The federal Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, released the Terms of Reference today for former justice, Frank Iacobucci.

What? Perfectly normal to release this information on a Saturday isn't it? I mean, just because the opposition has been asking for it all week and the government refused to answer any questions on it....

No matter, the issue will still be around on Monday.

In the meantime though, as you go through the ToR, it is pretty clear that the government has gone to great lengths to employ yet another stall tactic and not much more. Granted, this investigation by Iacobucci may yield more than the government is prepared for, the narrow mandate he is being given doesn't really address the core issue as raised by Derek Lee, and that is the supremacy of Parliament.

In the Terms of Reference (Backgrounder), the government acknowledges the motion adopted by the House, but dismisses it right off the bat:

Whereas the House of Commons has adopted a motion, on December 10, 2009, ordering the production of Government documents related to the transfer of Afghan detainees from the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities, which contain information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national defence, international relations or national security if publicly released;

So, they are ignoring the will of the House and suggesting that a third party make the determination instead. While I understand that former justice Iacobucci has an impressive record, this is not how our system works.

Frankly, it would be interesting to get Iacobucci's opinion on that particular matter, but he is not allowed to speak according to the ToR.

Additionally, the government is completely ignoring the premise on which the opposition parties and Derek Lee in particular, has made their claims. No, the government adopt their own criteria in the matter. Specifically:

“As I stated in the House of Commons, the government acknowledges that it is appropriate that decisions on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed in an independent manner,” stated Minister Nicholson. “This will ensure that parliamentarians will have access to the relevant government information on the arrangements for the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan while ensuring there is no injury to Canada's national defence, international relations or national security.”

I'm fairly certain that the opposition parties will not be satisfied with this, nor in my view, should they be. The government is blatantly flouting the will of Parliament and that is not only a serious matter, it is one that could conceivably push us into a constitutional crisis.

The government's flagrant disregard of our system must be called out and I firmly hope that Lib MP, Derek Lee will do just that when the House sits next week.

Remember, Buy and Spread the Word

2010-03-12T18:28:00.003-05:00

"Waving Flag" - Young Artists for Haiti

Go to iTunes or your favourite site, buy the song and encourage your friends to do the same. ALL proceeds go to Haiti.

Dismiss...Deny...Deflect

2010-03-05T16:10:00.003-05:00

By now you've undoubtedly seen what our, too clever by half, Minister of Justice has decided to do as it relates to the documents surrounding the handling of Afghan detainees.

After months of first dismissing the whole issue as partisan politics by the opposition, followed by months of reassuring all and sundry that they had complied with the demands, (saying that as recently as yesterday by the way), what really stands out about this move is their tacit admission that indeed, the request has not been complied with.

It's clear to me that this is yet another stall tactic, as it was pretty clear that Derek Lee was going to take action, that the government wasn't looking forward to. It was widely speculated that Lee was going to rise in the House either today or next week. Nicholson appears to have rushed to beat him to the punch. I say rushed, because he had no details to what he wants Iacobucci to do exactly. No terms of reference were available for the opposition to review.

Obviously the terms of reference are critical here, both in terms of what conclusions Iacobucci can reach and in what they say about the government.

This is one to watch. If the issue of parliamentary privilege are not raised in the terms of reference, I suspect Mr. Lee will not be deterred.

Update - After watching some of the political shows tonight, it's clear to me that media aren't even close to understanding what the Iacobucci appointment means. They seem to think it should pacify the opposition. Afterall, they say, the parliament now has a chance of seeing documents, should Iacobucci rule that way.

No. Nicholson appears to have engaged him to report to the government, not the parliament, and lest we forget (no, I can't work the word doth in here), that simply brings us full circle to the government making the call. Ridiculous.

Media, I beg you. Expose the nonsense.

Throne Speech Anthem Change

2010-03-03T21:39:00.001-05:00

Sorry, their suggestion was no better.

Gold Baby!

2010-02-28T19:05:00.000-05:00

Wishing Him Well

2010-02-05T14:40:00.004-05:00

Wishing Jack strength and determination for a speedy recovery.

Give it Time to Fade? No

2010-01-31T18:05:00.003-05:00

A talking point I see taking shape, (and pushed today by Rex Murphy on Cross Country Check-Up), is that by the time parliament comes back, this whole bothersome 'prorogation' thing will have died down.

I disagree. To be clear, I disagree because they are missing the main issue. It's not the fact that Harper prorogued like others before him. It's of course how and why he prorogued and what that action confirmed about the man.

Harper proroguing parliament played into a narrative that was growing. The prorogation simply gave it shape. The narrative was difficult to distill into a simple concept because Harper has acted inappropriately in a number of ways and venues.

He's gone after civil servants, he's played with House committees and their work. He's skirted election financing rules and reneged on his promise to implement the Accountability Act in full. He's stacked the Senate, made no serious move for reform and even made a Senator a cabinet minister in the early days. He's lied, often. ie, Environmental plan, the Coalition and it's meaning, markets disliking minority parliaments, the deficit, in fact the worldwide financial situation was brushed off as nonsense by this (cough) economist.

There's more, but seriously, how do you articulate all that in a sound bite? You can't. The prorogation issue brought all and more of these disparate facts together and boiled it down to the character of the man.

The issue is his style and method of governance and if people really think that is going to go away when parliament reconvenes, well I want what they are smoking.

Oh, and to all who believe that Harper and co. will reinvent themselves by using the Olympics, I'd think again if I were you. You see, politicizing our games will further feed the cynicism that has been awakened in this country. He'll simply reinforce the now more widespread notion as to how manipulative he is.

So, will this all fade away? No, me thinks not.

The Day After

2010-01-24T23:26:00.002-05:00

I took some time today to reflect on the rallies held across the country yesterday.

Though there was some media coverage today, overall it was light. Fair enough. It is Sunday and news is generally sparse on a Sunday. What coverage was out there, was mostly favourable and in some cases amusing. Some media basically telling we, who cared, passed the imaginary test they had set for us. Yes, you read that correctly. They alone decided what would validate the Facebook reaction and then deigned to proclaim on that fictitious high water mark.

Yeah, I laughed out loud too reading the proclamation.

The reports that claimed there were only 3,000 at the Toronto rally were also laughable. Anyone who was there knows the truth. My guess is 10,000, but there are estimates everywhere. What we know for sure is that the square can hold 7,000 and it was overflowing. Go from there.

The energy was disconcerting at times, you really can feel that many people, but it was overwhelmingly positive.

So, the day after, it seems as though the 'news cycle' has moved on...but I think not.

Tomorrow all the regular talking heads come back to work. Also, accentuating what the rallies were all about, (Harper shutting out scrutiny) the Liberals and now the NDP, will be in Ottawa. I'm not certain what the NDP agenda is, but I do know the Liberals have planned to meet on a issues that, were parliament in session, would have been addressed.

That in itself should keep the prorogation issue on the front burner. If it doesn't, then I think we can ask some serious questions as to the news we are getting.

I don't think this issue is going away any time soon. Too many people care and have made it a point to pay attention and understand. That's powerful stuff in this country.

Which begs the question, why has Harper been allowed to get away with so much for so long? Why weren't Canadians more involved before now?

I think a few things were at play. In spite of himself, (Harper), and his disdain for Canadian institutions including the media, few have taken it upon themselves to call him out. Some in fear of losing their jobs and others, somehow believing that if they keep playing nice he'll come around.

I'll let the playing nice people to answer for themselves, but the others, groups like Kairos, professors, climate spokespeople, Rights advocates and more, have all spoken out recently. In my opinion, all of those voices started to raise the consciousness of the masses. It felt slow to me, but if that is the time it takes...here we are.

Harper is in a bad place now. We know that he will pull out all the stops. I read tonight that the government has bought a new set of expensive ads. Yea, that's our government hard at work trying to save you money, by spending your money.

Historic turning points are few and far between in this country. I think we hit one yesterday, but now it must be built upon. This is no time to rest on yesterday's news.

Keep creating tomorrow's news. That, thankfully, is now the direction in which I think we are headed.

A Few Pic's from Toronto Rally

2010-01-23T18:52:00.012-05:00

These are a few quick downloads. Having some trouble editing photo's, (ie brightness, etc) but you should get a bit of a feel from this.

Raging Grannies

Gerard Kennedy

Martha Hall-Findlay

See you There!

2010-01-23T08:24:00.002-05:00

Find a rally near you.

Plunging in the Polls

2010-01-20T13:35:00.003-05:00

h/t - Far and Wide

Also:

An open letter to the members of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

To the members of CAPP,

This Saturday, January 23, thousands of Canadians will attend anti-prorogation rallies organized by the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) Facebook group. They won’t be going as Liberals or New Democrats, as Bloc Québécois, Conservatives or Greens. They’ll be going as Canadian citizens, united in their opposition of Stephen Harper’s shut down of Parliament. That will happen because one of you had the courage to stand up in protest – and then another, and another, and another.

I want you know to know how heartened I am by the mere existence of this group – the largest spontaneous online political movement we’ve seen yet in this new digital age of politics in Canada. I am heartened because the vitality of our democracy depends on the participation of its citizens, regardless of their political stripes. And your efforts and your numbers – over 200,000 of you so far – proves that Canadians truly are standing guard over our democratic traditions and institutions.

Some dismiss your efforts as nothing more than a click of a button. They are wrong. I know that your organizers have been volunteering their own time for several weeks to prepare Saturday’s rallies. And I know that thousands of you will be taking time off school and work, or away from your families to attend them. Anyone who pretends that those sacrifices don’t count is highly mistaken.

When this group first formed, your rallying cry was “Get back to work.” Well, on January 25, the day Parliament was set to resume, my entire caucus will be back on Parliament Hill for several weeks of roundtables and working sessions on job creation, veterans affairs, the environment, health – issues you care about. Issues that can’t wait.

And this Thursday, January 21, from 3 - 4pm, I will be holding an online town hall on my Facebook page. It’s part of a national conversation about this country’s future that includes all Canadians and recognizes the importance of open and honest debate. I encourage all members of CAPP to join us on http://www.facebook.com/michaelignatieff. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

When Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on December 30, he was counting on Canadians’ reacting with cynicism and indifference. You showed him that’s not who we are. You showed him that Canadians believe in their institutions and have clear, common sense expectations of their politicians: Get to work, work together and get the job done. It’s what’s expected of every Canadian all day long, and politicians should not live by a different set of rules.

I hope your important work these past few weeks means Stephen Harper gets that message loud and clear this Saturday.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff

Court Ruling

2010-01-19T15:59:00.003-05:00

I'm sure you've all read the story about the court decision that came down yesterday.

I'm awaiting some information on the ruling, but the article breaks it down and Impolitical goes into more detail here.

While it must be said that this was a win for the Conservatives, until the other case moves forward, this is not the sweeping victory a Pierre Poilievre would have you believe.

In the end, the court ruled that Mayrand did not have enough evidence to withhold the rebate. It specifically did not rule on the legality of the overall program, as far as I can tell.

It is a story that I'll be following, specifically as to whether or not Elections Canada will appeal the decision and of course, the on-going investigation being undertaken by Commissioner of Elections Canada.

Crossing the Line

2010-01-14T15:54:00.003-05:00

I confess to thinking what I'm about to write, yesterday, but I was so caught up in the human suffering in Haiti, that I thought it inappropriate and pushed it out of my mind.

While I am still keeping abreast of what is happening in Haiti, the PM went a step too far today, so I am going to mention it.

Let me begin by saying that I think the military and our government have done a good job of getting relief to Haiti quickly. I was pleased to see today that they decided to match all donations made by Canadians (up to 50 million) and have also signalled that they will consider speeding up the immigration process. This is all good news that I don't think is diminished by what follows.

I first noticed that there were quite a few photo's appearing in papers and on TV of the Prime Minister on the phone, supposedly speaking with heads of state. Odd, I thought, but okay. Then yesterday, I was listening to the radio and was told that Michaelle Jean would be giving a statement at about 1420 I think, from Rideau Hall. Then it was moved to 1430, then as the clock ticked closer to 1500, the station said they had no idea what was going on and couldn't reach anyone to to find out.

Shortly thereafter, media was alerted to a photo-op only, (no reporters) in the PM's office. A video without sound, showed the GG along with the PM and various Ministers, discussing the issue around a table.

At that moment, I thought that someone in the PMO co-opted the GG and used the moment to present Harper. It chafed, but as I said, I pushed it aside and didn't want the cynical to take away from a disaster.

The GG did of course finally speak and while clearly shaken, she gave as powerful a statement as I have heard. Her statement certainly overshadowed anything the PM had done or said.

So, here we are, another day and more tragic news coming by the hour and what do we learn? The PMO staged yet another photo op.

Update: I just received this message from the PMO marked “Urgent.”

OTTAWA – Public event for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Thursday, January 14th is:
Ottawa
3:00 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mrs. Laureen Harper will make a donation to the Canadian Red Cross

Crass doesn't begin to describe what this is. Whether it is the brainchild of one of the PM's staff or he thought of it himself can't be known, but either way, it is the lowest form of politics. I'm not sure it gets worse than riding on the back of tragedy to enhance your own image.

If you haven't already done so, please consider donating today by choosing one of the organisations outlined here.

Theatre of the Absurd

2010-01-12T19:43:00.003-05:00

While I maintain my position on this prorogation, I can't help but smile watching the government's hamfisted reaction to what Canadians are saying.

The rationale for prorogation shifts by the hour. There is no real narrative and the more MP's and Ministers that come forward to proclaim, the more ridiculous they sound. Oh, that includes the PM btw, who in my opinion, has made some of the most ridiculous comments, that are promptly shot down. Not just by the opposition mind you, but by people who know of what they speak.

Tonight I watched MP Glover on Power and Politics. I apologise for this, but I burst out laughing as she spoke.

Now, I have to say that I had pegged her for a cabinet appointment, if there is going to be a shift. Not because she is bright, she's not. Not because she has expertise, she doesn't. What she has is a tenacity that the Harper government loves. She speaks to the camera and parrots the party line like no one's business. That, in my opinion, gets you to cabinet, sadly.

Tonight though was something to behold and a tough one to dissect. She was asked by Evan Solomon what she had to say about Tom Flanagan's comments last night on the show. You remember right? He confirmed that Harper was making ridiculous childish comments re' prorogation and everyone knew that he was avoiding the Afghanistan issue.

Her response? I don't know who this Tom Flanagan person is, but he is a Canadian, I assume, who has the right to his opinion...or something like that.

Really? There are two ways to go here. She has either been fed that line by the PMO to deflect the damage Flanagan did yesterday, or she seriously doesn't know. I'm going with the latter because it tells me more about who runs for the party and who supports them.

You see, I don't believe many in the party, elected or followers, really understand what Harper stands for, believes in, or has promoted most of his adult life. I think people identify as Conservative, for real or imagined reasons and really have no conception of what this new party, led by this man, means. Flanagan is very much the architect for god's sake and to not know who he is, well, that is gob smacking.

I've watched Glover because she was new and was quickly placed in front of the camera. She had experience at that. But she soon showed me that she is a partisan without any depth and has a nasty streak that suits the party to a tee. Tonight confirmed that.

If you want to run for Stephen Harper and his party, don't you think you should know something about him? Who is Tom Flanagan? Really?

This my friends I think is as telling as it gets.

The Conservatives are in the weeds, pushing out nobodies that have nothing to offer and it all makes me wonder why has it taken so long for the reality of it all to be exposed?

Something tells me there will be more and it will contribute to the theatre of the absurd.

Spin, Losing it's Thread

2010-01-11T21:07:00.003-05:00

How many reasons have we heard now from the Conservatives as rationale to prorogue? I've lost track.

There is the need to consult over the economy, but Flaherty put that to rest by saying he'd consult with or without prorogation. Then there is the whole notion that the government has to set a new agenda, 'recalibrate', except they go on to say that it will be business as usual and the plan is simply to implement the second half of the EAP.

There is not one reasonable explanation that has been put on the table and they are now floundering and sound more ridiculous than usual.

Oh, to hear Tom Flanagan tonight was something to behold. Yes, even Tom thinks the government has played this all wrong and indeed he stated that the government is putting forward childish explanations when everyone knows Harper is avoiding the Afghanistan detainee issue. Go-rogue Tom!

Today, Harper was interviewed by BNN. He described the House and Parliament as 'games'. His trustworthy secretary, Pierre Poilievre described same as 'theatre'. Both of these descriptions tell us precisely what the PM thinks of our institutions and plays to exactly what Canadians are rebelling against. Harper holds these institutions in disdain and will abuse the system in every way he can to both circumvent and discredit them.

This is our Prime Minister...of the country. Isn't that just mind boggling?

Further, Harper had the audacity to imply that minority governments wreak havoc with the markets. Seriously, he said that:

In fact, it is Parliament in a minority situation that is perceived by markets as unstable, said Harper.

"The games begin when Parliament returns," he explained. "The government can take our time now to do the important work to prepare the economic agenda ahead.

"That said, as soon as Parliament comes back . . . the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there'll be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability markets are actually worried about."

Really? What kind of idiotic comment is that? Since when do the markets sit in anticipation of what a minority government might do? Answer: They don't.

Oh, then he had this gem:

Although the stimulus spending, and lower revenues caused by the recession, has caused the government to fall into record deficits -- $56 billion this year alone -- Harper said he is not worried Ottawa is creating a structural deficit.

Creating? It's been created my friend and there is not an economist in this country that doesn't attest to that....oh, except Harper who by now certainly has to be acclaimed the worst economist on the planet.

Is this the next tranche that Harper wants to exploit? Good luck with that. What the Conservatives don't seem to get at the moment is their flank has been exposed and once out there, there is no covering up.

They are now calling people who are engaged and understand the issues, elitists. That term apparently is designed to turn people away, but, if elitism means being in the know and taking the time to understand issues, hey, I'm there!

From Apathy to Antipathy

2010-01-10T15:42:00.002-05:00

For the longest time, Canadians either weren't engaged or didn't really care what went on in Ottawa and while I doubt every household in the nation is discussing prorogation at the dinner table today, there is more discussion out there than we have seen in some time.

At this moment, the Facebook page, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, boasts 141,000 members. That is not an insignificant amount of people who are at least aware of the state of affairs on Parliament Hill.

So with that as a backdrop, the Liberals released some print and radio ads today. I've read some reaction to the ads and of course you see the expected cynicism, some praise and some condemnation. I have yet to see anyone hit on what I think the ads are designed to do though.

The cynics and critics comment that these ads are unlikely to change someones vote. That may be true, but I don't think that is the point. I believe the point of the ads is to strengthen the sentiments of those who are noticing what Harper is up to. Building on the growing distaste for his arrogance toward our system and the will of the people. I think it's an ad designed to reinforce what many people have previously thought of Harper but couldn't quite translate it to an issue that they connected with. Taking away their voice, in what seems to be an arbitrary and undemocratic manner is something most people connect with.

For those of us who follow this stuff, it is of course in keeping with what we know of the PM, but for those who don't, shutting down parliament without any logical rationale except to avoid scrutiny, well that is not something that many would take lightly. These ads sanction those feelings.

Suggesting that the ad should sway votes, when we are not in an election period, is rather foolish in my opinion.

During this period of prorogation, Ignatieff has said that the Liberals will be in Ottawa, working. Ignatieff himself will be travelling across the country holding Town Halls on University campuses. Given that the Facebook page was originated by a University student and there seems to be new interest in political goings-on in those circles, I see this strategy as a good thing, though I believe it was planned before movement took hold.

The Town Hall's will of course be open to more than just students and I think it is a great opportunity to maintain public engagement in the political process.

Ignatieff says he is arriving with a simple message for young Canadians: "Don't fall for all this cynicism. Get involved in politics."

These speaking/listening engagements can and should be used to discuss not only the prorogation issue, but as a means to tie many examples of similar behaviour by Harper together, into a comprehensive narrative.

That said, I don't think we should solely be out there attacking Harper. In spite of a rather constant chorus that suggests the Liberals haven't put any ideas out there, we have and I think it is important for Ignatieff to speak to these ideas and highlight how they contrast with the current government.

Parliament may have been closed down, but something tells me that the upcoming months are not going to be quiet and I for one am glad to see apathy turning to antipathy.

Prorogation

2010-01-10T08:28:00.000-05:00

The Expanding Conversation

2010-01-07T16:17:00.004-05:00

As many of you know, I felt the need to take a bit of a break from this blog. That said, I have dipped in and out of the news cycles and tried to keep up with what was going on.

Something I noticed at year end, were the numerous articles on just what a wonderful year Harper had. Opinion writers and journalists alike went on at length describing in detail, what a deft politician Harper was, how his tactics paid off and while lucky in some instances, all in all, he got glowing grades from many.

The more of these pieces I read, the more I was struck by the fact that no one was really talking about the Prime Minister of this country, but rather they were speaking about the leader of the Conservative party and assessing how he and the party had fared in a political sense. They were speaking to how he had used the system and in some cases, less than ethical tactics to maintain power.

Think about that for a minute. Is that really what Canadians need to know at the end of the year? Shouldn't we be given an assessment of how the country was run? Shouldn't we have checklist of sorts of what our Prime Minister set out to do and how much of that agenda was accomplished?

In my view, those issues have been ignored for far too long. Opposition parties try to raise those issues, but when questioned the subject is often ignored in favour of questions like 'what strategy will you use to attack the government?' or 'how will you vote...willl you bring the government down?'.

That said, we've seen a shift recently. The strategy and tactics employed by Harper are still being scrutinized, but from a different perspective. Indeed, Harper's latest ploy of proroguing parliament seems to have energized not only the media, but Canadians who have noticed and find it objectionable.

As I write, the Facebook page Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, is nearing 90,000 members. There have been some out there that have tried to belittle this endeavor, but in the main, you'll note that most articles and op/ed's being written seem to share the same sentiment being expressed by the grassroots of this country.

I'll agree that clicking on a FB page in and of itself can mean little, but as I've watched this group grow and see rallies being organised, I sense something is happening out there. A bit of an 'enough is enough', attitude seems to be developing and I think this is healthy for the country and our democracy.

These two articles in the Economist lay things out rather neatly, I think.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and whether or not you are hearing about this issue in your daily life.

Short Break

2010-01-04T17:59:00.002-05:00

Sadly, we've experienced two deaths in the family over this holiday season, so I've taken a short break.

I will be back as soon as I can.

Thanks for your patience.

My Year End Feelings

2009-12-31T18:00:00.002-05:00

This goes out to Mr. Harper and 2009 in general.

If you are easily offended by swearing, don't start the vid.

It's not new of course, but it sums things up rather well.

Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T12:04:00.001-05:00

And to those who do not celebrate, may your holidays bring you joy!

Take the Time to Look at Facts

2009-12-16T20:00:00.002-05:00

If there is one thing this government is good at, it's spin. They are masters at changing the channel, making what is appear as if it is not, and vilifying people for the sake of saving their own skin.

With Colvin's letter today, we gain yet more information that clearly points to the government's transgressions and their response tells us they are trying to make this issue go away.

In his letter, Colvin highlights six reports sent to Ottawa in 2006, including one he said noted that "torture is rife" in Afghan jails.

"The report used the word 'torture' repeatedly," Colvin wrote.
Colvin writes that during a meeting in March 2007 with 12 to 15 officials in Ottawa, he informed them that the Afghan intelligence service "tortures people, that's what they do, and if we don't want our detainees tortured, we shouldn't give them to the [Afghans]."

There is much to read in the letter and I will confess that my day has not allowed me to read it in depth. So I will only provide an impression of what I saw transpire today.

Colvin rebutted, with force, everything that the government and some in the military have thrown at him. It was the right thing to do and tells me just how committed this man is to seeing the truth come to light and his commitment to Canada's reputation.

Because that's what this is all about isn't it? Our good reputation in the world and the passing on of our values? Well, to hear the Conservatives speak on the subject, they seem to think that if you are seen as a mighty fighting force, the rest of our mandate be damned. Laurie Hawn once again tonight (re-run tape I think) thought the whole thing about a prisoner being beaten with a shoe was a big joke. It was basically, who cares?

I honestly believe at the core of all of this is that mentality. The whole 'scumbag' rationale had to permeate and likely was embraced with ardour by O'Connor and the rest of caucus and frankly, it sickens me to write that.

So, tomorrow I will comb the document and hopefully have more to put down than impressions.

One last thing. Last night, Laurie Hawn was on two political shows. On both shows he claimed that he had contacted Lib MP Bryon Wilfert and offered to have a tele-conference instead of a meeting in Ottawa. Today I heard Wilfert say that he was never e-mailed on this. In fact, the chair of the committee, (a Conservative) actually sent out notice that the meeting would convene.

In as much as I think the media is doing a good job at keeping this story current, I think they are missing those kind of details. Details that clearly show the government lying. Not comfortable to deal with I'm sure, but necessary for Canadians to know.

Disdain

2009-12-15T18:02:00.003-05:00

If ever a photo summed up what is clearly Harper's attitude toward this country, our parliament and other institutions, this would be it, right down to his expression.

Today, the government simply decided not to show up at the Afghanistan Special Committee. How's that for respecting the will of Parliament and the will of the Committee?

This behaviour has no place in a democracy, but I guess we also know what the Harper government thinks of that quaint notion don't we.

Another example is what we learned at Copenhagen today. You know of course how Prentice and Harper and others all quote, ad nauseam, the hard targets of 20% by 2020. Well, surprise, surprise. They didn't really mean it.

If you believe in this country, you should be outraged at how it/we are being treated.

That is, without respect and in fact disdain.

A Nation Slumbers, As Democracy Dies

2009-12-13T17:30:00.003-05:00

When Stephen Harper was first elected, I knew the nation and our institutions were in peril.

I wasn't alone of course, but for some reason, the known was never, or rarely spoken of. By that I mean in the media. I have yet to understand why, to be honest. Harper has of course been masterful at disguising his intents, mostly by doing something reprehensible, immediately followed by something rather benign and mainstream.

For whatever reason, the focus has been on the latter. The people who report these things are far from naive and are certainly bright, but they are maybe too cynical and focused on the "game" of politics rather than it's impact, thereby, not really believing that anyone would actually be doing what Harper set out to do.

I'm not talking about reversing abortion rulings or rescinding gay marriage. Those kinds of issues are the hot potatoes that everyone throws out there to prove that he does or doesn't have an agenda. With apologies, those issues are tiny and easily reversed in the grand scheme. Harper's sights were always set much higher than that.

Today, I watched part of Question Period. I did so with mixed emotion to be honest, because what I've believed for some time was coming out and for that I was grateful, but at the same time I was very disturbed and sad to know that it's taken so long.

Here's an interview with Peter Tinsley, the former chair of the MPCC, (Military Police Complaints Commission).

Former, not because he is not prepared to continue, but former because he was getting in the way of the government. Like many before him who were either fired or didn't have their contracts renewed, the Harper government is shutting down the very instruments that Stephen Harper assured Canada would keep him in check. I can't find that video, but if any of you have it, I'd love a link.

You remember that right? He was about to become PM and assured the country that they were safe from any "hidden agenda", because our system had checks and balances. He smirked as he said that and I knew then and there, he had figured out how to game the system, so to speak.

Why didn't the media expose this? I don't think there was any nefarious reason there, I just don't think that a critical eye is always cast. Mine is hyper-critical of course and I don't expect those who bring us the news to share my view. I really believe they didn't see this coming. Outside of the right wing columnists, who were jumping for joy, I'm not certain many studied the man and understood where he really wanted to take the country.

Well, I think many of them, including columnists, are a bit more critical, (as in critical thinking) today and for that I am grateful.

For the record, in addition to Tinsley, Harper has silenced and harassed, Linda Keen, a staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency, Elections Canada, (more than one in that department), and the Commissioner over-seeing the RCMP enquiry.

The only body able to keep him in check at the moment, is the judiciary, yet even they are challenged at every turn.

His disregard for parliament should disgust anyone who cares about our system.

That this is coming out now, over the holiday's, shouldn't put anyone off. Yes, it will not be paid close attention to outside of we wonks, but it will be in the papers, on news casts and on political shows. It's not going to die and the flames will be fanned when the country gets back to work. Count on it.

I'm known for saying, Where is my Canada?. Obviously, that can be taken as a highly partisan comment. Usually though, that is not my intent. What I mean is, this is a country built on values. Not left or right values, but values that evolve in our concept of respecting human rights, abiding by the law, respecting our system of government and abiding by our Charter of Rights and our Constitution.

Harper isn't actually vested in any of those ideals or institutions and any serious study of the man would tell you that.

Here is hoping that many are finally getting it and stepping forward.

What Issue?

2009-12-12T16:00:00.005-05:00

One of the first stories I read this morning was this one. Hillier Mum on Abuse.

Apologies, but when I read the following, I'm afraid I laughed out loud:

"I haven’t followed it," Mr. Hillier said Friday in Halifax.
"I’m really not even in the mood or the ability to comment upon it, at this point, because I have not followed it in detail."

Really? He's not following a story that could heavily impact on his legacy?

There are a few things to consider here. Immediately following Hillier's testimony, the government, MacKay specifically, went on at length to not only to buy every word of what Hillier said, but to frame everything in terms like, 'decorated war hero' etc., and while I don't question that, it must be noted that often in the same breath he was discrediting Colvin and painting quite a different picture of his character.

It struck me then that Hillier has a hell of a lot to lose if things were not done properly. You'll remember that both he and Gauthier never really answered many of the questions but preferred rather to emphasize their specific duties and how hard it was on the ground.

Both were either directly dismissive of Colvin or inferred that he was in no position to know or understand the realities of the situation in Afghanistan.

To me, that in fact bolstered Colvin's description of these two men in terms of how they were difficult to deal with and did not put much stock in civilian observations.

That Hillier is now saying that he isn't following any of this is ludicrous. His successor came out this week and contradicted not only government claims, but military. Do you seriously believe that Hillier isn't intimately aware of that?

Could it be that he is so arrogant he believes that he'll simply be taken at his word, (previous testimony)? Or could it be that he knows this government has his back because of course that means protecting their own?

I don't know what it means to be honest, but I can say I don't buy it for a second.

This issue is obviously not going away given the vote in the House of Commons last week. I know the government intends to ignore it, as they ignore everything our democracy compels them to do, but I'm certain that no one in the opposition is going to let this go and it could get ugly.

Ignatieff to Wente: Not True!

2009-12-10T07:04:00.004-05:00

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that I have little tolerance for misinformation and outright falsehoods seen in either media reports or uttered by the government. Further, I become even more frustrated when something untrue is said of the Liberal party and the party does not respond.

So, it was nice to see a letter to the editor penned by Ignatieff and directed at Margaret Wente, who, imo, wrote the most inappropriate screed on the gun registry and more specifically on the Montreal Massacre.

Buried in her column was this:

The gun registry has been written off as useless – by the Liberals.

As a columnist, she is entitled to her opinion, but as the saying goes she is not entitled to her own facts.

Apparently, the Liberal party is no longer going to sit back and allow such distortions to just sit out there. Perhaps the addition of Donolo has prompted this shift and if that is the case, then I say well done.

Here's what Ignatieff had to say:

Gun registry not ‘useless’

Margaret Wente’s claim that the Liberal Party has “written off” the gun registry “as useless” (Montreal Massacre Death Cult - Dec. 8) is incorrect. Liberals have always been strong supporters of effective gun control and we believe in the importance maintaining a registry that includes all guns. It is a vital part of protecting public and police officer safety, used by police 9,000 times a day and supported by Canada’s Chiefs of Police.

As the Day of Remembrance for the tragedy at l’École Polytechnique reminds us, gun control is also essential to preventing violence against women. Far from Canada’s gun registry being useless, there has been a decline in all types of gun deaths since the registry was brought into force, and it’s been used to refuse or revoke over 16,000 gun licences. For all of this, the registry costs less in a year than the Conservative government has spent on partisan advertising in the past few months alone.

Working alongside police and women’s groups, the Liberal Party is fully committed to maintaining the gun registry and ensuring Canada has smart, effective gun control.

Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

The Tedium is the Message

2009-12-08T15:24:00.002-05:00

It is an odd mentality that insists on repeating lie upon lie, when those lies have been called out and disproved. Yet, we seem to be have a government that does just that. On issues large and small, they have spent more time defending the indefensible than they have doing practically anything else.

They have no Climate Change plan, yet they continue to insist that they do. The Speaker ruled that a 10 per center sent out insinuating that the Liberals were Anti Semitic, was out of line, not factual and impugned a member's character impeding his ability to perform his duties. That went to committee today, but the government side continued to push the falsehoods in the brochure and completely ignored evidence that completely discredited their argument. Poilievre to be precise.

In Question Period, the government refuses to answer important questions and day after day repeats nonsensical responses. It's tedious and dangerous, imo.

Of course the big topic at the moment, is the Afghanistan detainee issue. It is clear that MacKay has been all over the board in his replies and his denials are becoming more strident and over the top. Baird, well, he doesn't even answer logically, more concerned with smearing whomever happens to be in his way than anything else.

The government's behaviour has not gone unnoticed.

Today we have diplomats speaking out to decry their treatment of Richard Colvin and his testimony. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how unusual it is for diplomats to speak out. Their statement is extremely important, as it speaks to trust, the public trust and the ability of the public service to speak truth to power.

It will come as no surprise that I think the Conservatives have no problem at all in undermining the public service. This obviously is dangerous for our democracy and one reason that I have suggested that Harper himself was dangerous for the country.

Additionally, the NDP came out today to ask for MacKay's resignation. I agree with this, but have no idea whether or not the Liberals will call for the same. Taking that move to it's logical conclusion though, if MacKay knew, and everything points to the fact that he did, then it stands to reason that Harper did too. This conclusion feels even more plausible when you consider the vigorous defence they are mounting, flawed as it is being based on falsehoods.

And then finally today, we learn that the government was more concerned with creating their spin and honing their talking points than they were in actually implementing a transfer agreement.

Federal officials assured the Red Cross in 2006 that Canada would take an active role in monitoring the fate of Afghan prisoners — but for critical months behind the scenes did little more than manage the political spin, secret memos show.

The records, examined on a confidential basis by The Canadian Press, show the Harper government placed a greater emphasis on drafting "key messages" to the public and preparing "approaches" for embarrassing disclosures than on dealing with the human rights of prisoners.

...... officials in Ottawa placed the notion of formally monitoring prisoners at the bottom of a "Strategic (Macro) Level Engagement" plan produced near the end of February 2007.

No. 1 on the eight-point plan for officials was to "Prepare standard key messages (ie. importance of adhering to obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law regarding the treatment of detainees.)"
Point No. 8 in the plan was to "consider supplementing the existing arrangement" in such a way to include the "guarantee of access for Canadian authorities to individuals transferred by the (Canadian Forces)."

Anyone who watches this government is not surprised by this. This has been their M.O. since they took power. They are amateur hour when it comes to matters of importance, but they are masters at spinning the message.

The reputation of this country is worsening by day. From Copenhagen to the Afghan issue, the Conservatives are being exposed for who they are.

While I continue to be perplexed as to why it has taken so long, I am glad to see more and more of the inner workings of this government being revealed.

They treat all of this as a game of strategy and seem not to have a moral compass when it comes to knowing and doing what is right.

Fiction Posing as Fact

2009-12-06T07:55:00.003-05:00

The other day it was noted that Christie Blatchford had her facts wrong. She drew conclusions that fit her narrative, but she had her facts wrong.

This morning, we are treated to some more fiction from yet another opinion writer, who couches his narrative in what seems to be fact, except it isn't.

Glenn Pearson, MP from London, who is probably the most respected MP in the House is mentioned in the story. He read it this morning and was quick to rebut Persichilli's assertions.

Here is his post:

I woke up early this morning to a shock. In the news, I read a headline claiming that MPs were planning Michael Ignatieff’s early retirement. And then I read my own name mentioned as one of those who took part in a planned meeting at the Chateau Laurier to discuss how to move the Liberal leader out of the way. The piece, by Angelo Persichilli, claims that Bob Rae called a special meeting of Liberal MPs following a retirement party for Liberal senator Jerry Grafstein to discuss moving Mr. Ignatieff on. I have no idea how Mr. Perichilli came to such a conclusion.

For the record, let me state that Carolyn Bennett, Bob Rae, Ruby Dhalla and I did meet on the night mentioned. This often happens in the evenings following parliamentary sessions as politicians and senators seek to wind down following hectic days. On the night Perichilli mentions for example, other MPs and senators were in the lounge, though not at our table. Someone was singing at the piano, the place was packed and noisy. The only part of this meeting that was planned was between Ms. Bennett and myself. She has been to Sudan with my wife and I as a part of two special teams we took in the last couple of years and has made significant contributions regarding public health, rural clinics and need to build better infrastructure for health in that troubled country. We had agreed to meet to discuss my upcoming trip to the region in a few weeks’ time. Mr. Rae and Ms. Dhalla were not part of that invite.

Partway through the discussion, Mr. Rae did appear in the lounge but had no idea we were there. It was me that waved to him to see if he wanted to join us. About 15 minutes after that, Ms. Dhalla walked in and she was welcomed to join us as well. Talk of Sudan ended as we spoke of some of the speeches and persons present at the Grafstein dinner. As always on such occasions, things got around to politics. Angelo Persichilli claims in his piece that I stated Mr. Ignatieff was losing the trust of the party. This is profoundly untrue. I did comment that he maintained the loyalty of caucus but that Mr. Rae was a trusted performer in the House. I also stated that with Mr. Ignatieff traveling the country more, it would be good to see Bob take on more responsibility for helping us as the official opposition to hold the government to account in the House, especially during Question Period.

Where Mr. Persichilli got the idea that a discussion was held to seek the removal of Mr. Goodale from his responsibility in the House I have no idea. Not once – nada – was this discussed. In fact, we think we’ve done better in the House lately and that Ralph Goodale has been an important part of elevating that performance. And for Persichilli to claim that it wasn’t an isolated meeting is totally unfounded. It was isolated and the only planning was between Ms. Bennett and myself re: Sudan.

I have never met Angelo Persichilli, nor do I know what he looks like. But I do occasionally hold discussions with a few journalists, some who are friends. If they received such information, they would clarify our positions before writing the story. Angelo Persichilli didn’t provide that opportunity and got his story wrong. It’s just the way everything has been going in Ottawa these days, as people rush to the lowest common denominator. I have sought to keep a low profile during these last three years, in large part because of situations like this. Mr. Perichilli has it wrong and he has done proper politics a great disfavour. Our discussion about Mr. Ignatieff did cover his trouble in the polls and how we trust he’ll do better, but the rest of the talk was about how we could help him in the House and how we could take on more of the load. Mr. Rae, Ignatieff’s competitor for past leadership bouts, called no such meeting and I feel the sorriest for him because he neither led the discussion (no one did) and he affirmed that Michael Ignatieff has the loyalty of caucus and that was a good thing.

It’s hard for some of us to try to move politics to a higher level in Ottawa, but with journalism like this it’s almost impossible. At least check it out with us to make sure you have your story straight. I’ve been as honest as I can be in Ottawa and, Mr. Perichilli, you’ve got this one wrong. And Michael, I’m sorry this happened at all. We’re all fully there behind you and saddened by the pain this must cause.

Carolyn Bennett also rejected the story this morning.

This pseudo-journalism, (opinion told in such a way as to twist or distort facts) is helpful to no one, not the least of which is the electorate. It feeds cynicism and that is bad for democracy.

Blatchford and Persichilli are hardly retiring when it comes to their political leaning and that is fair enough, but distorting the truth has become far too common place and we deserve more than this. Had he written, 'X MP's were spotted at Y lounge and in my opinion, here is what they might have been discussing'...fine. Obviously no opinion writer would do that but you get my drift.

Thanks to Glen Pearson for setting the record straight.

(Un)Truth and Consequences

2009-12-04T16:43:00.002-05:00

Last Saturday, I commented on Christie Blatchford's opinion piece in the Globe and Mail.

My beef wasn't that she shouldn't be allowed to express her opinion, but rather the manner in which the piece was presented, that is, as if it was the definitive view of the situation in Afghanistan.

I argued at the time that she approached the piece with an outcome in mind and made the pieces fit to suit her viewpoint.

Well, today we have have a correction, put out by the Globe and Mail. (What? You didn't see it buried in the print edition?)

CORRECTION - published Dec. 4, 2009

Comments released to a parliamentary committee this week about Afghanistan's Kandahar prison that the facility seemed "to be in reasonably good condition" and that inmates got "enough food" were misattributed to Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin. In fact, the comments were made by an unknown third party and quoted by Mr. Colvin in an e-mail. Mr. Colvin made several trips, not one, outside the military base in Kandahar. Incorrect information appeared in a column Nov. 28.

Now, these corrections may not seem like much, but consider her original assertion on one of these issues.

As context for Mr. Colvin's tour in Afghanistan, it should be noted that he arrived at Kandahar Air Field on April 28, 2006, and went several days later to the Provincial Reconstruction Team headquarters on the outskirts of town, where he spent about seven weeks – leaving the compound, as comfortable and safe a place as there is in that country, only once for a few hours.

That was his “outside the wire” tour, which means that in his information gathering, he would have relied heavily upon phone interviews with Afghans, contacts with the ICRC and other non-governmental agencies, and any journalists, local or foreign, he may have met at the PRT.

Mr. Colvin then headed off for a month's leave in July, spending the remainder of his time in Afghanistan at the Canadian embassy in Kabul, finally heading home in October of 2007.

By the kindest reckoning, he would have spent a grand total of a half-day outside the wire in Kandahar.

The condescending tone aside, she jumped to a conclusion to back-fill her assertions. In addition to misunderstanding Colvin's job description, (I presume intentionally because she does have access to this info), she was determined to completely undermine his credibility with that statement.

This type of misinformation has become far too prevalent and tragically, it inserts itself into the broader dialogue. I noted how many times the Conservatives quoted Blatch this week. That then seeps out of the House of Commons and ends up on panel discussions, etc., yet this is all nothing more than her personal conjecture.

It's time for more people to be held to account. Yes, opinion writing is interesting, but it must be clearly identified as such. In my view, the Globe relied on Christie's background and gave her the space to put out a story that should never have appeared in that format.

Lest you doubt the symbiotic relationship that I suggest exists, take a peek here.

The Taming of John Baird

2009-12-03T16:52:00.001-05:00

Via - Aaron Wherry

I Got Nothing...But He's Wrong

2009-11-28T18:10:00.003-05:00

Christie Blatchford's piece in the Globe and Mail today made no bones about where she was going to come out on the Afghanistan issue. That doesn't, or shouldn't surprise anyone.

Blatchford makes no excuses for her devotion to the troops and her admiration for Gen. Rick Hillier. Certainly, she is entitled to her feelings and her perspective, but how that qualifies her to put out such a lengthy and faulty analysis, perplexes me. Well, no I guess it doesn't really. She's written an opinion piece, but it's presented with such a huge amount of ink, that one would be led to believe that she has the last and definitive word on the issue.

Look, credit where credit is due. Blatchford has courage that I don't possess. Her experience in Afghanistan is not one many of us would undertake and by all accounts, she presented her observations during that time honestly and from the perspective of the soldier. That was important work in my view.

Given that though, how she or anyone believes that she can objectively look at a diplomats duties and findings, is beyond me. Hillier, whom she adores, all but spat out the word diplomat this week at the committee meeting. The disdain the military feels for the civilian/political realm is neither new, nor surprising. In fact, I suppose it could be argued that a certain amount of animosity is necessary in order for each sector to do it's work.

I tend to think that Blatchford shares Gen. Hillier and Gen. Gautier's views on that score.

So, if as she says the Globe and Mail received the redacted documents, why did it fall to her to go through them? Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that someone who was far closer to the situation, as in Graeme Smith, who really broke much of this, would have been a better choice, no?

I raise that because I wonder if The Globe received the documents or if Christie herself did. Just putting that out there. I know that she would have to share/vet her information with her higher up's. Her analysis, at any rate is faulty.

Let's start with the last paragraph first, because it sets up how she approached the issue.

In condemning with the same brush highly professional Canadian soldiers, and to complain that they were complicit in breaches of the law of armed conflict and knowingly buried his reports, it is Mr. Colvin who has some explaining left to do.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has accused the Canadian soldiers. This is about their political masters. The 'attacking our brave sons and daughters' line is one that is being pushed by the government as a shiny object and Blatchford obligingly picked it up and ran with it.

Furthermore, the amount of redaction applied to these memos makes it impossible for her to refute their content, but she does. She goes on to portray Colvin's exposure as limited, but in doing so, she exposes her lack of understanding of his post.

You do recall that we tragically lost our first diplomat in Afghanistan Glyn Berry. In spite of that danger, Colvin stepped up and volunteered to take his place. She diminishes the man with her 'military point of view' impression of him.

A more thoughtful view can be found here.

And then we have this:

The Globe and Mail now has what appears to be the entire collection of the e-mails Mr. Colvin sent on the subject during the 17 months he spent in Afghanistan from April of 2006 to October of 2007. A couple are virtually completely blacked out; some are heavily redacted, others rattle on at such length they could have done with a little more redacting.

Do they have the entire collection? And apologies for being a nudge here, but why does the Globe have the doc's while parliamentarians are being left out of the loop?

In the end, the Globe facilitated getting the government argument out through another voice. There is nothing substantial in Blatchford's piece, but it's this kind of messaging that the government we live with at the moment depends on. Messaging is the order of the day and sadly I see too much compliance in that effort.

I read messages from Ottawa journo's on a daily basis that state they will not be given an opportunity to question the PM or a Minister, or, they will be allowed one question and only if they are deigned deserving. Can't quite figure out how they put up with that, but what are they to do?

In place of that of course, we have an excess of opinion, friendly local media spin, oh and that ever reliable source, talk radio. Canada, we have a problem.

That said, I sense there is a mood to seek the truth here. This issue isn't being dismissed and make of that what you will, I think it bodes well.

Additionally, I suspect that more and more real information will emerge. That is what is needed here. Colvin has nothing to gain by his coming forward.

Here's hoping, for the sake of our national reputation and the protection of our troops, that others find his courage.

Demeaning Our Democracy

2009-11-22T21:12:00.000-05:00

It is clear that our current government is comfortable with employing the tactic of, character assassination, when it suits them. Sometimes it's to gain political advantage, or, as is happening now, it is to cover themselves.

I've been thinking back over the time they have been in office and who they have attacked in the most vicious and spiteful ways. In the House of Commons, I recall being appalled as Harper attempted to smear Navdeep Bains over a speculative story about a family member in the Sun media. Also in the House, I remember Vic Toews, screaming at the top of his lungs the most vile things about Louise Arbour. Then, there was Jason Kenney at a committee meeting who went after Gen Roméo Dallaire re'the Omar Khadr case. Of course there was also the despicable Taliban lovers reference to anyone who brought up prisoner abuse in Afghanistan.

We aren't talking about back benchers here. This dangerous behaviour is coming from the leader of the Conservative party and his Ministers. There is no regard for the person they attack, their family or their reputation. We know what they did to Stephane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff and last week of course, Minister MacKay and Laurie Hawn, have begun to slowly erode the credibility of Richard Colvin. Even going so far to portray him as a Taliban stooge.

These tactics, (which of course are part of a larger strategy), I maintain do tremendous damage not only to the people being attacked, but to our democracy as a whole.

In a democracy such as ours, you expect a government to be open, truthful and above all not to attack it's own citizens. You further expect citizens to feel they can come forward, or just go about their daily work, without worry of being maligned by the government.

That is not what we have with Harper in power. As I saw it described somewhere this weekend, there are thugs in the party that have no compunction in destroying someone if it somehow advances the so-called, Conservative cause. This is not your grandmother's notion of Conservative mind you. No, instead we have a government that has lied to us on numerous occasions and seems to think that it is above the law or at least the spirit of the law.

They insult our intelligence, waste our money and manipulate the media, all in the name of advancing their agenda.

I won't pretend that life was all sweetness and light when the Liberals were in power. We certainly made our mistakes and fought to maintain power, but not like this. Not to the degree we are now seeing now.

Consider the 10 per center's put out last week by CPC back benchers. Accusing the Liberals of being anti-Semitic is apparently their idea of fair game and a way to operate while in government. Not in my world and I'm sure not in the world of many Jewish Canadians. Taking on Irwin Cotler? I found this to be an interesting response and for the record, the Lib's have asked that the rules be changed.

What our government is doing both disgusts and saddens me. A lying, thuggish government that ignores motions and Bills passed in the House, that plays at the margins of election laws re'spending, (In and Out trial coming up next week btw), ignores International Treaties and now is faced with proving that they haven't broken International Human Rights laws, doesn't sound like the Canada I know and love. Nor does Canada come to mind when I think of a government attempting to destroy good people in an effort to either increase their poll standings, or more often, create a false narrative.

There will be another Afghanistan Committee meeting this week. This one seems designed to further try and discredit Richard Colvin. It is important to note that absolutely no one who does not have an association to the government has disputed what Richard Colvin has said. In fact, his testimony has been corroborated at the highest levels, and not just in this country. Nor is Canada the only country taking note of this issue. Oh and for all the government's braying, the truth on some of the detail is starting to come out.

Obviously, this is a story that we as Canadians should be engaged in. Will we be though? Has Harper demeaned our democracy to such an extent that people simply can't bear to look, let alone get involved any more?

I sincerely hope not.

Raise Your Hand if You Are Surprised

2009-11-05T21:12:00.002-05:00

Let me begin by apologising for being gone so long. No, I did not have H1N1, but I seem to have the mother of all colds and couldn't concentrate enough to post. I tweeted now and then, but that was all I could manage. Still not back, but have this to offer.

Duffy made his debut tonight on the new CBC show, Power and Politics. He made an ass of himself, which frankly wasn't a surprise to me.

Did you watch and listen to that? Were you surprised?

What is funny, nay, obvious, to me is just how partisan this guy is and I guess we know now, always has been. I don't get the attraction to be willing to appear to be a jerk, but it's got it's appeal apparently. I've watched newly minted Conservative MP's in the House and in committee meetings. They all strike the same note, which tells me they have some kind of "be nasty, here's how" training.

There is an unabashed nastiness attached to what they say. I here-by push the media to quote them more often, because I don't think Canadians have a clue who these people are and how contemptuous they are toward what most Canadians think this country is all about.

To those who follow, I do have something to say about the gun registry vote and Van Loan's delay of the report, the stupid partisan EAP signs, Lisa Raitt, H1N1, the Olympic torch run/stops, the AG's report...okay, there is a lot to talk about. I have been paying attention.

In addition to Duffy's idiocy, feel free to bring up any or all of these subjects in comments.

Will be back soon.

2009-10-31T18:50:00.000-04:00

Facts Have Always Been a Problem for this Government

2009-10-22T20:58:00.004-04:00

From the moment this government took office they have denied, disputed and rejected facts. Oddly, this is rarely pointed out, so they of course carry on their merry way spewing nonsense, in ads and in person and that becomes the truth, or the mythical truth I suppose.

That ignorance and game playing is coming home to roost now and the Conservatives aren't dealing with it very well.

Before we look at the current situation, I think it's worthwhile to look back a bit and consider the amount of duping that has gone on.

Crime legislation from day one has been based on no data, nada. It's ideologically driven and does little more than tweak the system, in large measure to it's detriment. Fact: Crime rates are decreasing in this country without any of the Conservative legislation having been put in place. How about the gun registry? Fact: Every police force across the country is insisting that it is valuable, but the Conservatives will insist that it's never used. They inflate it's current cost and pander to their 'yahoo' base.

How about Science? I'll bite my tongue on much of this but will raise the InSite program in Vancouver and how the government has kept them hanging. I recall Tony Clement, bald face lying about stat's to committee and of course ignoring the real facts. Science of course leads to Climate Change and if anyone really believes that this government gives a whit about it, show me their plan, with costing, targeted industry caps and a road map for how Canada is going to achieve it's goals.

There is more, but suffice it to say that they have somehow gotten away with saying nothing and haven't been challenged nearly enough on their lack of facts.

Now though, not so much.

The spending of infrastructure money has finally caught the imagination of many and there is report after report, all saying precisely what the Liberals have been saying for months.

A) The money is slow to flow and B) what flows is going to Conservative ridings in higher numbers than it's going to opposition ridings.

Let's take politics out of it for a minute, because surely some of my Conservative readers have family or friends who live in an opposition riding, non?

This program was very special in that it was to be designed to address the needs of the country during an unprecedented time of need. It was meant to target areas of the country with high unemployment, in an effort to create job's, thereby stimulating the economy....a 'stimulus program'.

It's clear now, that is not what has happened. Read here, here and here. There are more accounts, but I'm sure you've read them all.

In addition to all of this, I listened to a committee meeting today that had Municipal Federations as witnesses. Some were more diplomatic than others, but to a person, it was clear that much of the money hasn't gotten out and a few weren't too shy to say, that it was being used in a political game. Furthermore, some even alluded to the fact that since the money hasn't flowed and this construction season has been missed, the likelihood of having projects completed by the program expiration date was slim in some cases.

What does that mean? Well, if the program has expired, as it will in March of 2011, the municipality is on the hook for the rest. Likely outcome? Municipalities won't have the money to complete them, so all those tax dollars will have gone in to a project half completed, then abandoned. Nice use of your money don't you think?

So here we are. The hard work that Gerard Kennedy and his team have done has been noticed and various media outlets have started doing their own digging and the facts, ultimately proving his point, are coming out.

As I said though, the Conservatives don't deal in fact. To that point, I saw an extraordinary comment from the PCO today, Dimitri Soudas to be precise, commenting on the G&M story. I'm paraphrasing, but the media notice went something like:

The Globe and Mail, using calculations either generated from or approved by the Liberal Party of Canada (Michael Ignatieff) have painted an unfair picture of the Infrastructure Program...

That is an astonishing statement and one that I hope gets a lot of attention. That the PMO would actually hold that idiotic view that the media is biased toward liberals is no surprise, but that they would come out and attack the Globe and Mail is unbelievable. This is the stuff of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck...in the PMO.

In the end, it tells me one thing. The facts are being revealed and they have no real defense against that, when confronted.

Stay tuned, because, oh...there will be more.

A Little Luv

2009-10-20T14:50:00.003-04:00

I'm under the weather, so a little awwww moment, is the order of the day.

Define Transparency

2009-10-15T18:40:00.002-04:00

I've watched apologists for the Harper government do a couple of things since the Conservatives came to power. They either dismiss any or all breaches of ethics committed by the government or they resort to implying that the Liberals, while in government, did it too.

Well here is a news flash folks. Harper was elected on a platform of transparency and doing things differently. Once in office, the Accountability Act was introduced and all parties worked on that Act and ultimately agreed to it's passage. It was intended to stop what Harper had alleged and complained about about for years. Mis-spending, partisan appointments, Access to Information, etc.

You see, I won't tell you that Liberals were angels, but there weren't rules in place in some instances. The Accountability Act was designed to put new rules in place to address all of Harper's complaints.

Guess what? He still hasn't fully implemented his much vaunted Act and has proceeded to break many of the rules, laws and guidelines that he insisted on.

Still, the apologists defend him.

A Harper supporter who actually would take the time to think this through, would realise that they are supporting what they decried. They are supporting what they suggest Chretien did...a de facto support of Chretien, I guess.

Call Alanis Morisette.

Is the discussion of the cheques the end of the world? Probably not, but that is not the point is it? It is the pattern of behaviour that has become obvious and in fact you could argue it's worse than the accusations of old. Certainly much of it is more obvious and it stands out as a government contradicting itself.

Let's take a look at the Afghanistan Detainee issue. The government has effectively shut down the enquiry, in spite of screaming for transparency when the Liberals undertook the mission. Not only is their stonewalling obvious, it's stupid and will serve to make the matter worse.

All opposition parties are in favour of more info here, so guess what? It's going to go to committee and likely be forwarded to the appropriate individuals to be reviewed for obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice people. Think a bit here.

McKay is on the hook, but so is the PM. He, the man who suggested in the House that there was a coddling of terrorists by opposition parties. He who derided the Liberals and the NDP and took shots at individual members. Sorry, it seems pretty clear that there is information that they do not want to come out, while screaming that they are the party of transparency.

BTW, this all fits with their disdain for Canadians facing the Death Penalty outside our country, doesn't it? There is a through thread to all of this.

Then today we have this. If you are committee watcher, you have heard witness upon witness complain about the Access to Information Act and how poorly it's working. Dial back a few years and Harper was one of them. All of a sudden...he's not such a fan of changing the system he decried.

Surely you can see the pattern here. When they, the Conservatives, took office it was not long after that they, shut out the press, shut down committees through filibustering and shut up our democracy by proroguing, and the list goes on.

This PM is not about transparency or a new way of doing things. He's about manipulating the system to his advantage. To coin a phrase, 'he's in it for himself'.

He's not only been the most hypocritical PM in memory, he engages in the activity with delight and disdain. An odd combination, but apt don't you think?

So I watch the die hard defenders that generally have little above a school yard taunt to bring to the discussion, and ask them to define transparency.

Forget the irony of your conundrum, the lack of logical thought speaks for itself.

Can't Even Get Wrong Right?

2009-10-15T13:24:00.003-04:00

I heard Bill Carroll, (CFRB), talking about the Conservative/Government cheques this morning. He of course was playing it down, suggesting that the Liberals did it too, (we didn't) that it was just one stupid MP, (it wasn't), etc., etc.

To be fair though, he did say that he thought it was wrong and stupid. In fact, he said:

'I sometimes wonder if you have to fail an IQ test in order to be a member of the Conservative government'.

Take a close look at the cheque above, issued by Barrie MP Patrick Brown and you be the judge. (Larger view here. See slideshow.)

It's made out for $78,750.00. However, what is written is, Seventy Eight Thousand, Seventy Five Hundred.

Most novelty cheques are obviously not the cheque you bring to the bank, however, if they are drawn on a bank, with an account number identified and signed by someone with signing authority, they can be cashed.

Thankfully, it's a pretty safe bet that Patrick Brown doesn't have signing authority.

Drip, Drip, Drip...

2009-10-14T18:23:00.004-04:00

The only surprise I had watching the story of the 'branded' cheques from the government today, was the surprise exhibited by some of the media.

I say that, because surely there is a track record of skirting or blatantly ignoring the rules by this government that should have triggered some intellectual curiosity before now?

I mean we're still not clear on the In and Out scandal, the mis-use of 10 per centers, or the distribution of stimulus dollars favouring Conservative ridings, the Government website now all Tory blue and referring to the Harper government versus the Government of Canada. What about, all social network links on the Action Plan site leading you directly to Harper's pages on Facebook, etc, and of course the massive advertising campaign designed to pat the government on the back rather than inform Canadians?

I heard Tonda McCharles say two remarkable things last evening. First, she admitted that the press goes after the shiny object, until the next one comes along and second, she placed the responsibility of Ignatieff receiving coverage squarely in his lap, :"that's his job", meaning to capture her/their imagination.

I say remarkable, but I can't argue with her. On the first count, I've long argued that the industry has taken that turn and I think it's doing us all a disservice. Chasing and reporting on a shiny object is of little import when the subject of that particular story is then allowed to dull it down to the point that it no longer attracts the attention of the journalist.

I heard Tim Powers trying to do that tonight about the cheques. Think about how many times the government has come out and defended itself, always ending with a 'much ado about nothing' statement. Often, (not sure why), that is taken as fact and there is no follow up. How is that pap ingested?

On the second point, I do think that Ignatieff has a responsibility to attract attention, but yesterday for instance, he announced some pretty compelling environmental policy. This, after being berated for months by the media for not delving into policy. Was it covered? Barely. Why? Well, as far as I can tell that would take some knowledge of the subject which I don't think journo's are given the chance to establish.

For instance, it was subsequently reported today that Ignatieff's announcement was overshadowed, (read irrelevant), because of Harper's announcement in Alberta. Anyone who understands the file would quickly realise that Harper read a lot of words and said nothing. He's speaking of a project that is unproven and an expenditure that is spread over time, in other words...means very little. That said, I don't expect every journo to be an expert in every field, but something is wrong when we don't get the fact's juxtaposed to what we are being told/fed.

So back to what has been going on with this government. Yeah, yeah, I know the Conservatives are still flailing around dragging up the sponsorship scandal, but really, much of what is going on with the current government is in direct contradiction to what came out of the Gomery report that examined that scandal.

You remember him don't you? The hero of the right? The man that exposed the ills that resided, not so much in the Liberal government, but that took place under it's watch. Well he made a number of recommendations in that report to guard against that kind of thing happening again. Guess what? Harper is ignoring many of them.

Blah, blah, blah, Accountability Act, seems to be the come-back, except they haven't implemented the serious aspects of it. Why does that not get reported, in conjunction with all that has gone on? It seems to me that would be a pretty simple story to follow.

For the record, my objective here is not to berate the media. Susan Delacourt was on this cheque business in July and many stories have been written that expose the ills of the current government, but there is no through line.

No, my point has more to do with a narrative not being part of their mission anymore. Or, so it appears to me.

There is a compelling narrative here and it is one that does not bode well for the government. It's consistent, in most cases it's measurable and in fact it's an interesting story. The story of a government that came to power professing everything under the sun. One that has failed on almost every count, yet Canadians don't seem to realise that.

The Accountability Act is step one, but then of course we have the 'no deficit', 'no recession' comments/nonsense, we have the vow not to partake in patronage appointments to the judiciary, boards or panels and of course, no appointments to the Senate. Ha! All of the above is laughable of course and falsely justified by Ministers, the PM and the apologists, ad nauseum.

The Liberals have raised all of these issues, yet somehow, they seem to be sloughed off by the media and in fairness, perhaps as 'one offs' they look like nit-picking...but taken as a whole, it's not too damn tough to see the pattern here.

To me, the pattern of this government is one of contradiction, 'believe we're doing what we say, but don't look at what we're doing'. That holds true to the accountability issues raised above, but pertains to just about every file.

Look at the Afghanistan detainee issue. The appointee shut it down today because of a lack of co-operation by the government. Climate change? Well appeal to that huge base that still lives in la-la denial land and sort of deny it, do nothing of substance, but suddenly defend the need to defend the North that is more vulnerable due to melting ice. Huh? Interfering in arms length institutions? Oh yeah...think AECL. It goes on from there of course.

So, the drip, drip, drip of contradiction will hopefully be explored and exposed. Who will allow/change the model and let the intelligence of our journo's to shine? I don't know the answer to that.

Until then, keep up the posts, the comments and the tweets. And if there is still someone out there that disputes the impact of Twitter, you're living in another world.

Update - An unlikey suspect steps forward. Ivison. A part of a sentence I disagree with though:

The Conservative Party needs to rediscover its humility in short order...

Rediscover? Tell me when they ever held that trait. Hubris has been the order of the day from the start.

It's Your Money!

2009-10-08T18:13:00.003-04:00

Martha Hall Findlay has worked diligently to get the issue of political advertising, paid for by taxpayers, on the radar. She's had some success at this, as the issue is now slowly being raised on political shows and in the press.

About bloody time in my view.

Initially it was thought that the Conservative ad campaign was worth $34 million, but today, MHF came out with new numbers.

Liberal MPs today charged that the Harper government has spent at least $56 million in taxpayer dollars since January to promote themselves, including driving voters to Stephen Harper’s $2 million vanity website – outspending their H1N1 prevention campaign by at least 10:1.

Liberal Public Works Critic Martha Hall Findlay also asserted today that the heavily partisan nature of these ads is in contravention of the various laws and rules intended to prevent such abuses.

“The Conservatives are buying voters with their own money. Not only is that unethical, we believe it’s against the law,” said Ms. Hall Findlay. “This spending spree on taxpayer-paid partisan advertising is unprecedented. The Harper government is running roughshod over all of the rules established to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.”

The Conservatives are pathetically trying to get a 'much ado about nothing' message out there. Sadly, media, who I'm thinking were the first to back Harper when he decried this was happening under a Liberal government, are either talking the Conservative line or are silent.

Have you looked at the numbers? The increase in ad spending under this government is staggering. Not only do the Conservatives sound ridiculous, it would seem that they have some unexpected opposition.

A partisan government advertising campaign paid for by taxpayers raised alarms from the outset among senior public servants who serve Prime Minister Stephen Harper, The Canadian Press has learned.

The Privy Council Office, the non-partisan bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office, has never been comfortable administering the website for the Economic Action Plan -- and informed Harper of its misgivings at the time of last January's federal budget.

Those misgivings were heard, but overruled.

While the story is being denied by both PCO and PMO, the extraordinary claim originates from several sources within the famously discreet Privy Council Office.

The fact the story is being aired at all -- even under the cloak of anonymity -- suggests just how far the Conservatives are stretching the traditional boundaries of partisan behaviour in Canada's professional bureaucracy.

The PMO, etc, deny this, but:

In interviews with past and present government insiders, The Canadian Press was told the Tories are trampling the admittedly grey area between partisanship and policy.

More than one career bureaucrat said they've never seen anything so blatant as the current use of the office for self-promotion.
None would speak on the record, some for fear of reprisals, but many said it is a story that needs to be told.

"You have a political party that is not constrained by what conventionally would be perceived as overtly partisan actions," said one former insider.
"I can tell you every funding program across the government is being politicized," said another public servant.

"They do it for their own needs and they don't do it to help people. Welcome to Stephen Harper's world."

The Privy Council Office doesn't even have a line item accounting for the cost of development of the economic action plan website. The $2-million budget went to Finance, but PCO developed the website with frequent input from the PMO.

"Expecting public servants to manage government communications that has a partisan spin to it is a misuse of public power," Peter Aucoin, a professor emeritus at Dalhousie University, said in an interview.

That's the clincher isn't it? A misuse of power. It's evident everywhere with this government, but somehow, the masses are accepting. Why?

Because we are not getting facts from sources who should be providing them. I don't think the media is bias...except to say that they are bias toward turning a profit in their own name. That's okay, but what is missed in that scenario is their raison d'étre and their integrity.

The larger loss though is for Canadians. Information we deserve is being pushed aside. We are poorer for it and I think the media will find their coffers are literally poorer as a result.

So here we are. We have a government that is abusing power, spending money we don't have on self promotion and no one outside the Liberal party seems to have a problem with this? The 'Accountability' mantle that the Conservatives trotted in on was shot down in the first year and has become considerably worse.

Where is the outrage? Where are all the stories?

It's your money too!

As Transparent as a Bloc

2009-10-07T18:15:00.005-04:00

Today, Gerard Kennedy introduced two motions at the Transportation and Infrastructure committee.

The first motion was meant to have PBO Page, appear before committee to discuss what he has been able to analyze re' the stimulus spending and presumably, what he hasn't been able to gain access to.

Kennedy made his case and then the committee set about debating the issue. The NDP was on side, but shockingly, the Bloc said they would vote against. MP Laframboise said he didn't want to waste Page's time. I know! Huh? He suggested an amendment or something else all together, and that was to write to Page to give him time to prepare.

All of this seemed odd to me, because Kennedy had indicated that Page had done some work and would be available, however, I've long stopped trying to figure out the Bloc.

The real obstructionists however were of course the Conservatives. Yes I know it seems improbable, because, you know, they keep telling us that they are being completely transparent, have nothing to hide and even put up a ~~useless~~ web-site for heaven's sake, for all Canadians to see!

First up was MP Brian Jean. He's a highly partisan member who never misses an opportunity to punch below the belt, demean and generally behave like a boar. He accused Kennedy's office of making 1000 phone calls to determine what money had been spent and where. He thought that was profound. Wow, imagine accusing a critic of doing his job!

Furthermore, if everything is so open and transparent, why on earth would there be a problem? He went on to demean Kennedy, who I must say handled it all as a gentleman.

Jean dismissed the motion, but really wasn't able to put up any sort of real argument. MP Hoepner also spoke and for a rookie MP, she certainly has learned the Conservative babble quickly. She too went after Kennedy and said that there were far more important things to discuss...things that are on the minds of all Canadians...like high speed rail.

Um isn't this spending, this Action Plan the jewel that they keep crowing about? Isn't it the one thing that the government says Canadians need more information on and that is why they are spending millions in advertising....oh wait, that isn't really the point of the ads is it.

Then we come to MP Jeff Watson. Oh, he is yet another hyper partisan who really has no problem going after the opposition, but generally he does it in a passive aggressive manner. He left the passive at home today. The aggression was out in full force though. He berated Kennedy, brought up that he'd been absent for some meetings and suggested that the normal work of the committee isn't usually politically 'sexy'. (I guess he didn't get the memo post the Raitt affair.)

He went on to berate the media, who he says never show up at these meetings, unless Kennedy appears and brings them in tow. He closed with the profound, 'if it was up to me, Mr. Kennedy wouldn't be on this committee at all'. (Maybe he's jealous?)

So, in the end, what we have is a government and it's members on the Infrastructure Committee, refusing to have their infrastructure program receive any scrutiny. I mean seriously. If the government truly had nothing to hide, wouldn't they welcome such a review? In fact, as Kennedy said, isn't it the job of the committee to act as the oversight body to this legislation?

While I was disappointed that the motion didn't pass, it says much more that the government is blocking it.

Kennedy will bring forward another motion, amended in a way that the Bloc said they could support it. That requires 48 hours notice, which I presume he gave today.

The second motion was to bring the Conservative candidate for Markham, Landon, who, as I'm sure you remember, resigned after saying publicly that money wouldn't come to that riding because it was held by John McCallum, a Liberal.

That was defeated too, but that one didn't surprise me.

Fun fact of the day. MP Jean, in one of his rants, (inadvertantly I think) said he thought it was remarkable, fantastic even, that the government had actually managed to spend 12% of the funds!

Ooops!

Show Us the Money

2009-10-05T19:36:00.005-04:00

Regular readers will of course recognise Gerard Kennedy, Lib MP for Parkdale-High Park. You may not be as familiar with Senator Elaine McCoy, from Alberta.

Senator McCoy is a Conservative Senator, but that increasing rare form of Conservative, a Progressive Conservative...and she happens to be one of my favourite Senators.

With introductions out of the way, I'd like to point out that it is possible for parties to work together for the benefit of Canadians and underscore just how this present government makes that impossible.

I should note, that Kennedy and McCoy have not collaborated, but they could have. You see, they are both trying to follow the money the government of Canada is claiming to spend on stimulating the economy. Both have recognised that there have been an abundance of announcements and both were trying to measure the effectiveness of public dollars being spent. Both parties are frustrated and have found that the government is not being forthcoming with details. As a result, their efforts have been somewhat thwarted.

While it could be claimed by some, that MP Kennedy is simply on a partisan witch hunt, I'd ask you to first consider the man. Yes, he is a committed Liberal, but he is also a committed public servant with an earnest view of how government should operate. Senator McCoy, similarly, is a committed individual who wants the truth to be available to all Canadians, in spite of how this may reflect on the Conservative government. She has a reputation for being an independent voice and thinker, standing for truth for the region she represents.

The secrecy that this government is employing is shameful, maybe shameless, especially since they continue to tell all and sundry that they were elected because of the promised and (un)implemented Accountability Act. In fact, John Baird rose in the House today and had the temerity to insist that this is the most transparent government in our history. All opposition parties howled with laughter...and rightly so.

The opposite is true of course and if anyone out there is as geeky as me and caught some CPAC this weekend, that was beyond obvious. (More about that later in the week.)

Okay, I still don't have you? How about non-partisan contributors to this debate? Kevin Gaudet for instance. You know him. Head of the Taxpayer's Federation...against just about all spending by government. Or what about Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by this government then starved for money to keep his department working. They both agree that there is no clear way to follow the money and in Page's case, he's being denied access to the very numbers he was put in place to keep an eye on.

How is it that the electorate is buying what the government is selling them? Well, that might have to do with a certain, million upon million dollar advertising campaign, that you are paying for incidentally, taking the issue and turning it in to propaganda. There is something wrong in a democracy where this is allowed to happen and media seem not to see a story in this.

Given that, I should also note the following from Question Period today. Seriously, this is how bad, how disingenuous, this government has become. Martha Hall Findlay asked the pres. of the Treasury Board this:

[Martha Hall Findlay] (l): Mr. Speaker, I tried last week to get some answers on government advertising but got no answer, no numbers. So I'll try again and I'm going to ask the president of the Treasury Board, because after all, he is the one responsible for the spending and he should know. So how much exactly have Canadian taxpayers now paid for this government's partisan pat yourself on the back advertising so far?

Get ready for this...

The honourable president of the treasury board: [Vic Toews] 'Treasury, treasury well, in fact, the government of Canada does not bill the taxpayer for that kind of advertising. What the government of Canada does is get out key messages that reach a large number of Canadians on important issues -- and they laugh -- h1n1, elder abuse, the home renovation tax credit, Canadian forces recruitment. That's what the role of government is and we will continue to do that.

What a pathetic excuse for a Minister. Makes you really wonder what has gone on in his department doesn't it?

Member for Willowdale. [Martha Hall Findlay] Mr. Speaker, who does the president of treasury board thinks actually pays for government spending if it isn't the Canadian taxpayers? I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that he doesn't have the numbers, he doesn't know them or he's trying to hide something. Look at the t.v. campaign alone. We're talking tens of of millions of dollars. 40, 60, A hundred. Once in government, the government did away -- this conservative government did away with the rules restricting ad spending and they've run wild ever since. In '07-'08 they spent double what the previous government spent so I challenge the minister once again to give us a number, how much has this government spent on its advertising?

I won't bore you with his non answer. Suffice it to say, he wanted to talk about H1N1 instead...sort of.

We are in a mess here people, but it's not being spoken of with enough emphasis, in my opinion.

I've noted some people here who are speaking out, but unless we speak out, nothing is going to change.

Write your MP's for sure, but also write the editors of newspapers and demand more coverage. I know some journo's who would love to cover this stuff, but can't unless we create a demand.

We can do that, I know we can.

References here and here.

Playing the Piano While the Economy Burns

2009-10-04T17:45:00.002-04:00

As I've mentioned in other blog posts, Ignatieff is often confronted with the question, 'where is your policy'. Whether you believe he should be revealing one is not what I want to look at. What is confounding to me is that I rarely hear that being asked of the government, specifically as it relates to the economy and reducing the deficit created by the Conservatives.

Yes, I said created by the Conservatives. All this nonsense language about a global economic crisis, being bantered about by the government then dutifully transcribed by the media, fails to take into account the dire place we were in fiscally, before the recession. Of course what has happened to world markets has played a part in our fiscal situation, but it didn't have to be as bad as it is.

This government is not being held to account and it's about time someone started pushing the issue.

On that note, it was an interesting read to learn that Paul Martin has begun to do just that.

The Harper government has created a structural deficit and now needs to outline a clear exit strategy, says former prime minister and deficit-slayer Paul Martin.

Martin, speaking to reporters after a speech to a global economic conference in Waterloo, Ont., on Sunday, said his government left behind a $13 billion surplus and the Conservatives whittled that down to nothing before the recession even hit.

"That surplus was wiped out and more before a penny was spent on stimulus spending," Martin said.

If the surplus had been left untouched, there would have been enough money in Ottawa's coffers to cover billions of dollars of stimulus spending without going into deficit, he added.

Indeed. Odd how that is rarely mentioned in the press. It's not old news. It's directly related to where we find ourselves today. Furthermore, Flaherty and Harper are simply relying on market forces to get us out of this. That's not a plan...that is wishful thinking.

But Martin, who balanced the books as finance minister in the Jean Chretien Liberal government from 1993 to 2002, said Canadians deserve a clearer picture of what their government is going to do to eliminate the structural deficit it has created.

"It's not enough to say we will have a plan," Martin said. "The government should have a plan now and it should lay it out in front of the Canadian people."

So maybe, instead of focusing on what the Leader of the Opposition plans to do, perhaps we could get an idea of what the people who actually hold power have in store for us?

Seems reasonable to me.