Ignatieff and Liberals will support Harmonised Sales Tax

Ivison thinks that this action shows leadership but leadership that is not suicidal as was his earlier decision to bring down the Conservative government. Actually the other decision was not suicidal at all because the NDP stepped in to save the Conservatives . However, this decision may be quite unpopular with the general public and will help the Conservatives. Given the already steep dip in Liberal poll numbers this may just make it certain that the Conservative government can rest easy this Xmas and well into the New Year.


Ignatieff stares down his MPs
Liberals will support HST

John Ivison, National Post

Blair Gable, Reuters
There's a Spanish proverb that says if you sit by the river long enough, the body of your enemy will float by.

Judging by his performance so far, patience is not a virtue Michael Ignatieff has in abundance. Many Canadians have the impression that if he can't be prime minister, he'd rather return to his ivory tower at Harvard. But yesterday the Liberal leader gave an indication that he may be in politics for the long haul.

When he emerged from a caucus meeting, convened to discuss the Liberal response to the government's harmonized sales tax legislation, he said his party will support the HST bill that will pay British Columbia and Ontario billions in transition funding as they merge the federal GST with their provincial sales taxes.

It was not the first time Mr. Ignatieff has shown bold leadership in the face of opposition from a large number of his MPs, but it was the first time he has shown bold leadership that was not, at the same time, suicidal.

In Sudbury last September, the Liberal leader came out of a caucus meeting that was near unanimous in its opposition to a fall election and announced he was intent on sinking Stephen Harper's government.

Yesterday, he faced MPs who saw an opportunity to tap into bubbling public anger over the HST, and indicated his MPs will have to support it, which will irk those who view the controversial new tax as a gift horse.

The early reaction from those emerging from caucus yesterday suggested those who want to come out against the HST will hold their tongues.

Mr. Ignatieff had three options going into yesterday's meeting. First, he could back the Conservative legislation, on the basis that it was a request from provincial governments in British Columbia and Ontario -- a stance that could be defended because of the new tax's potential to improve competitiveness and create jobs.

Alternatively, he could have staked out the middle ground by saying that his party backed the HST in principle, just not this version. Liberal MP Keith Martin recently proposed a revamped HST that would have mitigated the impact on consumers -- for example, by exempting management fees charged on mutual funds.

Finally, Mr. Ignatieff could have come out, guns blazing, against the tax and pledged to repeal it, if he ever became prime minister. This would have enraged the Liberal governments of Gordon Campbell in British Columbia and Dalton McGuinty in Ontario but would have allowed the federal Grits to exploit anger about the imposition of what many people see as a blatant government tax grab.

That he took the first option points to an evolution in Mr. Ignatieff's political thinking.

In days gone by, he would have been tempted to plump for the middle-ground fudge, as he weighed the pros and cons of the policy. Harry Truman's plea for a one-handed economist "because all my economists say 'on the one hand ... on the other' ", is an equally valid observation to make about journalists and intellectuals like Mr. Ignatieff. As a senior member of his caucus said yesterday: "Michael is learning that politics is black and white, not grey."

The third option had the potential to be a game-changer and the possibility that the Liberals could come out against the HST was of serious concern to the Conservatives. But it would have been yet another flip-flop that would have added credibility to the Tory attack ad claim that the Liberal leader is only in it for himself -- particularly since it was the Liberals who proposed the HST in the first place.

His attempt to bring down the government in September, just as the country appeared to be emerging from the economic doldrums, reinforced the impression that Mr. Ignatieff is a self-centred political opportunist.

His decision to endorse the HST is designed to shift those perceptions and underscore that he is prepared to do the "right thing," even if it costs him votes in the short term.

The broader implications of what may turn out to be a defining decision is that it makes a federal election next year more unlikely.

Peter Donolo, Mr. Ignatieff's new chief of staff, has promised to play a long game and the decision to back the HST seems to confirm that. If the Grits were planning to push for an election next spring or fall, surely they would have come out against a measure that is likely to be reaching fever pitch in the run-up to its July 1 introduction? One Liberal MP agreed: "I don't see an election until spring 2011. We've got to lay some track."

Mr. Donolo understands that the Conservative government is only four years old and doesn't yet have the nicks and scratches that persuade voters it's time to trade it in for a different model. He understands that the time spent in Opposition is not wasted, which is the impression Mr. Ignatieff has given. Rather, it is a time when the Opposition defines itself as an alternative.

Mr. Ignatieff still seems to be a leader without a clue when it comes to the reason he wants to be prime minister. There remains a vacuum where there should be values, priorities and a sense of purpose. But there is some progress. He is starting to make good decisions as a result of the experience he gained from making bad decisions. It may be a long wait, but the prize may yet come to him.

© 2009 The National Post Company. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.

Canada re-affirms decision for 2011 Afghan pull-out.

So far Harper has shown no signs of giving in to pressure to send more troops. No doubt he fears the possible political fallout. However there still is quite a bit of time before the actual pullout, although some arrangements are already being made apparently. Possibly Harper will nevertheless simply pull out of all combat roles and yet leave considerable numbers to fill a training role or something of that type. This still would place troops in harms way. This is from the Star.


Canada re-affirms 2011 Afghan pull-out
Richard J. Brennan

OTTAWA–The United States' renewed efforts in Afghanistan will in no way affect Canada's decision to pull its soldiers out of the war-torn country by 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Tuesday from Brussels, where he is attending a NATO meeting.

Cannon said while President Barack Obama's commitment of 30,000 additional troops is welcome, Canada's military role will end in July 2011 "and we will respect the (House of Commons) motion to the letter."

"Canada welcomes the additional military and civilian resources the United States will deploy to Afghanistan, particularly to the south. Additional U.S. resources will help to provide a more secure environment for the Afghan people," he said.

Cannon did say that by having more American troops in the dangerous southern part of the country will allow Canada to concentrate on training the Afghan National Security Forces and "place responsibility for security back in the hands of Afghans."

"We look forward to furthering our collaboration with the United States in order to reach our ultimate and common goal of leaving Afghans and Afghanistan that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure," he said.

Cannon said Canada is "recognized and respected" as a leader in security and reconstruction operations in southern Afghanistan, the most dangerous and difficult environment in the country, which is expected to continue in some capacity after the pullout.

"Now while our military mission will end in 2011 Canada will continue to have an ongoing development and diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan through the Canadian embassy in Kabul," he said.

Canada creeping out of recession.

Technically we are out of the recession now but growth is still quite weak even less than was predicted. However, stock markets seem to be doing relatively well in spite of the Dubai debacle. Note that Canada did not grow as much as the US although no doubt the job situation is better here.


Canada's economy edges higher in third quarter.


Canwest News ServiceNovember 30, 2009

OTTAWA - Canada's economic recession officially ended in the third quarter of this year, but with a weaker-than-expected increase.

Statistics Canada said Monday said gross domestic product grew 0.1 per cent in the quarter, following a 3.4 per cent contraction in the previous three- month period, which was the third quarterly decline in a row.

Most economists had forecast growth of one per cent for the July-through- September period.

Separately, the agency released the September GDP figure, which showed an increase of 0.4 per cent. Many economists had expected an advance of around 0.3 to 0.4 per cent for the month.

``The Canadian consumer has helped propel the economy into recovery,'' Diana Petramala, an economist with TD Securities, said in a note ahead of Monday's report. ``A red-hot real estate market has also helped support the economy by stimulating residential investment, related to a significant bounce-back in housing starts.''

However, she said, ``in the third quarter, it appears that businesses continued to service demand out of current stock, rather than ramping up production.''

The third-quarter GDP figures compares to 2.8 per cent growth seen during the same period in the United States - Canada's biggest trading partner.

Financial Post

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Pfizer executive officer appointed to health funding body

Since the reality is that lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry no doubt have great input into govt. funding decisions I guess that the government thought that no one would question the appointment of a pharmaceutical executive officer to the funding board itself. The conflict of interest is obvious but then perhaps what is good for the pharmaceutical industry must be good for Canada. After all don't we want more research here and wont all that investment create more jobs etc. etc. etc. as the mantra goes. This is from the CBC.

Appointment of Pfizer exec to health funding body criticized
Last Updated: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:32 PM ET Comments88Recommend52Anna Sharratt, CBC News
Prominent bioethicists have expressed alarm at the recent appointment of a senior pharmaceutical executive to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the government's funding arm for medical research.

They hope to have their concerns about the three-year appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the governing council of the CIHR addressed at a parliamentary meeting Monday.

That's when the House of Commons standing committee on health will meet to discuss Prigent's appointment, which was announced on Oct. 5.

The issue was brought to the attention of the committee by NDP health critic Judy Wasylecia-Leis, who raised it in question period.

"Dr. Prigent brings extensive pharmaceutical research industry experience to CIHR's governing council," Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said in a news release announcing Prigent's appointment.

"His understanding of research and development partnerships will be a valuable asset."

The publicly funded CIHR gives grants to researcher across the country working in various fields of health and medicine. Its governing council consists mainly of scientists, medical practitioners and health administrators drawn from Canadian universities.

Wasylecia-Leis told CBC News Friday that she has been granted seven minutes on Monday to discuss what she sees as a serious conflict of interest.

"He's the VP of the largest drug company in the world, and he says he'll keep that separate. How effective will that be?" she said.

"We are troubled by it," says Matthew Herder, a research fellow at New York University and soon-to-be assistant professor at Dalhousie University's bioethics department in Halifax.

"The appointment of a prominent corporate executive to Canada's flagship health research funding agency risks sending a disturbing message to Canadians," Herder wrote recently in a letter to the president of the CIHR, Alain Beaudet.

Jocelyn Downie, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at Dalhousie, concurs.

"My primary concern is that a senior executive from a pharmaceutical company has been given a seat at the highest governance table for the national health research funding agency," she said in an email.

"This person is in an intractable conflict of interest — on the one hand, he has an obligation to serve the shareholders of his company (as an executive at Pfizer), and on the other hand he would have an obligation to serve the public interest (as a member of the CIHR governing council).

"Given the divergence of interests between the shareholders and the public, he cannot serve these two masters."

Herder, Downie and Françoise Baylis, Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy at Dalhousie, drafted a petition opposing the appointment on Wednesday. As of Friday, it had 1,320 signatures.

Wasylecia-Leis says she will present the petition to the committee and to the House of Commons, but she's worried that the committee is stacked against her. The chair of the committee has turned down her request to present witnesses who can authoritatively discuss the issues Prigent's appointment raises, she said.

But she's hopeful Monday's meeting will focus attention on the issue of "people with connections to industry sitting on committee that decides where the money goes."

"We need to ask questions about our research bodies," said Wasylecia-Leis. "To be silent would condone the process."

CIHR spokesperson David Coulombe said he was not in a position to comment.

Air passenger bill of rights grounded

Perhaps the best Maloway can do is bring the matter to public attention and this may put pressure on the Conservatives to come up with a bill. Private members bills rarely get passed but they can help light a fire under the governing party to consider important issues such as this.

Committee grounds air passenger bill of rights
Globe and Mail

.New Democrat MP Jim Maloway's efforts to forge an air passenger bill of rights are veering off path. Under his private member's bill, the Winnipeg MP said he wants to shift power to consumers and clamp down on airlines whenever flights go awry. But the federal transport committee stalled for six months, and then voted by a 7-4 margin to send the bill to the House of Commons without amendments, Mr. Maloway said in an interview yesterday. He blamed the Bloc Québécois for joining the Conservatives in opposing his bill. Faced with the airline industry's lobbying, Mr. Maloway said he was willing to make compromises, but to no avail. The MP said he still hopes to gather political support in January, by which time winter storms could trigger cancelled and delayed flights.

CMA wants national debate on health care issues

The Assoc. is certainly correct there needs to be a national debate on the issues mentioned but the CMA seems bound and determined to have more offloading of costs to individuals from the govt and this will make medical care more regressive in that quality of care will depend upon income and ability to pay. It will be a boon for private for profit interests who already have a gold mine in providing drugs and equipment for the system. If the CMA has its way there will be more private clinics etc. which will rake in profits for doctors. Instead of more being covered under the public system there will probably be less. No doubt the CMA would like to see the Canada Health Act changed so that there can be more co-pays.
The patient's charter of rights is a good idea but patient groups should be involved as important stakeholders. Certainly it is a postive move that the CMA should bring this matter up.

Canadian Medical Assoc. writing patients' charter, wants national debate
By Susanna Kelley (CP) – 15 hours ago

TORONTO — A national debate is needed on what health services should be provided in the future and how they will be paid for, the president of the Canadian Medical Association said Wednesday.

And a new definition may be needed of what is necessary to ensure a healthy life for Canadians, Dr. Anne Doig told a business audience during a luncheon speech.

"The Canada Health Act narrowly defines insured health services as medically necessary hospital, physician, and surgical-dental services provided to insured persons," said Doig.

"We must agree on the definitions of medical necessity and we must agree on the appropriate levels of societal responsibility for medically necessary services."

Aging baby-boomers will demand more and better health-care services in the years to come, she noted, adding if that costs more, the public will have to decide if they are willing to fund them and if so, how.

"We have failed to recognize the first-dollar coverage in a system funded solely by taxation demands an increase in taxation revenues if the system is to continue to meet the needs of our citizens," she said.

"If we are unwilling or unable to increase the burden of taxation, we must debate alternative sources of funding. We must decide how broadly and how deeply to extend our publicly funded insurance."

In the meantime, the national doctors' association is developing what is calls a "Patient Quality Charter."

The charter is a "clear vision for quality care" that will lay out what is needed to provide the better health care aging boomers will demand, said Doig, who also slammed federal politicians for a failure to lead the health-care debate.

"Canada's federal politicians have completely abdicated their duty to fulfill the legacy of our once-proud health-care system. Instead they prefer to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag, dismissing any criticism of our health care system as unpatriotic," she said.

"Political posturing is not leadership."

She told the Economic Club of Canada it's not doctors, nurses and other health-care professionals that are failing Canadians but health-care insurance.

She says in the 1984 when the Canada Health Act was passed, physician and hospital services made up 57 per cent of total health spending but that has dropped to 41 per cent.

At the same time Doig noted current efforts on what she called "our shocking waiting times" have focused on the length of time between booking a surgical procedure and actually getting it.

"Up to now, we have failed to address the often even longer waits for patients to obtain a diagnostic service such as MRI, or to be seen in consultation by a specialist for a non-emergency condition."

The federal-provincial health care accord is up for renewal in 2014.

Hillier: Colvin testimony on torture ludicrous.

Hillier is just one giant puffed up buffoon with a humongous mouth. This should make him an excellent Conservative candidate because he is also praises the military every time he has a chance and to give him his due he does stand up for his troops.Perhaps the Conservatives might not be that happy if Hillier were to be in parliament because he could be a loose cannon who might not buckle under to Harper. Hillier's testimony should be contrasted with that of another military official involved Michel Gauthier:

Michel Gauthier
Position: Retired lieutenant-general who was the former commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command. Gauthier was responsible for all of the Canadian Forces' overseas missions. He ran Canada's military mission in Kandahar from his Ottawa headquarters. Colvin says he sent some of his memos to Gauthier.

Response to Colvin's testimony: In an email to CBC News, Gauthier said the following:

"First of all let me say I am deeply troubled by Mr. Colvin's testimony before the Special Committee. It's pretty clear, from what he said yesterday, that he has for some time had a deep-seated concern about Govt of Canada practices regarding detainees. I look forward to providing an absolutely frank view of some key aspects of Mr. Colvin's testimony when I appear before the committee next week.

"In the meantime, I simply want to assure you and all Canadians that, in my capacity as Commander of CEFCOM, I very clearly understood my responsibilities under international law with respect to the handling of detainees, and I would certainly not knowingly have done anything — ever — to expose our soldiers and commanders in the field, our government, or myself to complicity in war crimes or other wrongdoing as Mr. Colvin suggests. I can also say with complete confidence that personnel under my command were not in the habit, as a matter of either policy or practice, of ignoring important reports from the field, quite the opposite. In light of our potential liability as commanders under international law, one would have to ask why any of us would knowingly and deliberately ignore substantial evidence from the field that could ultimately implicate us in a war crime.

"I applaud Mr. Colvin's courage in coming forward, but there will evidently be more than one side to this story. "

Although Gauthier also no doubt disagrees with Colvin, he shows him some respect and recognises as well the virtues of whistleblowing.



Colvin testimony on torture 'ludicrous': Hillier
CBC News
Canada's former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier slammed a diplomat's testimony that all detainees transferred by Canadians to Afghan prisons were likely tortured by Afghan officials, saying it's "ludicrous."

Hillier also told the House of Commons committee investigating the issue that is it was "absolutely false" to say he saw Richard Colvin's 2006 reports alleging abuse during his time as Canada's top soldier.

But Hillier said that the reports, which he subsequently reviewed, contain no warnings of the suspected torture.

"He said the reports written in May and June of 2006," said nothing about abuse, nothing about torture or anything else that would have caught my attention or indeed the attention of others."

"There was no reason based on what was in those reports for anybody to bring it to my attention and after having read that, I'm absolutely confident that was indeed the case," Hillier said Wednesday.

The retired general appeared before the committee joined by Maj.-Gen. David Fraser, who led troops on the ground in Kandahar, and Gauthier, who was responsible for overseas deployments in 2006.

Hillier repeated what he said publicly last week, that he never heard suggestions that Canada may have been indirectly complicit in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan.

His testimony comes a week after the testimony of Richard Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Colvin alleged that prisoners were turned over to Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service by the Canadian military in 2006-07 despite warnings that they would be tortured.

Colvin said that all detainees were likely tortured.

"How ludicrous a statement is that from any one single individual who really has no knowledge to be able to say something like that, and we didn't see any substantive evidence to indicate it was that way," Hillier said.

Colvin had said he began informing the Canadian Forces and Foreign Affairs officials about the detainee situation in 2006 with verbal and written reports.

Colvin also testified he sent a least one letter directly to Hillier and sent almost all his reports to senior military commanders, both in Afghanistan and Ottawa.

But Hillier said it was "absolutely false" for anyone to suggest that he had known about this or had read the report.

'Nothing could be further from the truth'
Hillier also slammed Colvin's claim that many of the detainees who had been arrested were innocent people, saying "nothing could be further from the truth.

"We detained, under violent actions, people trying to kill our sons and daughters, who had in some cases done that, been successful at it, and were continuing to do it."

Hillier said they may have detained the occasional farmer, but that they were "almost inevitably immediately let go."

The Conservatives have also claimed they never saw any of these reports and have questioned the credibility of Colvin's testimony.

Colvin now works as a senior intelligence official at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Gauthier also denied he had heard any allegation of torture in 2006.

"To be clear and precise about this, last week’s evidence states categorically that the very high risk of torture in Afghan prisons was first made known to senior members of the Canadian forces in May of 2006 and repeatedly thereafter," Gauthier said.

"In actual fact, I and others received such warnings in a substantial way for the first time more than a year later than that."

Gauthier also said that Colvin's 2006 reports from May to September never mentioned the risk of torture or suspected torture. He said the word torture does appear in a Dec. 4 report, december but could be "reasonably interpreted to be a warning of torture."

"I can very safely say there is nothing in any of these 2006 reports that caused any of the subject matter experts on my staff nor by extension me to be alerted to either the fact of torture or a very high risk of torture. Nothing," Gauthier said.

He said during his time in Afghanistan, no one, at any time, raised allegations concerning torture in Afghan jails.

Fraser also said he was never told about the alleged torture of prisoners: "If I had, I would have done something about it," he said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised the committee will get "all legally-available" documents, but Colvin's lawyer said the Justice Department has clamped down on his client and won't allow him to make public his reports.

With files from The Canadian Press