Ignatieff wants Harper to extend Michaelle Jean's term as Governor General

I have mixed feelings about Michaelle Jean. Some of her work has been exemplary but in other respects it has not. She gave in to Harper and prorogued parliament but she also proudly presented a medal to General Natynczyk for service in Iraq an operation that Canada was not even supposed to be involved in. From wikipedia.

Natynczyk attended the U.S. Army War College, and was subsequently appointed Deputy Commanding General, III Corps andFort Hood. In January 2004, he deployed with III Corps to Baghdad, Iraq, serving first as the Deputy Director of Strategy, Policy and Plans, and subsequently as the Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps (Iraq) during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Natynczyk led the Corps' 35,000 soldiers, consisting of 10 separate brigades, stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations.^[2][4] He was later awarded the Meritorious Service Cross specifically for his combat efforts in Operation Iraqi FreedomJanuary 2004 to January 2005.^[5]

Perhaps as a great admirer of the US and former supporter of the Iraq war Ignatieff admired this action of Michaelle Jean.

As the article points out it is unusual for politicians to plump for a particular person for this post but then Ignatieff probably knows little about Canadian tradition in any event. One tradition he will probably learn about soon and that is that unsuccessful leaders get unceremoniously dumped by their parties.

'Bravo, Michaelle Jean': Ignatieff's GG endorsement raises eyebrows
By: Stephen Thorne, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is urging the prime minister to extend Michaelle Jean's term as Governor General when her five-year appointment expires in September.
In an unusual break with the non-partisan tradition of all things GG, Igantieff issued a news release Sunday saying the Queen's Canadian secretary consulted him on a successor at Stephen Harper's request.
Jean has served her country with "distinction and honour" and deserves Canada's thanks, Ignatieff said.
"We just think somebody ought to get up and say: 'Bravo, Michaelle Jean; you've done a great job for Canada and in our view it would be great if you continue,"' Ignatieff told reporters after a Sunday speech.
Within hours on Sunday, the topic of Ignatieff's comments was becoming political fodder - just the sort of thing critics of his public declaration warned would happen.
The Prime Minister's Office issued an official statement saying Jean has done "an exceptional job representing Canada" and that she and Harper "have an excellent working relationship."
The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada, effectively - albeit largely ceremonially - the head of state.
Appointed by the prime minister - formally by the Queen - her roles include the power to name a new government, a particularly sensitive issue in the current minority Parliament.
"One of the governor general's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament," says the GG's website.
"In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion."
Her powers were put to the test in December 2008 when she tossed Harper a lifeline and granted his request to prorogue Parliament while his Conservative minority was about to be toppled by an opposition coalition.
"The governor general is non-partisan and non-political," says the website.
Robert Finch, dominion chair of the Monarchist League of Canada, said Ignatieff's "peculiar" public endorsement risks politicizing the appointment process and compromising the GG's independence.
"I'm a little bit blown away," Finch said in an interview. "It's certainly unusual for a leader of an Opposition - or anybody, actually - to go public with their suggestions as to who should be governor general.
"It kind of opens the realm to politics and you don't want politics entering into the nomination process of the governor general."
Finch suggested such a move can start a slippery slope, whereby political parties ultimately line up behind one candidate or another.
Jean was appointed by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin in 2005. The subject of her replacement has been widely discussed since Harper recently confirmed her term would not be extended.
Several names have been floated as potential successors, including disabled-rights campaigner Rick Hansen; former defence chief John de Chastelain; Inuit leader Mary Simon and Reform party founder Preston Manning.
A Facebook page has even sprung up where tens of thousands are advocating Montreal-born actor William Shatner - Star Trek's Captain Kirk - for the job.
"It's time for Canada to boldly go where no country has gone before," it says.
The traditional five-year terms of Canadian governors general have been extended on several occasions - by as much as two years. Among those who've been kept on were Roland Michener, Jeanne Sauve and Jean's predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson.
Said Ignatieff's release: "Ms. Jean has done a superb job. I am calling on Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision to replace her."
He said Canadians were "deeply moved by her strong and passionate performance" after the devastating earthquake in her Haitian homeland, which reportedly killed more than 200,000 people.
Her role in bringing attention to Haiti and its people's plight has been "significant, profound and needs to be sustained," Ignatieff said.
Jean has also been a powerful advocate for aboriginal and Arctic peoples, and a proud commander-in-chief who has stood alongside Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he added.
"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can't imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," said Ignatieff.
Finch said he can't imagine what Ignatieff's thinking.
"It risks (undermining) the whole non-partisan nature of the Crown," he said.

Cracks in Opposition approach to Afghan detainee issue.

The difference hinges on whether Frank Iacobucci should be used to help resolve the problem. Iacobucci has already been hired by the Conservatives to advise them on what could be released uncensored. Why Ignatieff would also accept him is a bit hard to comprehend since Iacobucci in accepting the Conservative job which in effect implies that his vetting the documents is appropriate compared to MP's doing so. Neither the NDP nor the Bloc Quebecois go along with relying on Iacobucci. Perhaps next week the parties will come to a resolution. It is quite doubtful that Ignatieff would ever contemplate anything that could result in an election!

Cracks appear in opposition's approach to Afghan detainee issue
By Steven Chase
Globe and Mail
Parties divided on whether they should call on retired judge to resolve the problem of accessing uncensored documents

As the search continues for a parliamentary compromise on Afghan detainee records, the real question appears to be whether opposition parties can remain united.

There were glimmers of progress Thursday in high-stakes negotiations between the Harper government and the opposition majority over how to grant MPs access to uncensored versions of detainee documents without breaching national security.

Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats emerged lauding what they called a willingness to work on a solution after this week's historic ruling by Speaker Peter Milliken reaffirmed Parliament as the supreme authority in the land with a virtually unfettered right to demand documents. Talks continue next week.

But opposition parties are divided on whether they should call on retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to resolve the problem. He's already been hired to advise the Conservative government privately on whether any of the information blacked out by censors can be made public.

A big problem, should MPs tackle the documents directly, is how all four parties bridge inevitable disagreements about whether particular portions of redacted records can be released.

Legal scholars say it would help legitimize the process if an independent party with no political stake in the outcome was brought in to help scrutinize records.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said this week he would consider relying on Mr. Iacobucci if the former judge's mandate could be changed to make him report to Parliament instead of the Tories. Some Liberals are leery of committing senior MPs to reading mountains of documents - a process that because of the need to swear an oath of secrecy would neuter their ability to speak publicly on the treatment of detainees after Canadian soldiers hand them over to Afghan officials.

Thursday, however, the NDP and Bloc Québécois flatly dismissed the notion of turning to Mr. Iacobucci.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said the former justice is effectively tainted because he consented to being part of a process the Harper government previously argued was superior to letting MPs scrutinize uncensored documents.

"He accepted to be hired by the government knowing perfectly that was a question here in the House saying that the members have the right to know," Mr. Duceppe said.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said his party wants MPs to serve as the filter for what should be released or withheld.

"We want Parliamentary oversight, not a proxy."

Opposition parties, who comprise a majority in the Commons, passed a rare "order-to-produce" motion in Parliament for the documents last December, but the minority Conservatives responded by releasing heavily censored versions of records.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois pressed the matter because they want more details on detainee handovers in the face of allegations that prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers were transferred to torture at Afghan hands - and because they want to ensure censors are not hiding records of misdeeds.

In a widely accepted verdict, Speaker Milliken ruled this week that the government does not have a unilateral right to censor documents and gave the Commons two weeks to work out a compromise that would allow MPs to see unredacted copies.

If a solution cannot be found, the government could be voted in contempt by the opposition majority - a situation that would be all but certain to trigger a snap election and undermine the reputation of Canada's Parliamentary system.

The NDP appears to favour a two-stage process where a select group of Parliamentarians screen the tens of thousands of pages of documents, deciding what censored passages can be released. Under this scenario any new freshly released information would be funneled to the Special Commons committee on Afghanistan.

Ignatieff changes tune on health user fees.

The great Harvard human rights prof. thinks its OK to force a dress code on Muslim women for them to get provincial services and then he also applauds a move by Quebec Premier Jean Charest to impose a 25 dollar medical visit charge which would presumably violate the Canada Health Act that prohibits user fees. Perhaps he read the Act or perhaps his party read him the riot act. In any case he repented but did not apologize of course. Maybe the Liberals should bring Dion back or at least send Iggy to join Dion. This is from MacLeans.ca

Ignatieff thinks again on health user fees
Facing Liberal revolt, he now opposes Quebec’s proposal

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been quick lately to show he’s on-side with moves by Quebec’s provincial Liberal government. When Premier Jean Charest moved to force fully veiled Muslim women to remove their niqabs to get some provincial services, Ignatieff quickly voiced his approval. Similarly, he was fast to say he thought a Quebec plan to study imposing a $25 per medical visit charge, to be implemented through the income tax system, didn’t violate the Canada Health Act. But after a grassroots revolt in his party, Ignatieff now says, wait a minute, the Quebec idea would break the federal law against user fees.

McKay wants to extend the Afghan Mission

No doubt at the urging of his US imperialist comrades the junior partner will take on an extended but non-combat role to make up for the demise of our combat role. At the very least any extension should be debated in parliament. But then the defender of U.S. humanistic imperialism Michael Ignatieff will no doubt support the Conservatives in extending the mission because after all it is not a combat role. As no doubt military experts will point out they could still be involved in combat because they need to defend themselves! This is from CBC.

Afghan deployment past 2011 possible: MacKay

CBC News
Defence Minister Peter MacKay leaves the Canadian HQ in Kandahar on Saturday with Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard. MacKay said keeping Canadian police mentors in Afghanistan to train police officers is an option Ottawa is mulling for when the combat mission ends in 2011. (Murray Brewster/Canadian Press)
Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Saturday repeated the government's official line that the country's soldiers would be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan next year, but he also suggested some Canadians might stay.

Canada is willing to continue mentoring Afghan police after the troop disengagement begins in summer 2011, MacKay said as he wrapped up a three-day trip to the Central Asian country.

Canada currently has 48 civilian police — RCMP and municipal officers — and 40 military police mentoring Afghan police officers in Kandahar. On Thursday, MacKay announced 90 more troops would be sent to help train local police and the national army, but at the time he said those new trainers would be brought home in 2011.

"After 2011, the military mission will end," MacKay said Saturday. "What we will do beyond that point in the area of training will predominantly be in the area of policing."

Keeping up the police-training role might alleviate pressure from the United States, which has pressed Ottawa to extend its military commitment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBC last month that "I'm not going to sit here and tell you we're happy" with Canada's plans to bring its forces home next year. But she also said the Afghan mission needs countries willing to commit to non-combat work.

"We do need non-combat forces, for example, for training and logistical work," Clinton said.

MacKay wouldn't unequivocally say Saturday whether troops might remain deployed past the withdrawal deadline to train the Afghan National Army — in addition to whatever civilians or soldiers stay behind to instruct police — but he strongly intimated it was unlikely.

"Let's be clear, it's speculation at this point. We're talking over a year before Canada's military mission will end," the defence minister said.

A parliamentary motion passed March 13, 2008, calls for Canada to "end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011" and for all forces to have left by the following December. Prime Minister Stephen Harper subsequently said that the vast majority of troops would be out of Afghanistan, and not just Kandahar, by the deadline.

About 2,830 Canadian troops are deployed in Afghanistan, mostly in the southern province of Kandahar, as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force. Since 2002, when the mission began, 141 Canadian soldiers have been killed. Four Canadian civilians have also been killed.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/10/mackay-afghanistan-training.html#ixzz0kq5GJtL5

Walkom: What would Iggy do on Afghanistan?

A good question. On questions such as these the great humanitarian imperialist is probably more reactionary than the conservative Harper. Harper seems to worry about political fallout and losing support if he does not pull out. He has been firm on finishing the combat mission in 2011. Of course he will no doubt try to mount some other mission to keep Canadian taxpayers busy funding corruption and warlords in Afghanistan. Iggy wants a debate but he supported the Conservative motion to extend the war. He and some other Liberals saved the day for Harper. Iggy should be dumped unceremoniously, the sooner the better. He can join Dion and the Green Shift. This is from the Star.

What would Iggy do on Afghanistan?



By Thomas Walkom
National Affairs Columnist
The opposition Liberals want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify what he plans for Afghanistan. But he is clear. He says he’s bringing Canada’s troops home.

The real puzzle is: What would the Liberals do?

This is not an academic question. By the time Canada’s scheduled troop withdrawal begins next July, we may well have had another election. Should Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals win, it will be up to them to decide how to proceed.

Yet, what exactly do the Liberals have planned for Afghanistan after 2011? We don’t know.

We do know, however, what Harper says he’ll do.

“Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011,” he told the Commons Tuesday. “We will continue ... with a mission on governance, on development and on humanitarian assistance.”

Or, as Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon put it: “After 2011, we’re out.”

Note that the Prime Minister has gone well beyond the resolution passed by the Commons in 2008. That specified only that Canadian troops would be removed from Afghanistan’s Kandahar province by the end of 2011 — which left open the possibility that they might be deployed elsewhere in the country.

The Prime Minister now says the entire Afghan military mission will be terminated.

If he’s sincere, that means Canadian troops won’t be staying on as trainers or advisors — which, to a large extent, is what they are doing now. Nor will they provide security for reconstruction.

It is possible that Harper isn’t sincere. Politicians can be economical with the truth.

Still, the Prime Minister — once an ardent cheerleader for the war — has been remarkably consistent over the past year.

He has said he believes the war is unwinnable. He has said that after 10 years of fighting, Canada will have done its bit. He has said he is firmly committed to the 2011 timetable.

He has said all of this at home and on American television. Earlier this week, he reportedly said it straight to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after she publicly pressed Ottawa to change its mind.

As Defence Minister Peter MacKay has signalled, the Conservative government has not ruled out helping America fight its wars somewhere else in the world.

Indeed, it remains committed to building a strong Canadian military that can do just that.

But — unless Harper is lying — he’s finished militarily with Afghanistan. He has read the polls and knows that most Canadians want the troops to come home.

He’ll send aid workers and governance experts to Afghanistan. But another country will have to provide the soldiers that protect them.

The Liberals on the other hand, remain vague. It was their government that initiated the troop commitment to Afghanistan. But since Canadian casualties began to mount in 2006, they’ve been deeply divided over the war.

In an embarrassing Commons vote that year, the Liberal caucus itself split on whether to support Harper’s move to extend the Afghan mission. The Conservative motion passed only because it was supported by Ignatieff and 23 other Liberal MPs

Another Commons motion two years later managed to paper over the divisions within the Liberal party.

In that vote, and over the objections of the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and Conservatives joined forces to extend the mission yet again — with the proviso that all Canadian troops be pulled from Kandahar by the end of 2011.

So what do the Liberals think now?

Like Harper, Ignatieff is by instinct a hawk. As an academic, he approved of America’s 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, calling it a form of justified imperialism.

As a candidate for the Liberal leadership in 2006, he supported Canadian involvement in the war, noting that: “We should be willing to do things that are tough and difficult once in a while.”

A vigorous supporter of the idea that Canada needs to regain its place in the world, he has argued — like Harper — that this country must be willing to take part in not just peacekeeping but full-scale foreign wars.

“Canadians want a foreign policy that involves projection of moral influence,” he told the National Post in 2002. “But without combat-capable, lethal-power projection, we are just beating our gums.”

In this Ignatieff represents a strain of liberal hawkishness that says the country must be willing to wage war if it hopes to be taken seriously by big powers like the U.S.

It’s a point of view found particularly among foreign policy elites who know they’ll never have to do the fighting.

And it crosses party lines. This week, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, another liberal hawk, called the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan an “avoidance of international responsibility.” Expect more such talk from those unnerved by Washington’s decision to signal its displeasure.

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae argues that Clinton’s undiplomatic remarks are evidence that Harper has not been clear enough about his post-2011 plans in Afghanistan.

The reality is quite the reverse. We know what the Conservatives say they’d do. We have virtually no idea what the Liberals intend.

Military mission in Afghanistan will be over in 2011 but will troops remain?

Cannon's answer is clear and at the same time unclear about whether troops will remain in Afghanistan. The U.S. probably will request more troops and I would not be surprised if Ignatieff might support this if they are involved in other than combat roles. Right now he is just trying to embarrass the Conservatives a bit and put them on the spot. However, he is eliciting nothing but a weasel word response as might be expected. This is from the Globe and Mail.

Afghan withdrawal date puts
Lawrence Cannon in hot seat
Jane Taber

Michael Ignatieff is demanding a vote in Parliament on any extension to the military mission in Afghanistan, accusing the government of conducting foreign policy in secret.
The Liberal Leader was reacting to a report in The Globe and Mail today that the U.S. government will request Canada keep as many as 500 to 600 troops in Afghanistan after the military mission ends in 2011. According to the story, sources inside and outside government say the formal request is expected to come toward the end of the year through NATO.
“Will someone in this government tell us what in heaven’s name is going on?” Mr. Ignatieff demanded in Question Period. “The government didn’t bring this before the Canadian people. This is no way to run the foreign policy of a serious government.
“Will the government commit to putting any deployment in Afghanistan past 2011 to a vote in Parliament?”
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon dismissed the report, saying no request has been received. “Let me reassure the Opposition Leader that our military mission will end in 2011 as we’ve indicated in the Speech from the Throne,” Mr. Cannon said.
The Conservative government has repeatedly said the military mission will end in July 2011.
Earlier today, Stephen Harper, who was in London, Ont. to make a job announcement, called talk of this request entirely speculative. “We’ve received no such request. The Canadian Forces continue to plan for Canada's end to the military mission in 2011,” the Prime Minister said.
But the opposition is having trouble with that.
The NDP is suspicious the government is wording its answers in such a way as to leave the door open for troops to remain in Afghanistan. “Yes or no, all troops gone from Afghanistan in 2011? Yes or No?” demanded NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair after accusing Mr. Cannon of answering one way in French and another in English.
“Two very different answers,” Mr. Mulcair said. “One refers to the military mission, the other is a very general statement that we are gone.”
Replied Mr. Cannon: “The military mission will end in 2011.”

Ignatieff the Great Liberal Thinker...

Ignatieff may be thinking while Liberal political fortunes burn up. So far he has not been able to catch up with Harper in the polls so he and his party will be left trying to explain to everyone that Canadians do not want an election now. Now will be however long it takes for Liberal fortunes to improve considerably. This is from the GlobeandMail.

Michael Ignatieff puts his thinking cap on
with 'practical Canadians'
Jane Taber

MONTREAL – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told participants at his thinkers conference this morning that it felt good to get out of the Ottawa bubble and put partisan politics aside.
As he said that some of the most partisan Liberals in the country were staring right back at him – former prime ministers Jean Chrétien, John Turner and Paul Martin; former Liberal leaders Bill Graham and Stéphane Dion; former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna; a whole host of Liberal MPs and some former party strategists thrown in for good measure. They are here for part or all of the three-day conference.
Billed as a non-partisan exercise aimed at fostering discussion and new ideas in anticipation of Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, the crowd of about 250 looked anything but.
Mr. Chrétien spoke to reporters about what the party has to do to succeed: “Liberals have to do their best,” he offered.
Calling the conference “an accomplishment” in itself, Mr. Martin said: “For Liberals to hear what experts in a wide range of areas have to say is going to contribute to developing a Liberal vision.”
Interspersed among the Liberals were some businesspeople, leading academics, former senior bureaucrats and other experts in their fields, including former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge. He is to lead the discussion tomorrow on Canada’s financial future – perhaps he'll also talk about taxes and the economy, a subject the Liberals in Ottawa seem averse to broach.
“I look at you and you are being described as a bunch of thinkers and intellectuals,” Mr. Ignatieff told the participants. “But you are much more than intellectuals and thinkers, … you are also doers.”
He characterized the people attending the conference as “practical Canadians” who are visionary but also know how to get things done. “This weekend we can broaden our horizons,” he said. “We can put partisan politics aside and heaven knows we can get out of the bubble of Ottawa and that feels good.”
Mr. Ignatieff and his Liberal team did not have a good week in Ottawa; they botched their own motion on maternal health, losing a vote in the House because some of their own MPs opposed it. The national opinion polls have also not been kind to the Grits of late.
But never mind. The Liberal Leader said this weekend is about “reflection, debate and provocation.”
Quoting the late Lester Pearson, who held a similar conference in Kingston in 1960, Mr. Ignatieff said that “if you can’t lead you can’t listen.”
And that’s what he is here to do this weekend – except when he’s talking.
Mr. Ignatieff apologized for speaking far too long in his opening remarks and noted he has a press conference to attend at midday. Then he will be finished talking and will move into listening mode.
(Photo: Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

James Travers: Liberal Fest Will be Lost Weekend

Maybe the Liberals need a grassroots tea party goading them. Ignatieff needs some sort of hearing aid so that he can listen to the base rather than go off on a weekend thinker's conference that as Travers claims is full of experts trying to figure out what would be the best way to create some new props to attract votes. The parties are to raise funds and do all the grunt work on campaigns. A few hacks may get some payback but mostly the grass roots are meant to stay underground and just feed the tops. This has nothing to do with a green shift by the way! This is from the Star.

Travers: Liberal fest will be lost weekend


By James Travers
National Affairs Columnist
Drape the long-suffering political party in mourning. Another nail is being driven into the coffin of grassroots democracy by a weekend Liberal conference dominated by professionals, not the eager amateurs whose energy and ideas once propelled parties forward.

For the second time in a little over a year, Liberals are about to sacrifice accountability to expediency and a show. Last winter the party elite scuttled a leadership campaign to crown Michael Ignatieff with scant regard for his values, campaign readiness or rank-and-file opinion. Now those same insiders are posing him, like Auguste Rodin's celebrated sculpture, as thinking hard about where to take party and country.

To keep it sound-bite simple and silence dissent, the caucus is being advised to stay away. Counterintuitive and embarrassing, that's only one superficial symptom of a deeper, wider malaise.

Beyond raising cash and providing campaign workers, political parties don't matter much any more. They have little control over the leaders they choose and even less influence over defining policies or election platforms.

As Conservatives learned to their surprise just weeks after the 2008 federal election, card-carrying loyalists are merely one among multiple groups of "stakeholders." No matter how profoundly felt or long held, the ideology that attracted them to the Reform party and now binds them in the Conservative coalition carries about the same weight with the leader and now Prime Minister as nagging advice.

That evolving reality is on a sliding scale. On one end is an NDP that talks often and earnestly about divisive issues and expects its leaders to be sensitive when adjusting convention resolutions to changing circumstances. On the other are Liberals who became the Western world's most successful political organization largely by resisting the temptation to let principle get in the way of the pragmatic pursuit of power.

It's that pragmatism that took Liberals to nearby Aylmer in 1991 to distance themselves from John Turner's lost battle against free trade. It's that pragmatism that's taking them back to Montreal, where they hope to regain past glories by persuading voters that Ignatieff – impressions of uncertainty notwithstanding – has a compelling plan.

Far from the worst of recent ideas, the weekend conference accepts that more than a decade in office made Liberals dependent on bureaucrats for ideas. Loose and begging top-down manipulation, that process also recognizes the urgent need to put something fresh in the window for the coming election.

But there's a crucial distinction between safely parading experts across a stage and the risky process of asking Liberals to decide what's now important about being Liberals. That difference separates being in the crowd from being a player and, among other things, helps explain why less than 5 per cent of Canadians now bother to join political parties.

It's true, as Conservatives were reminded by Stephen Harper's cameo appearance when they last gathered on a blustery Winnipeg weekend, meeting the party in public sometimes leads to awkward moments we-the-media gratefully exploit. Questions better left unanswered are asked by those ignorant to the fluid twist and turns demanded of leaders determined to win and hold power.

Still, democracy is messy and fragile. Its component parts are connected by the chain of accountability that stretches to the snapping point when elites take their parties for granted.

That, too, is something Liberals should think about this weekend.

Tories: Ignatieff has prorogued himself

The more I see of Michael Ignatieff the less likely it seems that he will ever lead a majority Liberal government. Perhaps the Liberals would have been better off to stay with Dion. At least he had a program and tried to stick to it. Ignatieff just seems to be going nowhere. The Conservatives may be hurt for a while by the Afghan detainee issue but this is hardly an issue that is going to cause Harper any long term pain. Meanwhile Harper is trying out You Tube where he can control the action. One commentator suggests it is like scoring a goal into an empty net. Well surely a goal is a goal. If You Tube is an easy way to score Harper might as well use it. Anyway the reaction certainly is not all positive. The National Post has an article on the You Tube production. The material below is from the Globe and Mail.

Tories pounce as 'Ignatieff prorogues himself'
Jane Taber

1. Easy target. After withstanding the slings and arrows of the opposition over their decision to prorogue Parliament, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are turning the tables on Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals.
“After Eight Days, Ignatieff Prorogues Himself…,” is the headline of an internal memo sent by Tory party officials in which they note the Liberal Leader was a no-show in the House of Commons Monday.
“Ignatieff is nowhere to be found,” says the cheeky memo, which is sent to Conservative officials, MPs and supporters.
Bolstering their case is that Mr. Ignatieff missed his caucus’s opposition day – a designated day on which the Liberals are allowed to debate a subject of their own choice.
Yesterday, they opted to tackle the wastefulness of taxpayer-funded mailings, called ten per centers. They argued these mass-mailing flyers are overly partisan and wasteful; they want them cut.
“Well, well, well,” the Tory memo says. “Look who’s not bothering to show up in Parliament for work today after only eight days of parliamentary sittings. That’s right – it’s Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.”

Ignatieff: Budget full of gimmicks.

I hesitate to describe what Ignatieff is full of. Perhaps of his self importance. But he also has gimmicks. For example, he goes on and on about how bad this budget is and then he uses the gimmick that Canadians do not want an election to excuse the fact he is obviously too chicken to go to an election when his polls are not that good. This is a replay of Dion without the Green Shift just the Sardonic Grin. Ignatieff's rhetoric is just for show since the Liberals will end up making sure that the budget passes. You might even say all his criticisms of the budget are just a gimmick to make it look as if he is actually doing something or has some power.

Budget full of gimmicks: Ignatieff

CBC News
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff blasted the federal budget for being a document full of "gimmicks" that ignores important issues, but reaffirmed he won't bring the government down over it.

"The throne speech and the budget let Canadians down. They expected vision and got gimmicks. They deserved ambition and got drift," Ignatieff told the House of Commons, a day after the release of the budget.

P.O.V.:

Budget 2010: How does this budget affect your family?

"This is a tired government, falling back on its laissez-faire instincts, leaving Canadians to fend for themselves."

Ignatieff accused the Tories of ignoring the pension crisis, doing nothing for child care and freezing foreign aid at a time when the mission in Afghanistan is shifting from military to humanitarian engagement.

"The Conservatives are ignoring the major issues that matter to Canada. Pensions? Nothing. Health care? Nothing. Climate change? Nothing. Culture? Nothing."

Instead of measures to create jobs, the budget has only "freezes, cuts and gimmicks," Ignatieff said.

'Canadians don't want an election'

He slammed the government over the $56-billion budget deficit, saying they cannot be trusted to get it under control.

"They inherited a $13-billion surplus. They spent at record levels in 2006-2007. They were on the edge of deficit before the recession started."

The government said it will freeze departmental spending, it won't say which programs they will cut, what services Canadians will lose and where the Conservatives will find the necessary savings.

"This isn't a plan. It’s very large empty promise."

Despite his list of grievances, Ignatieff repeated what he said on Thursday, that his party will not trigger an election over the budget.

"We will vote against the budget motion now before us — but we, unlike other parties in this House, will do so responsibly. We will not cause an election. Canadians don't want an election."

On Thursday, Ignatieff explained that they will not vote in sufficient numbers to defeat the government.

Post a comment
300Comments have been posted
Recommend t


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/budget-reaction.html#ixzz0hKdRDV0c

Ignatieff: NO election over budget.

Why Ignatieff announces his intentions in advance is puzzling. There will be no drama to the debate now. Harper can rest easy while the BQ and the NDP can now take firm opposing conditions and vote against the budget. Ignatieff is no improvement on Dion. In fact Dion at least had a clear policy on the environment that he tried to advance. Even though it failed at least Dion showed some imagination and principled policies. Ignatieff seems to be floundering around waiting for Harper to self destruct while he props him up just as Dion did.

No election over budget: Ignatieff

CBC News
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff responds to the budget on Parliament Hill on Thursday. (Blair Gable/Reuters)
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says his party will not trigger an election over the federal budget brought down Thursday.

While the Liberals oppose elements of the budget, Ignatieff said Canadians are in no mood to head to the polls. He said Liberals will vote against the budget but not in sufficient numbers to defeat the government.

"The key thing is that Canadians are saying to me and have been saying for a long time — and I get told things once, I don’t need to get told twice — give us an alternative."

Ignatieff said the budget includes nothing about green technologies, the demographic crisis facing pensions or youth unemployment. He said the Liberals are busy coming up with alternatives on these issues.

"When that alternative is ready, when Canadians can see a clear choice between cuts and freezes and gimmicks and an alternative that gets this economy going and really meets the challenge of growth, then, maybe, we’ll have an election.

"But remember where we are. We’ve had three or four elections in the last few years, and I got told clearly by Canadians last autumn, 'Don’t do that again.'"

In this year's budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pledged to continue the stimulus measures rolled out in the last year while vowing to return to balanced books as soon as possible. The government said it will tackle the $54-billion deficit by spending less than previously projected on defence and foreign aid, closing tax loopholes, streamlining government departments and freezing budgets. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton have said they will not support the budget.
Layton said there is not enough in the document for job creation.

"It's a budget that actually leaves the unemployed and seniors and the other victims of this recession behind," Layton said.

Layton said instead of focusing on the unemployed, the Tories are giving billions of dollars to big banks. He also accused the government of making major cuts to the environment and housing.

"I think that there’s some seriously misguided choices in this budget and it’s not one that we’re going to be able to support."

Duceppe said he doubted the government will be able to balance the budget over the coming years, and that they should be taxing high income earners to help get out of the red.

"Having a tax on those making more money to have them helping more than those that can't help, that would be a reasonable measure," Duceppe said. "The same thing that to cut those fiscal advantages to the oil companies, three billion dollars a year. So this is just unacceptable."

Duceppe also slammed the government on the environment, saying they should stop giving fiscal advantages to the oil companies.

But Flaherty defended the budget saying the government needs to impose fiscal restraint to tackle the deficit.

"This is the smallest new-spending budget in over 10 years in Canada. I like it. It's what we needed to do," Flaherty told CBC News. "We have to make sure that we bring our country back to fiscal balance over the medium term otherwise we would have a structural deficit and I don't want to have one."

He denied NDP and Bloc accusations that the budget favoured corporations, saying that the government has closed some tax loopholes.

"There are going to be some unhappy people in some of those executive suites when they analyze this," he said.

Flaherty said the government has spent a lot of money on Employment Insurance and that the economic action plan has created 135,00 jobs so far, with 220,000 jobs in total created by the end of the next fiscal year.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/04/budget-political-reaction.html#ixzz0hGLDQaft

McParland: Ignatieff heads down same path as Dion.

A sense a strong anti-Liberal bias in this article but nevertheless McParland has a point. So far Ignatieff has not had much to say about what his policies will be. At least his statements about child care are a beginning. Perhaps McParland reads too much into what Ignatieff says. Ignatieff may not make the issue into his main focus as Dion did with the Green Shift. What Ignatieff fails to do is to put any price tag on his policies and in a time of increasing deficits this will surely be important to voters. This is from the National Post.


Kelly McParland: Ignatieff heads down same path as Dion


Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff pledged that he would spend the days before Parliament resumes announcing Liberal policies and making clear where the party stands on the issues of the day.

It's never too late to tell voters what you believe in, even if Mr. Ignatieff has waited a curiously long time since taking over the leadership a year ago. Even with his activities this week he's still being economical on detail: His latest proposals have been vague at best, perhaps because the party is planning a brainstorming session in Montreal next month and doesn't want to spoil the show.

Nonetheless, on Monday Mr. Ignatieff declared that a national childcare system would be the No. 1 social item on the agenda of a Liberal government, even if he doesn't know how he'll pay for it.

"We will find the money, because it seems to me an excellent investment," Ignatieff pledged. "I am not going to allow the deficit discussion to shut down discussion in this country about social justice."

It's difficult to argue against daycare, since few people feel that absence of care is desireable. The devil is in the detail, and of course we're not getting much of that from the Liberals. Mr. Ignatieff doesn't do much to alleviate that problem by offering statements he may feel are self-evident in their worth, but which hint at a worryingly shallow set of presumptions.

"It's also the best anti-poverty program. I want every single child in Canada to have the opportunity to get a square meal when they come to daycare; to get loving care and tender care," Mr. Ignatieff said. "A lot of children in our country, we don't like to admit it, start in very turbulent difficult environment at home. The great thing about these programs is they give kids an equal start."

Well. So what's that tell us? That to ensure every child in Canada has an opportunity at a loving and tender environment, we should get them away from their parents at the earliest opportunity and enrol them in a state-backed institution? Forgive me if I have trouble with that notion. There is no question that too many Canadian children suffer difficult home lives; but you don't solve that by imposing a sweeping national program that gets children away from their parents at the earliest opportunity, loving or othwerwise.


Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff isn't talking about all children. Perhaps he's just talking about underprivileged children, or those from troubled homes. It's impossible to tell from his limited signals. If so, just what criteria will be used to weed out the children from bad homes, but not good homes? Will it be based on income, or parental performance? How will you induce wealthy, unsatisfactory parents to send their children to government daycare?


Trying to solve problems like that -- to fine-tune a large, national program so it helps the people you want without turning into an expensive subsidy for many more who don't -- is the problem with the kind of big splashy schemes the Liberals embrace. Mr. Ignatieff appears to be headed down the same wrong-way street travelled by his predecessor, Stephane Dion. Rather than deal with the issues Canadians say are at the top of their agenda, Liberal leaders prefer to identify a national ill and pledge their unshakeable determination to eradicate it.

For Mr. Dion it was the environment. Nothing in Mr. Dion's universe was a greater priority than the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and he devised an aggressive plan to deal with it. The Green Shift involved wholesale changes to tax laws and the rearrangement of national financial flows, with extensive potential disruption to the daily lives of ordinary Canadians. Mr. Dion was fine with that, because he figured voters shared his sense of the crisis we were facing.

Unfortunately for his party, he was wrong on that. Canadians cared more about the usual issues -- health, the economy, security. So Mr. Dion lost his job and was replaced by Mr. Ignatieff, who has decided that daycare, not gas emissions, is the crisis du jour, and must be "solved" at any cost.

Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff should pause to reflect. Most Canadian children come from caring homes run by loving parents. They don't need crisis intervention sponsored by the Liberal party. The Liberals have been down this path before, several times, having apparently convinced themselves Canadians are clamouring to have the burden of raising children off their hands. The failure of voters to take them up on the offer should have provided all the evidence necessary that most Canadians don't share their bias in favour of institutional care, nor do they need their priorities defined for them.

Mr. Ignatieff has insisted on his determination to listen to Canadians. So far he appears only to have picked up the same old Liberal preoccupation with intrusive government.

National Post




Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/03/km-liberals-and-daycare.aspx#ixzz0eUTexS17
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Ignatieff pledges to give Federal watchdogs more bite

Some of these proposals have a telltale odor of opportunism about them. Ignatieff is taking advantage of the fact that Harper has tried to get rid of watchdogs or clip their wings so to speak. Ignatieff refuses to go into details but is trying to make hay while the gloom shines on Harper! Polls seem to suggest that perhaps Ignatieff's policy of saying little positive but launching a few jobs when he can may be working as Harper continues to punch himself.


Ignatieff pledges to give federal watchdogs more bite


Daniel Leblanc and Colin Freeze

Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail



.Weakening the office of the prime minister has emerged as a new theme for Michael Ignatieff, with the Liberal Leader promising yesterday to strengthen agencies that oversee the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and other federal bodies.

If his Liberals were to form the government, Mr. Ignatieff said he would gladly deal with headaches stemming from the independent criticism of their actions. The proposal was made one day after he said he wanted to limit the prime minister's ability to prorogue Parliament, in the hope of capitalizing on anger toward Stephen Harper.

"All of these are pre-commitment strategies to limit and control the authority of a prime minister in a democratic system," Mr. Ignatieff said at a news conference.

"I'm saying as clearly as I can, if the public decides that is what they want to do with us, I'm willing to accept those limits."

The Conservatives responded by mocking the Liberal record on governance, pointing to the sponsorship scandal that marred the Chrétien and Martin governments. The Prime Minister's Office said the government appoints only qualified people to watchdog positions, and the jobs are not "lifetime sinecures."

"The Liberal record speaks for itself, and we will not take lessons from them," said PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall.

Mr. Ignatieff was accompanied by two former watchdogs who complained about their treatment under the Conservative government.

Paul Kennedy, former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, criticized his replacement by estate lawyer Ian McPhail, who conceded having little knowledge of police matters and will do the job part time.

Peter Tinsley, the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, called for greater legal independence for some oversight bodies, which could answer directly to Parliament like the Office of the Auditor-General.

"Every one of these agencies is a creature of Parliament and perhaps Parliament should have a way of looking at its creatures," he said.

The Liberals will look at giving more power to some watchdogs, but Mr. Ignatieff didn't want to provide further details. He said that Mr. Harper has abused his powers since coming to office in 2006, and that checks are needed on future prime ministers.

"Our democracy has been eroded in the last four years, and we need to strengthen it," Mr. Ignatieff said. "I think you judge a prime minister by his willingness to accept limits on his own authority, and we think this Prime Minister does not."

Still, Mr. Ignatieff acknowledged he will also have to learn some lessons from previous Liberal governments. Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien had no qualms in 1997 about pulling the plug on the public inquiry into the actions of the Canadian Forces in Somalia, and he has been a critic of the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

At a forum organized by the Liberals, the former chief executive at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said that administrative tribunals are "under attack by the federal government."

Linda Keen recounted how she was fired by the Conservative government in 2008.

"I said at the time this is going to send a chill through federal tribunals," she said in a videotaped message. "Are we in an era where tribunals must be more interested in meeting the needs of the government than in doing their jobs?"

Ignatieff says fixing unemployment should be first priority.

Ignatieff certainly is not showing any leadership and he seems to avoid policy pronouncements like the plague. He seems to fear if he sets forth any policy that somehow the Conservatives will shoot it down. His only strategy seems to be to hope that Harper makes big mistakes and that he will win by default. Ignatieff outlined no policies for reducing unemployment himself. He does not want to scoop himself. What a clown.
Ignatieff may be fortunate that Harper may be alienating people by proroguing parliament. But it seems that Ignatieff is too chicken to challenge Harper again on the budget. Ignatieff will have to sniff the polls but it is unlikely they will be likely to make the Liberals high enough to force an election. We will likely see a return to the Dion days of propping up the Conservatives.

Ignatieff sets sights on students
Fixing unemployment is job No. 1: Liberal chief
By HUBERT BAUCH, The GazetteJanuary 13, 2010

Federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said yesterday his priority when he summons his caucus back to work in Ottawa this month will be to come up with constructive suggestions for the next federal budget to be presented when Parliament resumes sitting in early March.

But he added he will not set any absolute conditions in advance for its passage, an indication the Liberals are reluctant to force a federal election this spring triggered by a defeat of the budget, particularly since they have a major policy conference scheduled for late March.

Ignatieff was in Montreal on the second leg of a cross-country speaking tour, during which he will be angling for the youth vote by speaking primarily to university students. Yesterday, he spoke before audiences of several hundred at both HEC (École des Hautes Études Commerciales), the Université de Montéal's business school, and Concordia University.

In a session with local reporters, he said the budget's most pressing concern should be to bring down current high unemployment caused by last year's recession.

"I think the key file is unemployment. We're in a situation where unemployment is present - at 8.5 per cent - and double that among young people. We think there are all kinds of things a smart government can do to make it easier for employers to take on labour, to take on young people, and it's in that area that we'll have proposals."

For the moment, however, he had nothing specific to propose. Rather, he said he and members of his caucus will meet with experts to work out concrete suggestions.

"I don't want to scoop myself at this point. I want to give us time when we get back to Ottawa on the 25th to work on specifics. It's one of the positive things an opposition party can do, and we'll be doing that."

Ignatieff's speaking tour is being run in conjunction with a new Liberal advertising campaign roasting Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his year-end decision to prorogue Parliament until March - characterizing it as a democratic travesty.

Yesterday, he seized on a comment by Harper in an interview that the poisonous atmosphere in Parliament of late is undermining confidence in the Canadian economy.

"It was the funniest thing I've heard in politics in a long time. The idea that the exercise of democracy causes instability is ridiculous."

He said Harper appears to have a fundamental problem with accepting legitimate constraints on his power as prime minister.

"He'd like the calm quiet of total authority, but that's not how our system works. I accept our institutions and the democratic constraints in our system."

Ignatieff's message to his university audiences is that higher education is the key to Canada's future prosperity in what will have to be a knowledge-based economy staffed by people in school today.

"Our prosperity in years to come will be based on intellectual property, not natural resources," he told his Concordia audience. "The future of our prosperity lies between your ears."

He said the top priority for Canadian governments in coming years must be to give every Canadian a first-class education.

"Until we achieve that, we will not have an equal society, we will not have an efficient society."

Ignatieff also urged his student audiences to overcome the current widespread cynicism and disillusionment with the political process, deploring the fact that in last year's federal election, which saw a record low turnout, only one in five young Canadians eligible to vote for the first time turned up at at the polls.

He said a low turnout favours parties with a narrow, committed base. "Some of my adversaries are only too happy to have you stay home. That way they can get their base out and they get to drive the bus. My response is to give you something to vote for."

hbauch@thegazette.canwest.com

Spector: Harper already looking for a new job?

I think that Spector is a bit premature. Probably Harper would at the least like to retire after achieving a majority government but that may not be soon or may be never! Liberals are already mounting an attack ad campaign and if the polls shift away from Harper the Liberals along with the opposition may decide to bring down the government in the Spring. However so far there does not seem to be any swing towards Ignatieff and without that Harper is safe.
This is from the Globe and Mail.

The beginning of the end for Stephen Harper
Norman Spector

Perhaps Prime Minister Stephen Harper genuinely thinks that Gilles Duceppe will not lead the Bloc into another election — thus opening the door in Québec to his ministrations. Or maybe Mr. Harper truly believes that Canadians will warm to the kinder gentler Prime Minister we’ve been seeing in his increasingly rare appearances in the Commons for Question Period, as well as in recent interviews. There will be no shortage of self-interested aides and lobbyists feeding him these and other dubious reasons to delay an election — reasons that Mr. Harper appears to have bought, judging from his CBC interview with Peter Mansbridge.

I don’t know whether former CBC-man Don Newman would agree, but I still think that Stephen Harper’s position will grow weaker after the HST is introduced in July in Ontario and British Columbia, and as the stimulus program gives way to the need for fiscal restraint in the 2011 budget. In fact, having served a premier and a prime minister on their way out of office, it looks to me as though Mr. Harper already has, as his priority, acquiring an additional year or two of contacts and of credential-burnishing experience before looking for his next job in the private sector.

The Prime Minister and those around him will deny it assiduously, if only to minimize any premature jockeying for position among the not inconsiderable number of Conservatives who see themselves living at 24 Sussex one day. But they (and you) can judge for themselves from an exchange that takes place at the end of this interview of Mr Harper by John Ivison and David Akin of Canwest news:

AKIN: One last question: You mention John Diefenbaker a lot in your speeches I've noticed as I follow you around ...

HARPER: Yeah, in some contexts ..

AKIN: Now, he retired -- actually, he died as an MP.

HARPER: Yeah, he did.

AKIN: Do (you) see yourself in a decade -- you may not be prime minister -- do you see a career for yourself after this? I don't sense you're the board of directors type but I don't know, maybe you are -- an academic? What do you want to do? Where are you in a decade?

HARPER: Well, first of all, I think to be fair, let's give the people of Canada an opportunity to retire me before I have to cast my mind to this . . .

AKIN: Well, let's assume one day they will, it might be 20 years, who knows?

HARPER: I would hope not to die in office. My wife sometimes thinks I may be headed that way but, now that I'm 50, we're trying to live a somewhat better lifestyle . . . But look, I'm not going to speculate. I'm honoured to have the job that I have I plan to do it a while longer but I don't plan to be a lifer in politics. I'm not sure that that's really in anybody's interests. I don't think it's in the country's interests or the party's interests or my own interests but, in my own judgment, I still have a while to serve but ultimately at some point the Canadian people will be asked to make that judgment for me.

(Photo: The Prime Minister gives an interview Tuesday, his first since shutting down Parliament. CBC)

.

Don't Count Ignatieff out yet!

Perhaps this article is correct. Certainly Harper did survive his bout with low poll numbers. However, there does not seem to be any sign of Ignatieff recovering very much. I think that Ignatieff''s best bet is if Harper manages to make himself unpopular. So far any attempt to boost Ignatieff's image does not seem to have worked at all. He does not seem to have put forward much in the way of policy that has engendered much positive interest. The public is often fickle however and perhaps Ignatieff can hope for the New Year. This is from the Winnipeg Free Press.

We can't count Ignatieff out yet
Liberal leader sits low in polls, but so did Harper
By: Hill Talk / Mia Rabson

OTTAWA -- Michael Ignatieff was named by Forbes last week as someone to watch for in 2010.

The magazine said that if an election is held next year, the Liberal leader could become the Canadian prime minister "with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau."

The honour was met by a lot of eye rolls around Parliament Hill.

The Liberals have been in a free-fall for much of the fall, and overall support is only marginally better than it was during the 2008 election. You know, that election in which their support was the worst it has been since 1867.

One recent Angus Reid poll had only one in six Canadians approving of Ignatieff. While that was up slightly from the previous month, it's still only about half the number who approve of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Last December, Ignatieff was touted as the saviour who would lead the Liberals back to victory. This December he spent fighting off rumours of a coup against his leadership and suggestions he will pull the plug himself and run back to Harvard with his tail between his legs.

For the moment, he seems resolved to stick it out. A good thing, as history has shown being down does not mean being out.

Even Stephen Harper could tell him that, if the two ever exchanged more than barbs.

In January 2003, 10 months after Harper was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance, the party's poll numbers had plunged.

An EKOS poll showed 10.5 per cent of Canadians supported the Alliance, compared to 52.1 per cent for the Liberals. It was down from the 25.5 per cent the Alliance received in the 2000 federal election. Even combined with the Progressive Conservatives' 13.8 per cent -- this was before the two parties merged -- the right-wing options in Canada were outstripped more than two to one by the Liberals in popular support. Comparatively, Ignatieff is doing pretty well.

And within 18 months, Harper had merged the two parties, won election as the new leader and turned more than a decade of Liberal majority rule into a minority.

Ignatieff certainly has a steep hill to climb, but as Harper showed, nothing is impossible.

Liberals may demand product recall as Ignatieff cannot be sold to Canadians

It seems that the Liberals are just unable to find a product that they can successfully package and sell to a majority of Canadians. The tired old reliable old Harper who from time to time does a little dance or dons a new sweater seems to outsell the supposed great thinker and human rights prof. Ignatieff. Having recalled Dion since the Green Shift was seen as wildly too expensive for Canadian tastes the Liberals have now set their sights on repackaging the recycled NDP ex provincial premier Bob Rae. Maybe the party might try putting forth some new ideas instead of repackaging their products. This is from the Star.


Back to Liberal MPs plot early retirement for Ignatieff
Liberal MPs plot early retirement for Ignatieff


Angelo Persichilli


Last year at this time, the Liberals were trying to get rid of Stéphane Dion and put themselves in the hands of their saviour, Michael Ignatieff. After 12 months, they believe that Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario now turned Liberal, is the new saviour.

Last year the opportunity to reboot the party's fortunes came after Dion forced the Liberals to embrace the Bloc-supported coalition with the NDP. This year the spark might be Ignatieff's support for the HST. The question many ask is whether Ignatieff's leadership will last until the end of the year.

Since Pierre Trudeau, no Liberal leader has left on his own terms. John Turner was shown the door by the Chrétienites; Jean Chrétien was forced out by Martinites; we know what happened to Dion and now we see Ignatieff is on the same path.

Since last Tuesday's "special" caucus meeting called by the leader to tell MPs to support the controversial HST, doubts about Ignatieff's ability to lead the party are surfacing more frequently. Many MPs openly oppose the HST, and those who backed the party's stand, like Rae, express their support only in private. No one is defending the leader in public, in the caucus or with the media. Basically, Ignatieff is alone and the question of loyalty is becoming a huge obstacle to his leadership.

Contrary to the superficial unity Liberals show in the House, a revolt is brewing underneath.

Trudeau once said that MPs are nobodies 100 yards away from Parliament. Things, it would seem, are changing. In fact, it looks like the real politics are taking place away from the Hill, especially during after-hours meetings in Ottawa restaurants like Mamma Teresa, trendy Hy's or in the dimly lit corners of the Château Laurier. Lately, the topic has been the HST and Ignatieff's leadership. In fact, one of those after-hours meetings took place last Tuesday at the Château.

It all started after a gathering to mark the retirement of Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein from the Hill. Among those present were Ignatieff and Rae.

After they had all feted the popular senator with great words of love and affection, some MPs – invited by Rae for a drink – moved "100 yards away from the Hill" into the Château Laurier. Here the façade of unity vanished, the true face of today's Liberal party materialized and the real work of politics, which no longer takes place on the Hill, was in full swing.

Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was "the only one the party trusts." Carolyn Bennet, also present at the meeting, said that David McGuinty, Justin Trudeau and others are already planning their leadership runs and it was time for Rae to do something.

Then the conversation shifted to some concrete proposals. In particular, they told Rae that many MPs believe he should become "the deputy leader with authority to manage all the files in the House of Commons," basically a kind of CEO. They also said that Ignatieff shouldn't be asking questions in the House but travelling throughout Canada "attending functions."

Some also said that Ralph Goodale should be removed from his House responsibilities because, they said, he brings no added value to the party, no expertise, no financial wherewithal and doesn't deliver seats in his own province.

Rae also was critical of the performance of the leader but said he was not interested in a coup d'état. However, he added that his loyalty is solely to the Liberal party.

Ruby Dhalla said that loyalty is a two-way street and accused the party of not doing enough to nurture the next generation of leaders. During the conversation, it was suggested that a group of MPs should meet with chief of staff Peter Donolo and present some of these proposals as soon as possible.

This was not an isolated meeting between a few MPs – it's the dominant theme of discussion among almost all Liberal MPs uncertain about their future.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ignatieff were to reconsider his political future and go back to his beloved academic world before the end of the year.

Angelo Persichilli is the political editor of Corriere Canadese. His column appears Sunday.

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.

Ingatieff may soon be as unpopular as Dion!

This article seems to blame Ignatieff's decline on the fact that he attempted to force an election. While this may be a factor it is hard to gauge how much. Ignatieff has not brought forth any clear policy ideas nor has he even been very effective in his criticisms. Bland slogans such as: We can do better, are a poor substitute for imaginative policy. The best that can be said is that the Liberals at least are not losing more ground so that Harper will not be tempted to inject a posion pill in some legislation to force an election in the hope of gaining a majority. At least Ignatieff cannot be accused of coming near Dion territory in at least staking out some definite policy such as the Green Shift. In fact Ignatieff is perhaps shy of saying anything significant because the Conservatives might pounce on it. This is from the National Post.





John Ivison: Ignatieff closing in on Dion territory


Andrew Barr, National Post
The good news for Michael Ignatieff in a new Nanos Research poll is that he is still more popular than was his predecessor, Stephane Dion, after he lost the last general election just over a year ago.

The bad news is that another month like the one just passed and the Liberal leader will be in Dion territory -- that is, where only one in 10 Canadians think he would make the best Prime Minister.

The latest poll shows that Mr. Ignatieff's popularity has fallen off a cliff since the summer. When he became leader, he was within touching distance of Stephen Harper, with the percentage of people thinking he would make the best prime minister consistently in the high 20s, compared to Mr. Harper's numbers in the low 30s.

But his attempt to force an election in September was one of the most spectacular miscalculations in recent Canadian political history. The new survey, taken before and after Monday's byelections, suggests twice as many people think Mr. Harper would make the best PM (34.8%) as Mr. Ignatieff (17.7%). Jack Layton, the NDP leader, was considered best PM material by 15% of respondents -- a significant drop-off from his pre-coalition score last year, when he regularly out-polled Mr. Dion.

The regional polls have large margins of error but it is interesting to note that even in Quebec, Mr. Harper is considered a better bet than Mr. Ignatieff.

Nanos also asked which party respondents would support if there were a federal election. The Conservatives received the support of 38%, down one point on last month's poll; the Liberals were at 28.8%, down marginally month on month; the NDP were up slightly at 17.9%; as were the Greens at 5.9%. Again the margin of error is high regionally, but the uptick in NDP support in B.C. evident in the poll (up more than 2 points to 25%) was apparent in the byelection result in New Westminster-Coquitlam last week.

There is great concern in Conservative ranks that any gains in central Canada at the next election could be wiped out if the party lost some of its 22 seats in B.C. to the NDP over the harmonized sales tax issue. For this reason, if no other, one suspects the government will be keen to avoid a general election around the time the HST is introduced in B.C. and in Ontario next summer.

jivison@nationalpost.com

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

Ignatieff past remarks on Royals may haunt him.

The problem with having written quite a bit in the past is that anyone can search through the writings and cherry pick passages that might be embarassing such as those cited here. Personally, I think Ignatieff would be an embarassment even if he had written nothing. The two main parties are both so bad it always amazes me why they get so many votes compared to minor parties. I suppose everyone wants to pick one of the winners even though neither of them represent what the voter wants!

Ignatieff could be haunted by past musings on royals
By RANDY BOSWELL, Canwest News Service

Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, visit Brigus, N.L. yesterday. The town is the historic home of Captain Bob Bartlett, who led Robert Peary's expedition to the North Pole in 1909.
Photograph by: CHRIS JACKSON, GETTY IMAGES VIA REUTERS, Canwest News ServiceWhen Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff meets Prince Charles for talks next week during the future king's visit to Ottawa, the opposition leader may have to do some fast talking to explain the decidedly anti-monarchist views he expressed in 1992 at the time of Charles's separation from Princess Diana.

In the article, published originally in Britain's Observer newspaper and later reprinted in The Gazette in Montreal, Ignatieff - then a leading British-based writer and broadcaster - argued that the future of the monarchy looked "decidedly bleak" and that it was time for the British public to "regretfully but firmly decide enough is enough," and demand a republican-style government.

"We are being told to sympathize with the private grief of the tragic couple," Ignatieff wrote.

"We are being asked to believe that the horrid tabloids are to blame. Buckingham Palace and No. 10 Downing Street smoothly assure us that the couple's private misery need have no constitutional implications.

"Enough of this nonsense. The Royal Family is not doing its job."

Ignatieff's 17-year-old thoughts on the subject of the monarchy arise in the midst of an 11-day, cross-Canada trip by Prince Charles and his second wife, Camilla, the duchess of Cornwall.

The couple's itinerary includes a brief visit with Ignatieff on Nov. 10 during a three-day stop in Ottawa, the last leg of the royal visit.

But the royal visit also coincides with the H1N1 crisis, and Ignatieff spokesman Mike O'Shaughnessy told Canwest News Service that problems with the national vaccination program - not the state of Canada's constitutional monarchy - are the Liberal leader's priority at the moment.

"The leader is focused on the issue of H1N1," the spokes-man stated. "Right now, Canadians are worried about lines for flu shots, not lines of succession. This is not an issue Canadians are focused on."

A prolific writer and distinguished academic before announcing his bid to become a Liberal MP in November 2005, Ignatieff's opinions from his pre-politics career have occasionally sparked controversy - most notably, his statements in support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

But his published views on Prince Charles at a time when the heir apparent's marriage was falling apart in full public view were strikingly blunt.

"Listening to the separation announcement, I found myself wondering exactly why this shambles was so magically preferable to an elected presidency," Ignatieff wrote at the time.

"Dignity, authority and respect - all the qualities peeling away from the monarchy by the hour - are there to behold in the distinguished figure of Richard von Weizsacker, Germany's president. He has even used his office to speak for the German liberal conscience. Could someone tell me why the current speaker of the British House of Commons could not do just as well? At least she has no family we would have to endure."

He railed against the "schizophrenic attitude" of the British news media and public: "One minute, the tabloid hounds are licking the royal hand, the next day they are biting it off" - a phenomenon Ignatieff described as "a rabid kind of porno-populism."

He concluded: "Now is the time for the republican tradition in Britain to find its voice again. Such respect for the monarchy as I have makes me believe they deserve a more honourable opponent than rabid porno-populism."

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette