For My Democracy Today I am Paying Homage to a Hero

My father was a veteran of the second world war. My grandfather fought in the first for England, and while he didn't die in battle; he suffered horribly from the effects of mustard gas, and died of lung infection not long after returning home.

My dad rarely talked about his experiences in the war. Letters to his sister found after he passed, where he speaks of the sounds of gunfire echoing in the night; give some sense of his fear, but for the most part, his messages were positive.

In one letter, trying to reassure her, he reminds her of a little prayer their father had taught them, and said that she should repeat that, when she's having trouble sleeping.

However, one of the the most vivid memories I have of him, was when I was a teenager and he had just called into a local radio station, complaining of an arbitrary decision made by the government. I whined that I would now be embarrassed to go to school if my friends had heard him (teenage drama you know).

But he reminded me that the fight for democracy did not end on the battlefields, but was something you had to fight for everyday.

It didn't mean much then, but it resonates now.

The only way we can get this destructive government out of office, is to get people to vote. Apathy is responsible for their success, and ending apathy is crucial to to the success of our nation.

The other day, one of our CAPP members, Martin Peterson; stated that he was now becoming politically active in honour of an uncle who had died at Normandy. That is such a compelling statement, and inspired me to continue on a theme I had considered several months ago, even before Harper's latest power grab.

We honour our veterans, troops and fallen soldiers on Remembrance Day, with a message 'Lest we Forget'. Why not also honour them on election day, with a message of 'We Remember'?

Poppies could be sold, giving the legions a bit of extra income, and our campaign would not be partisan, but simply a fight for Canadian democracy.

I think I'm going to create some posters or flyers, with this theme. Most of us have someone in our family who is either fighting for democracy now in Afghanistan, or has fought in previous wars. Maybe we can carry a photo or keepsake, and let others know who we are really voting for.

Not the candidate but the person we will be paying homage to.

I will be voting for my father, my grandfather and a great uncle who died 'somewhere in France'. Who will you be voting for?

A Tempest in a Teapot But it Rocked the Foundations of Parliament Hill

The threats this past week - do we go to the polls - do we not go to the polls, have scored a victory for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals.

The Conservatives 'smoke and mirrors', pretending that they didn't want an election, appears to have backfired.

This may have been a tempest in a teapot, but it shook the foundations of Parliament Hill.

In January, when Mr. Ignatieff had the deciding vote on whether or not the coalition would survive, he voted with the Conservatives, because he knew that Canadians just wanted to get on with it.

But how was he repaid? With personal attack ads.

And not only that, but for the past few months both the Bloc and NDP have constantly referred to him as a traitor. When they toured this summer and were told by people that they had to get rid of Harper, both used the excuse that they would like to but the Liberals keep backing him up.

However, when Michael Ignatieff finally said 'Enough!', everyone went into retreat mode. But look what's happened.

We now have the Harper government dependant on his dreaded 'separatists' and 'socialists' to stay afloat, negating the hyperbole of a left-wing coalition. And we have the official opposition able to do what we pay them to do - oppose the government.

Well played Mr. Ignatieff. Well played.

While Michael Ignatieff Gets His Message Out Some are Hearing it Loud and Clear

The Liberals have started a series of ads on YouTube with a positive message. These ads are not yet designed to attack Harper's performance, which is self evident. They are merely to introduce Mr. Ignatieff and help dispel some of the Conservative attack ads that have been running since he was first named Liberal leader.

There is a great column in the Chronicle Herald that sums up nicely the reasons why Harper and his goons must go.

Iggy’s move: Grumbling voters get reality check
RALPH SURETTE
September 5, 2009

GRUMBLING to the contrary, Michael Ignatieff has done the right thing — or at the very least, the necessary thing — by threatening to pull the plug on the Conservative minority government.

Despite what seems like a vaguely acceptable status quo in Canadian politics, with a distracted public not wanting an election and not wanting to face complex issues, a shakeout is actually inevitable.

Whatever heat the Liberals face for doing this, they had no choice. To continue supporting the Harper government would have brought even more heat, and in fact made them look like soft-headed fools in time for the next standoff a few months down the line. That’s a simple fact of life.

Their move has had a first effect in that it has brought Jack Layton and the NDP to the fore, with an offer to support the Tories in exchange for backing on a short and reasonable list of issues.

Inspired by the Nova Scotia NDP’s role during the John Hamm minority, Layton has been preaching (in vain) that minority government can and must be made to work, if that’s what we’re stuck with. True, and a useful message which will be doubly important if a new Parliament brings a new minority.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has rejected the offer with the usual bravado. If that rejection sticks, then the key to the shakeout is this: whether or not the Conservatives can be put on the defensive at last. It’s time.

The Liberals, with new funds coming in, are said to be preparing hard-hitting ads.

Their target is huge. It’s just that it has been obscured until now. The Harper government’s manipulative and vindictive style, with its barrage of low blows inspired by U.S. Republican party tactics, has successfully kept public attention on the deficiencies of the Liberals.

The question is now whether the Liberals can pull it together and effectively assault what adds up to very poor government.

It’s symptomatic that one of the very few instances where Harper was seen to rise above his usual habits was in naming Gary Doer — a New Democrat — to the post of ambassador to the U.S. There was also a magnanimous apology to native peoples for the residential schools.
And some regular business may work well enough. But on big issues that relate to the Prime Minister’s Office, the picture is grim.

In foreign affairs, except for our troubled presence in Afghanistan, our role in the world has become an embarrassment. Our disappointed traditional allies have come to see us as retrograde partisans of the discredited Bush/Cheney world view, and now we’re being accused of racism because of what appear to be cases of consular attempts to treat brown-skinned Canadians as non-citizens.

Another big thorn is the environment, and that one too has some troubling implications, even beyond Harper’s characterization of climate change, before he became prime minister, as a "socialist plot."

The main pillar of his support is Alberta, where even fewer people than elsewhere vote and where the majority instinct seems to be to keep the tarsands going to the max, regardless of the fact that they constitute the dirtiest project on Earth, one that puts Canada on the global first ranks of pollution pigs.

There’s other stuff, such as Harper’s near dictatorial instincts: the Bush-like attempts to control information, even of independent officers of Parliament, including the auditor general; the insult to democratic process in the form of a 200-page handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees; and a number of other things far beyond the usual hypocrisies of politics.

There must be a reckoning for all that. If not, our democracy is more profoundly on the skids than we care to admit.

Ignatieff and his Liberals are right to confront all this, despite their own limitations. Indeed, if they fail, or if the whole thing ends in another acrimonious minority muddle, a deeper and more sinister question will be raised: Is the country increasingly ungovernable?

As in the U.S., which seems to be drifting into a situation where a small right-wing insurgency can keep anything from being done, here we have the Bloc Québécois in particular, but the immovable Alberta Tory bloc as well, both seemingly impervious to the larger interests of the country, and quite willing to keep the entire country from working properly if it’s in their interest.

In the end, the challenge is to voters, a whiny bunch who seem keen to avoid their responsibility. And the challenge is to face the fact that after four years of Harper, it’s already time for a change.

Jack Layton Says No Backroom Deals and Jason Kenney Agrees

With speculation that Jack Layton might prop up the Harper government to avoid an election, both sides are now saying no. Jason Kenney in a radio interview (the audio is not the best on the video) claimed of the NDP: "It's a party of hard-core left-wing ideologues ... It's not like a moderate, centre-left party. These folks, they drink their own Kool-Aid right? (Was this in reference to Jim Jones? You can never tell with Kenney. Not the brightest bulb on the tree) So I don't think we can see a realistic arrangement with the NDP."

I think an arrangement would have meant political suicide for Layton. Yesterday in Halifax a group of young people were handing out free chicken to the media from buckets with Jack Layton's picture on them. It was quite cute. Did Jack get the message? Maybe.

Layton to Harper: It’s all up to you
NDP leader wants action on his party’s policies, or election will be PM’s fault
By DAVID JACKSON
Provincial Reporter
September 4, 2009

FEDERAL NDP Leader Jack Layton offered the Harper government a lifeline Thursday and said it would be the prime minister’s fault if there’s an election this fall.

But a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the NDP overture, setting the stage for Canadians to possibly head back to the polls a year after the last federal vote.

Mr. Layton said in Halifax that he wants to see action on NDP policies that were before the House of Commons in the spring — measures to help the unemployed and seniors, and consumers and small businesses gouged by credit card companies.

But the federal leader wasn’t specific on what he meant by action, other than that it must be "concrete."

"I’m not making any backroom deals with the prime minister," Mr. Layton said during a news conference at a downtown hotel.

"I’m simply suggesting that it’s time for him to show some leadership, to reach out and make Parliament work."

The Harper government is again teetering on the brink of defeat after Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff declared this week his party will no longer keep the Conservatives alive.

Mr. Layton had taken delight in mocking the Liberals for propping up the government during spring confidence votes but talked Thursday about doing the same thing.

He said he wouldn’t see it as "propping up" the Conservatives.

"It’s a question of trying to get results for people. There’s nothing strange or behind the scenes involved here. It’s simply suggesting that the decision about whether there’s an election is the prime minister’s decision."

Mr. Harper’s spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, suggested Mr. Layton wasn’t sincere in his offer to work with the government.

"Mr. Layton is very interested, and it’s clear to everybody, that he prefers working with Michael Ignatieff and the Bloc Quebecois rather than working in the interests of Canadians," he said.

Mr. Harper, who spoke to reporters in Ontario prior to Mr. Layton’s appearance in Halifax, said he wasn’t interested in backroom deals. Mr. Harper said he is interested in useful, affordable ideas to help the economy.

He has said an election would interrupt the country’s economic recovery.

The minority Conservatives must look to the NDP or Bloc Quebecois to survive. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe has said he’ll consider backing the government on a case-by-case basis.

The NDP, in debt and trailing in the polls, is believed by political insiders to be desperate to avoid an election this fall, but the Tory response to Mr. Layton’s overture Thursday suggests Canadians are likely to head to the polls before long.

Speaking after Mr. Layton’s news conference, Liberal MP Bob Rae said politics is a contact sport, like hockey, not ballet.

Mr. Rae accused the Tories of floating "bizarre" ideas and pooh-poohed the claim that an election would create instability, noting that elections are a normal part of democracy.

"There’s an effort here on the part of the Conservatives to create an atmosphere of total instability," he said. "Well, you know, we’re not a banana republic. We have votes. Mr. Harper’s not a generalissimo yet. He has to get used to living in a constitutional democracy."

Mr. Rae said there is no reason an election need disrupt Mr. Harper’s plans to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama on Sept. 16 or to attend the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24.

The latest polls suggest an election now would result in another minority government — either for the Tories or the Liberals.

The surveys put the two parties in a dead heat, with the Liberals well ahead of the Tories in vote-rich Ontario and Quebec.

It's Not that the Conservatives Lied ... OK, They Probably Lied

With Ryan Sparrow pulling the strings for Diane Finley, and Pierre Poilievre chosen to spout more of his nonsense; the Liberals have asked Parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, to do a cost analysis of EI reform.

This was a wise move, because how could we possibly believe a thing the Cons tell us when it comes to money.

They clearly just make it up as they go along.

Review of cost analysis of EI reform could set the stage for a fall election
Ignatieff has opportunity to put forward a no-confidence motion in late September if he is not happy with the working group's results
Gloria Galloway
Globe and Mail
August 20, 2009

Liberals have stroked the potential trigger of a fall election by asking Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page to examine what they say is an inflated Conservative cost analysis of their plan to revamp employment insurance.

Conservative and Liberal MPs who are part of a working group formed to discuss changes to the EI system said progress was made at a closed-door session Thursday. They agreed to get together again in two weeks for another round of negotiations.

Liberal Human Resources critic Mike Savage, one of the working group's co-chairs, said bureaucrats have been asked in the meantime to work on some proposals “that might move the ball.”

But Mr. Savage has also written a letter to Mr. Page requesting an assessment of Conservative calculations that peg the cost of the Liberal proposal to create uniform national standards for EI qualification at up to $4-billion.

“They torqued it up beyond belief,” Mr. Savage said of the Conservative figure. He has asked that Mr. Page's analysis be completed by the end of August and that it be made public.

Mr. Page responded to Mr. Savage's request by asking the Human Resources Department for the data, analysis and assumptions that were used to calculate the cost of the Liberal plan.

Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative member of the working group, dismissed the move to bring in Mr. Page, saying, “We already have a costing.” The Liberals, he said, “are shopping around for a different number that suits them.”

He called the Liberal plan both “expensive and irresponsible.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has the opportunity to put forward a no-confidence motion in late September if he is not happy with the working group's results.

The EI Working Group was established in June to explore ways to improve fairness in EI eligibility and to examine the potential for bringing self-employed Canadians into the EI system.

There are currently 58 different regional standards for EI eligibility. A person has to have worked anywhere from 420 to 700 hours in the previous 12 months, depending on the regional unemployment rate, to collect benefits.

The Liberals want to lower the number of hours of work required to 360, a measure that they say would cost an additional $1.5-billion a year. They say, however, that they're flexible on what the qualifying level should be.

The government, at the request of the working group, agreed to determine how much it would cost if the work requirement were set at such hourly levels as 390, 420 and 560. But Human Resources Minister Diane Finley told the meeting yesterday that she had asked her officials to stop that work because the government was not going to support a national standard, the Liberals said.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party initially proposed the 360-hour standard, has said repeatedly that he will vote against the Conservative government on any matter of confidence. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has been less unequivocal but he, too, supports the Liberal proposal on employment insurance.

That means any Liberal confidence motion is likely to push the country into an election.

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the Conservatives have started to call on Canadians to give them a majority government in the next election.

Conservative talking points sent yesterday to Tory MPs said the Globe story contained false analysis and speculation. It warned against suggesting that the government wants an election this fall.

“It is essential that all Caucus members and activists remember that we are NOT – repeat NOT – pushing for a fall election. We are focused on the economy. We are focused on implementing our economic action plan,” said the memo.

“We will not and should not encourage speculation about a fall election.”

Canada Owes Much of it's Success to Paul Martin Man of the Year

In December of 2008, the Toronto Star named Paul Martin Man of the Year for his handling of the economy during his tenure, and for putting safeguards in place that would help Canada weather the latest economic storm.

Jim Flaherty attempted to remove some of those safeguards, but quickly pulled in the reins before steering us toward a crash.

I never voted for Mr. Martin, though I have always said that he was the best finance minister that Canada ever had. I just got turned off by his attack ads, so cast my ballot for the NDP.

MAN OF THE YEAR
For staying cool during the bubble
Toronto Star
Stephen Marche
Our derided ex-PM set a fiscal course that could save Canada from the worst of this meltdown
December 27, 2008

Last week Time selected Barack Obama as its Person of the Year, a decision that must have taken the editors somewhere in the vicinity of three-quarters of a second to make. North of the border, the choice will be more difficult. Over the past 12 months, our politicians have competed with each other to underwhelm us, and, aside from a couple of Olympians, the "news-makers" of the year didn't make enough news.

However, if we're going to judge the person of the year by the size and scope of his or her successes, then the decision becomes easy. This was Paul Martin's year. It was the year in which it became clear that he has been Canada's greatest public servant since the Pearson era.

The Goldman Sachs report on global financial currencies, which the company released in mid-December, read like a list of Martin's accomplishments. Our economic situation hardly makes for cheerful reading, but the news is less bleak than anywhere else in the world. The Canadian economy has "deteriorated less" than other industrialized countries, according to Goldman. Our banking system is doing well "in comparison with the rest of the G10," and the federal surpluses provide "some cushion" against the credit crunch that is eviscerating prosperity the world over. We are in this enviable position compared with other countries mainly due to Martin's vision and his toughness as finance minister and prime minister.

His 1998 decision to halt proposed bank mergers has been utterly vindicated. In a recent interview with Foreign Policy magazine – an interview about why he knew what others did not – Martin explained the health of Canada's banks as the result of restraint: "It was very clear to the superintendent of insurance and me that we simply couldn't afford the risks if one of our banks defaulted. We resisted the siren call of deregulation and in fact tightened up on loan-loss requirements and reserve requirements."

The smart-est government economists in London and New York – and Reykjavik and Paris and Moscow – failed to take these essential precautions.

At the time, the argument from the bank chairmen was that, if they didn't merge, the Canadian financial sector was simply not going to be competitive in the face of globalization.

Not only did Martin see through this argument, but he had enough confidence to shrug it off. A lesser man would have arrived at some kind of compromise with the heads of the banks – increased deregulation or some other sop.

Almost exactly 10 years ago, on Nov. 29, 1998, Martin invited Royal Bank chairman John Cleghorn to his house in Montreal for a chat. Cleghorn asked him straight out whether the mergers would be allowed to proceed.

"No," was all Martin said.

Reports differ on whether Cleghorn then replied "No, but ...?" or "Unless what?" but either way Martin's response was the same, without qualifier: again, "no."

This snappy bit of dialogue, while not exactly the Gettysburg address, was exactly what the banks, and the country, needed to hear, though it has only become clear 10 years after the fact.

Martin was disliked even more by the left than by the right. They thought his approach to deficits was savage and inhumane. Now we know that because of his discipline in the 1990s we are about to go into a recession from a position of strength. The real source for the left-wing hatred of Paul Martin was petty aesthetics, that he looked and acted like the centimillionaire businessman that he was. This distaste has had unfortunate consequences: If we had elected Paul Martin to a majority, we would now have nationalized early child care.

The social program that should be the foremost priority of progressives would have already come into existence, and would be doing more for working families, more to increase access to opportunity for underprivileged communities, more to maintain the social fabric, than any other potential government policy.

So, to sum up the legacy of Paul Martin as seen from 2008. From the right wing: He possessed a better combination of long-term vision for growth and fiscal responsibility than any other person on the planet. Martin kept his head while all those about his were losing theirs during the irrational exuberance of the 1990s. From the point of view of the left wing: He kept our economy stable enough that it could support the social programs we love, and he was about to enact what would have been the single most important social policy achievement since Universal Health Care.

So why did we kick this guy out of power again? Sure, he was a failure as a politician.

But Paul Martin has never received his full measure of appreciation because his vision for the country has been so thoroughly assimilated that we barely recognize it as his anymore. He saw that a robust capitalism was the only way to produce enough wealth to pay for the social programs that we cherish, and that strong social programs and regulation were necessary to keep capitalism from destroying itself.

He saw how to make these opposed dimensions of modern society complementary rather than competitive. I believe that the vast majority of Canadians, from every region of the country, understand the necessity of this balance. The Martin Compromise became the Liberal Compromise, which, in turn, became the Canadian Compromise.

Martin will never achieve the hero status he richly deserves because he is insufferably dull – I mean, there needs to be a new shade of grey to describe exactly how grey this man is – but his blandness should be to his credit. The prime ministership is not an icon of our identity like the office of the American president, nor should it be. The prime minister is chief bureaucrat, and for a while we had the finest bureaucrat in the world in power.

It is perhaps the ultimate testament to his statesmanship that it's taken until 2008 for his vision to be justified.

So while I too was not overly impressed with Mr. Martin as a politician, I do have the utmost respect for his abilities as a financial manager and statesman. I guess I couldn't see that in 2004 and 2006, but I sure can see it now. Look what we've got instead.

More Postings on Liberal Party:

1. Everything I Wanted to Learn from Scott Brison But Was too Afraid to Ask

2. My First Official Liberal Meeting and I Only Embarrassed Myself Once

Loonie Slips as ...No wait. Harper Just Stepped on a Banana Peel

As much as this government continues to try to convince us that they are on the right track, I can't help but feel I'm being derailed by subterfuge.

Top economists and market indicators, contradict Harper's statements, and until he can be honest with Canadians, how can we possibly allow him to hold onto his job?

While it would appear that changes to EI are front and centre of the debate, I'm more concerned with the direction that this government is taking is.

With no plans on how to get us out of deficit, once the recession is over, I worry that my children and grandchildren will be paying for Flaherty's lack of vision and accountability, for years to come.

Loonie slips as commodities sag
Reuters Canada
Jennifer Kwan
June 17, 2009

TORONTO (Reuters) - The Canadian dollar slipped against the U.S. dollar on Wednesday morning as the price of oil and metals weakened and global equities slid on doubt about economic recovery.

At 7:41 a.m., the currency was at C$1.1367 to the U.S. dollar, or 87.97 U.S. cents, down from Monday's finish at C$1.1346 to the U.S. dollar, or 88.14 U.S. cents.

Early on Wednesday, European and Asian shares weakened as some investors unwound trades betting on quick economic recovery. U.S. stock index futures pointed to a higher open.

The Canadian dollar was expected to draw direction from its key drivers -- U.S. and Canadian stock markets, as well as commodity prices in general, and the price of oil in particular.

"I think there's still fear about what is going to happen today with the equity market," said J.P. Blais, vice president foreign exchange products.

Typically, equity markets are an indicator of investors' risk appetite.

That along with a drop in oil prices to around $70 a barrel, as well as weaker gold and base metals prices, is not positive for the Canadian dollar. As well, investors are also eyeing Canadian political developments for the possibility of a summer federal election.

"That's not necessarily bringing confidence into the loonie," Blais said of those combined factors.

The Canadian government has pretty much been in crisis since the last election, reaching it's peak when Harper prorogued Parliament to save his job, but of concern to me is the statement: 'global equities slid on doubt about economic recovery'.

Our economy is still very much dependant on others, especially the U.S., and if there are doubts about recovery, it certainly contradicts the Conservative's 'worst is over' claim.

Don Drummond agrees:

TD warns that Ottawa's forecasts are way off
Paul Vieira,
Financial Post
June 02, 2009

OTTAWA -- Canada risks a return to permanent deficits unless the federal government is prepared to "clamp down" on spending once a meaningful economic recovery is underway, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank said Tuesday.

The bank warned that Ottawa's current budget balance projections are off by a significant degree. TD economists Don Drummond and Derek Burleton say in a report the federal government will run a cumulative deficit of roughly $167-billion over five years, or nearly double what Ottawa projected in its most recent budget.

When it unveiled its two-year, $40-billion stimulus plan, the federal Conservative government tried to allay fears about the immediate bulge in the deficit, saying there was a plan to return to surplus in 2013-14, with a $700-million windfall. But the TD report said in that fiscal year, it projects a shortfall of $19.4-billion.

TD's prediction is based on its own economic forecast, which it acknowledges is "substantially" weaker than what is envisaged by the Department of Finance and other Bay Street economists. The forecast comes after Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, dropped a bombshell last week when he warned of a $50-billion deficit for this fiscal year; and the Department of Finance said Canada officially fell into deficit, posting a preliminary shortfall of $2.25-billion in the last fiscal year.

That would mark the first deficit in a dozen years.

Mr. Drummond, TD's chief economist, said in an interview that his "nagging worry" is that Ottawa has no plan to return to surplus and avoid so-called structural deficits. Prior to 1997, Ottawa recorded 34 deficits in 36 fiscal years. But after undertaking spending cuts, especially to transfer payments issued to provinces, the federal government was able to record 11 straight budget surpluses up until the last fiscal year.

"There is a point where [surpluses] never return," Mr. Drummond, a former Finance official, said. "So once you have a whiff of meaningful economic recovery, Ottawa is going to have to clamp down on spending growth -- which is going to be tough, because spending growth has been like an addiction we've been used to."

Since the late 1990s, after the federal government successfully steered the country out of deficit, annual program spending has increased at a rate of between 6% and 8%.

Mr. Flaherty told reporters that Bay Street forecasters are entitled to their view.

"I am sure different economists will have different views," he said. "But I am not going to respond to this economist and that economist, day after day."

The federal government plans to issue its own report this month on measures announced in the last budget, which might include updated fiscal forecasts.

The TD analysis indicates the only way the budget gets close to balance in 2013-14, as anticipated, is if Ottawa freezes program spending growth after fiscal 2012-13, which is when TD expects the economy to fully rebound from the current downturn. If that were to happen, it would record a small deficit of $1.7-billion in 2013-14, followed by a $12-billion surplus in the next fiscal year.

Otherwise, spending growth could be held at 2% following 2012-13, which would lead to a $5.7-billion surplus in 2015-16.

In the budget, the government said its plan to return to surplus would entail an effort to "carefully" manage spending. For instance, it limited the growth in equalization payments to the provinces prior to the budget. Ottawa also said it would review department spending to ensure necessary savings are found, and look at Crown assets, such as agencies and land, to see if some could be sold off to the private sector. Ottawa has already announced plans to find a buyer for some assets belonging to beleaguered Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic, said the report undermines an already struggling Finance Minister who, he added, was projecting annual budget surpluses back in November.

"We can't have confidence in anything he says about returning to surplus," said the former Royal Bank of Canada chief economist.

Conservatives Hold Biggest Liar Contest. It's a Tight Race.

Despite media reports that an election would not stop money from flowing, the Conservative caucus once again held a crack party, and just like the last time when their jobs were threatened, began a series of high pitched yelps and muffled growls to try and convince Canadians that they were being wronged.

However, I've recently learned that this came about after a caucus meeting where Stephen Harper announced a new contest.

The Conservative who could tell the biggest lie during yet another deceitful campaign, would win a copy of Brian Mulroney's latest book Honest Government is for Sissies, and an autographed picture of George W. Bush in a speedo.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that they all came out in their best form, taking turns at telling falsehoods, each one a bit more bizarre than the last.

Word has it that it's a close race between Tony Clement and Vic Toews. I hope Clement wins. I have his rookie card.

Harper-Ignatieff meetings cool federal election talk
Opposition made threat earlier this week over EI system
By Juliet O'Neill,
Canwest News Service
June 17, 2009

Federal election talk cooled as Prime Minister Stephen Harper planned a third meeting today with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to work out a deal on employment insurance and other issues that would stave off an opposition threat of defeating the Conservative government on Friday.

The Prime Minister's Office would neither confirm nor deny a CTV report on Tuesday that the leaders have worked out an agreement to establish a panel to study employment insurance reform, a priority among four issues on which Ignatieff demanded a response from Harper before a vote Friday that could trigger an election.

Harper has rejected a proposal supported by all three opposition parties to establish a uniform work requirement of 360 hours for benefits, replacing a current patchwork of 420 to 700 hours, depending on the regional rate of unemployment. But the prime minister said this week he wants to spend the summer finding a way to allow self-employed workers to participate in the insurance program.

The two leaders met for an hour in the afternoon at Harper's office across the street from Parliament Hill, where Liberal MPs hotly denied Conservative assertions an election would halt economic stimulus projects. Then, after an evening meeting at the prime minister's official residence, the leaders agreed to meet again today.

Both meetings were described as "productive" by officials.

Ignatieff threatened Monday to defeat the government if he did not get a response from Harper on four concerns: more aid to the unemployed; a clear account of stimulus spending; a plan to eliminate the deficit as promised over five years; and a written report on how the isotope shortage is being managed.

It was their first tete-a-tete since January.

Their afternoon meeting coincided with rowdy exchanges in Ottawa's daily question period in the House of Commons, where minister after minister stood and accused the opposition of threatening to paralyze stimulus spending if the government is defeated Friday.

Industry Minister Tony Clement described the Liberal threat to vote against spending estimates Friday as "an abomination."

Treasury Board secretary Vic Toews provoked opposition jeers with an assertion that stimulus action would come to a halt.

"If the opposition votes to bring down the government, infrastructure negotiations, the contribution agreements between provinces, municipalities, NGOs and private sector organizations will immediately cease," Toews said. "Tens of thousands of jobs will be in jeopardy, and our economic recovery will be in jeopardy. The opposition members are being irresponsible."

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale shot back that all but a tiny portion of stimulus funds have already been authorized by Parliament and defeat would "pose no threat to stimulus, not a penny.

"The threat is the government's inability to get approved money out the door, shovels in the ground and jobs created," Goodale said.

Outside the Commons, Transportation Minister John Baird told reporters an election would bring negotiations on thousands of projects to a halt.

"It's a huge danger because what it means is the discussions we have every single day with provinces and municipalities -- all of those stop," Baird said. "We can make no announcement, and frankly, the public servants can't sign any contribution agreements in an election."

The Liberals are dissatisfied with the government's observation in its economic report card last week that 80% of its stimulus measures are either flowing or commitments are in place.

Ignatieff, arguing that stimulus funds are not getting out the door fast enough, is seeking an exact accounting of how much money has been spent and how much will be rolled out in the next few months.

While almost all $22.7 billion in 2009-10 stimulus spending has been authorized by Parliament, the vote Friday includes $1.6 billion in supplementary estimates Harper said are needed for projects during the construction season.

The Liberals have the deciding vote, because the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois have already declared they will vote against the estimates.

Harper's Latest Promises to Play Nice Have a Familiar Odour

Harper's latest promise to work with the opposition parties to help solve this country's problems, is once again all bluster and no substance.

This man actually has a handbook for making sure that Parliament doesn't work, but the book obviously has a sequel ... 'how to make it look like you want to make Parliament work, when you really just want to keep your job'.

Michael Ignatieff is too smart for that, and so are Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton.

They've had too much experience with Harper to take him at his word, so he is now forced to address, not only the issues, but how he is going to deal with them.

Vague notions and empty promises are no longer acceptable. Do your job or get out. It's that simple.

Don Martin, whose columns I always enjoy even when I don't agree with them, had an absolute meltdown over the prospect of an election. I'm sending him a can of BS repellent because I think the fumes from the Conservative caucus are making him dizzy.

Don Martin: Stop this election insanity
June 15, 2009,
Don Martin

Compromise, capitulate, opt to sit all dang summer or even prorogue Parliament again if necessary — somebody do something to avoid the madness of inflicting a pointless mid-summer election on a Canada lingering in deep recession.

The lunacy of fighting a vote at the precise moment billions of dollars in construction stimulus spending are ready to roll across Canada is obvious to everybody except the four oversized leadership egos playing chicken in the House of Commons.

The alarming prospect of a late-July vote went from unlikely to unavoidable to merely possible in the space of five hours on Monday after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff delivered an unexpected warning, demanding more help for the unemployed masses or cautioning Prime Minister Stephen Harper to brace for his government’s defeat.

This time Mr. Martin did not do his homework, because stimulus money will still flow and if necessary the Governor General can approve further spending. I thought he was smarter than that.

I would also agree to let Parliament sit all summer provided the Conservatives actually answered questions. I'm gravely concerned with tax measures put in place that offer no hope for recovery once the recession is over. The cuts to the GST have gone down in Canadian history as one of the STUPIDEST acts ever, and until they admit that and raise it back to 7%, or give us some indication they have an alternate revenue replacement plan, I just want them out.

Another concern are Baby Boomers, who will soon be tapping into the government services they once propped up. Do they have a plan to deal with that? Apparently not because they discuss it.

So the media may see this as a political game, but for now the three opposition parties are using common sense, while the governing party appears to have no sense at all.

Win-win territory for Ignatieff's Liberals
James Travers
OTTAWA
June 16, 2009

Federal politicians play chicken more cautiously than Hollywood's testosterone-addled hot-rodders. So in putting the country on a collision course with a summer election, Michael Ignatieff is wearing a seatbelt and crash helmet.

If an accident occurs this week, if Ignatieff provokes the election he almost convincingly says he doesn't want, Liberals figure Conservatives will be hauled away on stretchers. Better still, if the fourth campaign in five years is to be prevented, someone other than the Liberal leader will have to blink. At the moment of impact, or in that bat of an eye, Ignatieff at best becomes prime minister and at worst exorcises the Stéphane Dion demon.

Liberals are enjoying a reassuring bump in opinion polls even as the recession drags down Conservatives. Those trends, along with Harper's slide from leadership asset to liability, suggest this is a promising, if not yet quite prime time for Ignatieff to give voters a chance to do what they do most often when the economy tanks: Reward the alternative by default while punishing the party in power.

It's that dynamic, not Liberal let's-make-a-deal demands for employment insurance reform and added stimulus accountability, that will decide this test of wills. Compromise may still emerge if Conservatives balk at facing angry voters or the New Democrats decide the risks of an election are too great for them now.

Either way, Liberals improve their position. An election now might reasonably secure them a minority government. An election postponed exposes rivals' weaknesses.

Win-win is good politics, particularly when there's an added bonus. Committing to an election if necessary but not necessarily to an election allows Ignatieff to sound tough but fair, determined but pragmatic. It draws Dion's missing line in the sand while recognizing that an election so soon after the last will be as welcome as swine flu.

Ignatieff, PM play chicken
Leaders to meet today with summer election hanging in the balance
Jun 16, 2009
Tonda MacCharles
Les Whittington
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's willing to talk, but is unwilling to adopt Liberal proposals to enrich the employment insurance scheme – a declaration that appeared to set the country on course for a summer election.

By the end of a day of brinkmanship, Harper offered to meet Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in a bid to avoid a campaign that could be triggered as early as Friday, when the final bill on the government's budget is put to a vote in the Commons.

The Liberals accepted the offer to meet today. But the two men appear to agree on only one thing.

"Mr. Ignatieff said he doesn't want an election. I don't want an election," Harper told reporters. "I don't think anybody in Canada wants or expects an election."

Ignatieff said the Liberals would vote against the budget bill unless Harper agrees to provide details on further EI reforms, the amount spent so far on the government's economic stimulus measures, future deficit reduction plans and plans to address a shortage of medical isotopes triggered by the reactor shutdown in Chalk River, Ont.

To Be or Not to Be? Another Unanswered Question

Harper came out today for one of the first in a very longtime, press conferences, where he promised to actually answer questions.

What prompted this change in policy?

Some kind of bluster about not wanting an election and trying to convince us that he would rather work with Michael Ignatieff over the summer.

And we should believe him why?

He was given four specific questions, that the Liberal leader needs to have answered to his satisfaction before he can allow this government to continue. Harper answered none of those today.

Instead we were given vague promises about changes to EI, that contradict the very cabinet minister in charge of EI. Misinformation about accepting requests for money to be used during the construction season. (There's no way any requests made today would ever be dealt with by the summer). Indications that his plans for handling the isotope crisis were clear (as mud) and absolutely no clue as to how he's going to get us out of this deficit once the recession is over.

What a change though from the combative Harper who always loves elections. A few jokes and giggles and that was it. Is he kidding me? Is he taking this seriously, or does he hope that if he comes out all cute and cuddly, we're going to believe he's being picked on and take pity on him now?

I actually would like to see an election if for no other reason than to see what he's going to try to morph himself into this time. The sweater wearing, cat loving, kinder, gentler Harper didn't work. The 'strong leader' nonsense was a bust.

Maybe he'll pose as a gay abortionist, carrying a Women's Lib sign, with a tattoo of Ghandi on his forehead. He's clearly running out of faux personalities.

A few musings from the Left:

Westerngrit: Check ... and Mate
Mr. Ignatieff's move today was perfect. Just what we had to do. The ball MUST be put in Harper's court, as the focus MUST be put back on him.

BCer in Toronto: Ignatieff Presser - the Verdict is Still Out.
There’s still many ways the scenario could play out. I liked the messaging I heard today from Michael: we don’t want an election, no one does, we want to make this parliament work, but Harper needs to work with us here. We need action in these four specific areas of importance. Deliver, and you can keep governing. Don’t deliver, then hey, we tried to be reasonable and give you a shot.

Pierre Trudeau is My Home Boy: It's a Trap
All in all, I think this actually increased the chances we'll be heading tho the polls soon. Stephen Harper and the Tories aren't the most conciliatory of folks and I can't see them climbing down to make this Parliament work. I'd love to be a fly on the wall inside the Tory death star right now to see how they're reacting.

Liberal Arts and Minds: Ignatieff says ....
While some are trying to portray Ignatieff's comments as unclear, the truth is that he laid out 4 points for Harper that he wants answers on. Those answers will determine his actions re' the vote on Friday.

Forestry Union Sick of Harper's Lies

Despite repeated promises, the Harper government refuses to do anything to help out of work forestry workers, or even to protect the jobs of those still fortunate to have them.

Jay Hill refused to even speak to workers in his riding.

Now, that union is telling Michael Ignatieff to bring the government down unless the Conservatives are willing to stand up.

Topple government if forestry industry not helped: union
Canada's largest forestry union calling on the Liberal Party of Canada to defeat the Conservative government if there is no clear support for the forestry industry.
CNW Telbec
June 14, 2009

Canada's 300,000 forestry workers and their families are facing the most severe crisis since the Great Depression.

"The Conservative Party has given us nothing but rumours of help, and phantom promises." says Dave Coles, President of the Communication Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP), which represents 60,000 forestry workers.

"If it takes an election to save our jobs and our families and our communities, then let there be an election.

"CEP Secretary Treasurer Gaetan Menard is scheduled to meet with Denis Coderre, Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, on Tuesday, June 16, to address the deepening crisis in the industry. At that meeting Menard will urge Coderre and the Liberal caucus to bring down the government if there is no clear support for the forestry industry.

Last week CEP President Dave Coles, and a CEP delegation, met with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, as a direct result of sit ins by CEP members of seven Conservative MPs offices.

Flaherty promised to study their position and get back to them. There has been no news from Flaherty.

Four thousand forestry workers from across Canada marched on the Prime Minister's Office on June 2, in an attempt to awaken the Conservative party to the industry's peril.

The scale of the danger is demonstrated by the 55,000 forestry jobs lost in the last two years.

There are 300 forestry dependent towns in Canada, of which 270 are at risk.

"Forestry is a sun rise industry, a renewable resource, an industry that forms the backbone of the Canadian landscape. If Stephen Harper and his government think they can side step their responsibility to us and our families, then they need another wake up call." says Gaetan Menard, CEP Secretary Treasurer.

Ring Around the Rosy, Harper's Full of Baloney

With much fanfare (smoke and mirrors), Harper came out yesterday to try and convince Canadians that everything was rosy.

What should have been seen as a sign, he used Mike Duffy to give the spectacle some credibility. The same Mike Duffy who was just charged by CRSC for ethics violations.

Yep, that's the one.

Harper tried to assure Canadians that the money was out the door and he had single handedly managed to turn the economy around. Don't worry, be happy.

And we should believe him, why? He told us last election campaign that Canada would not feel the effects of the global economic crisis, then we could be in recession, we were in a 'technical' recession and not long after heading for a depression!!!!

Now I hope against hope that he is right, because I don't want my country to fail. However, I can't feel optimistic when he gives us no idea how he plans to get us back in the black, even if the recession has hit it's peak.

He blustered again about the Liberals wanting to raise taxes, but offered no alternative plan to generate much needed revenue. I know he's trying to sell everything we own, but is that wise? A country with no assets is shaky at best.

He also claims that the money is out the door, but municipalities state otherwise.

Not to be fooled, the opposition saw through the pomp and ceremony, and are now demanding that for once in his life he comes clean, and provides Canadians with something we can take to the bank. What's been dubbed 'the Home Depot bailout home improvement tax credit' might make it easier for us to build a deck, but will our children and grandchildren still be paying for that deck in years to come?

This government has no vision. They fly by the seat of their pants, playing to their 1/3 base, instead of addressing issues in a way that benefits all Canadians.

As much as I don't relish another election, if this is the best Harper can do, there may be no other option.

If I want to see a dog and pony show, I'll go to the circus.

Slow spending, quick spinning
John Ivison,
National Post
June 12, 2009

Political parties live and die by spin. Threatened with its imminent demise prior to the January budget, the Conservative government raised expectations by giving the impression that it would spend more than $20-billion within four months, creating nearly 200,000 jobs.

The suggestion was that the government would come racing to the rescue of the ailing economy with the speed of a Lamborghini, even though the Tories knew that the system does not have the engine of a 640-horsepower Italian sports car. In fact, the bureaucracy has the engine of a lawn mower, which is why it is only now that government departments are looking at applications for infrastructure projects from municipalities and promising to reimburse costs.

Stephen Harper revealed the government's second report card on the progress of its action plan yesterday, as required by the Liberals in return for their support for the budget.

In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented." Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.

In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over -- something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)

Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway."

Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow -- which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party.

As for the unverifiable claim that the stimulus package would create or maintain 190,000 jobs, the only solid employment numbers we have come from Statistics Canada, which says 363,000 Canadians have lost their job since last October and the unemployment rate is at an 11-year high of 8.4%. The question now is whether Michael Ignatieff believes progress has been fast enough.

He said he will take a few days to review the mini-budget-like report card and decide whether it is in the interests of Canadian taxpayers to have another election. For some reason, this conjures up the image of Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreeing to have a battle, because Tweedledum said Tweedledee had spoiled his nice new rattle.

How long does it take anyone not living on the other side of the looking glass to reach the conclusion that another $300-million general election, only eight months after the last one, is not in the interests of anyone, with the possible (though not inevitable) exception of one M. Ignatieff Esq.?

Many of the deals between Ottawa and municipalities that are being negotiated would be put on ice during a federal campaign because the public service would down tools and the politicians would be preoccupied.

Mr. Ignatieff said yesterday that 1,600 mayors at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference last weekend told him they were unhappy at the lack of money coming out of Ottawa. This is strange since the president of the FCM, Jean Perrault, issued a release saying that he applauded the "commitment to co-operation and flexibility" shown by John Baird, the Transport Minister. One suspects that Mr. Perrault would say less kind things about Mr. Ignatieff if he were to provoke an election now and gum up the works.

Mr. Ignatieff has probably concluded already that an election that had the opposite effect of speeding up the dispersal of funds may not be a vote-winner. Mr. Harper offered a hint of the probable Conservative line of attack, if Mr. Ignatieff does decide to use next week's Liberal opposition day to bring forward a motion of no-confidence in the government. Canada should come out of the recession sooner and stronger than other countries, he said yesterday. "The only thing that can get us off course now is needless political instability."

The Liberal leader's bigger problem may be how to back away from an election gracefully.

The NDP didn't wait to read the new document before dismissing it. "The NDP is not going to be voting for these guys any time soon," said the party's finance critic, Thomas Mulcair. He's probably bluffing but the Dippers are capable of anything, even electoral suicide.
The Bloc Quebecois can never win an election but, since it doesn't cost them anything (the public purse covers their costs), they are happy to have them any time, just to relieve the boredom.

Which brings us back to Mr. Ignatieff. A significant chunk of the Liberal caucus wants to bring down the government too, exhilarated by polls like yesterday's from Ekos that suggest that they may be five points ahead of the Conservatives. But, if the Liberal leader decides to pull the plug on Parliament based on such flimsy evidence, it could set up the most delicious revenge for all those Canadians sick of political spin.

After all, how many of those who said they'll vote Liberal will interrupt their cottage vacation in August, in order to troop along to a polling booth in the city?

It would be richly ironic if this time it is the voters who are deke-ing the politicians.

The problem here is confidence. We had lost confidence in this government long ago, and it's a question of how much longer we can live with this kind of incompetence and corruption?

If this is our best chance at finally giving them the boot, I'm game.