Election 2009?

[Edward Campbell]

The claims and counter-claims, some with ragged shreds of “truth” still attached, roll out, as in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-deficit-plan-would-hike-ei-premiums/article1285249/

Ottawa's deficit plan would hike EI premiums
Plan belies Tory pledge not to balance budget by raising taxes, economist says

Steven Chase

Ottawa
Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009 04:09AM EDT

The Harper government's plan for whittling down Ottawa's deficit by 2015 includes collecting billions of dollars more in payroll taxes than it pays out in Employment Insurance benefits over a three-year period.

This is stoking fears that overcollection of EI premiums, starting in Ottawa's 2012-13 fiscal year, could hinder employment growth by unduly burdening companies as they are trying to recover and grow.

But the Tories defend the measure as necessary to ensure the EI program breaks even, particularly given a current freeze on premiums that's keeping them artificially low right now.

The Official Opposition Liberals, currently gunning to defeat the Tory government, say it's hard to square EI levy hikes with the Tory pledge to avoid raising taxes as they eliminate the deficit.

Using information released in Thursday's fiscal update, economist Dale Orr calculates that Ottawa will collect $12.9-billion more in EI premiums from employers and workers than it pays out in benefits or administrative costs between 2012-13 and 2014-15.

The Harper government said it's merely trying to ensure that the EI program balances out over time. It wants to recoup shortfalls in EI collections that it expects will have built up over the next few years as a result of the recession – which has sent unemployment skyrocketing.

“We committed to freezing EI premiums as part of the economic action plan to help Canadians weather the recession,” said Chisholm Pothier, spokesman for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

“We are keeping that commitment and rates will remain frozen until 2011.”

Jayson Myers, president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, said he wants to avoid a repeat of efforts to balance the books more than a decade ago when the Liberal government over-collected EI premiums.

“If they're looking at reducing the deficit by increasing the premiums, then you're going to run into exactly the same problem we saw during the mid-1990s … [and] it will slow down the hiring process,” Mr. Myers said.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said Ottawa should be cautious about trying to resolve a shortfall in EI premium collections too quickly. “I agree with the principle that it should be balanced over the cycle, but what's the cycle?”

Mr. Orr said the Finance Minister should have highlighted this plan to over-collect premiums when he released the fiscal update on Thursday, a document that was designed to show the deficit shrinking to what the government assured Canadians will be “manageable” levels by 2015.

“He pledged to return to balanced budgets without a tax increase. Isn't an increase in EI premiums a tax increase?”

Ottawa's current break-even policy for EI may be hard to stomach for some. As internal government estimates have shown, Ottawa collected $51-billion more in EI premiums than it paid out in benefits over 12 years up to 2005-2006.

As Jason Myers points out, over-collecting EI (then UI) premiums was one of the ways the Liberals resolved their deficit problems – but it appears that some commentators feel it is, now, wrong for the Tories to do the same thing, even though Liberal finance critic John McCallum acknowledges that the EI account needs to be balanced over any “cycle.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

And then, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, there’s this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, about a bit of Tory propaganda:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieffs-no-on-coalition-is-really-a-yes-tories-say/article1285395/

Ignatieff's 'no' on coalition is really a 'yes,' Tories say
Parties are releasing campaign-style advertisements as they prepare for next week's resumption of Parliament

CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA
Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009

Michael Ignatieff ruled out forming a coalition government, but the Conservatives still charge it is his hidden agenda. They're airing new ads attacking the Liberal Leader for plotting a "reckless coalition."

The major political parties are releasing campaign-style ads as they prepare for next week's resumption of Parliament - and the Liberals have an opportunity to defeat the government on Sept. 30.

And the government's fall could come even earlier, on a ways and means motion that implements Tory budget measures, including the popular home-renovation tax credit. The Canadian Press reported yesterday that the Conservatives intend to table that motion next Friday, which would set up a vote the next week.

The latest Conservative ads, visually similar to previous attack ads aimed at Mr. Ignatieff, say he's doing whatever it takes to get power, and warn he plans a coalition that threatens the country's economic recovery.

"With so much at stake, can Canada really afford the uncertainty of a wasteful election, and the instability of a reckless coalition?" the ads state.

The ads, and continued accusations from Tory politicians, signalled the Conservatives will still try to make the coalition accusation stick - even though Mr. Ignatieff moved yesterday to rule out taking part in any coalition.

"The Liberal Party would not agree to a coalition. In January, we did not support a coalition. And we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow," he told reporters in Ottawa.

It was clearly an attempt to neutralize one of Mr. Harper's key political weapons before an election campaign. It was the Liberals who this week leaked a surreptitiously recorded video of Mr. Harper telling Conservatives in Sault Ste. Marie he would frame the campaign as a choice between a Conservative majority and a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion mounted a bid last December to unseat Mr. Harper with a Liberal-NDP coalition government that would have been propped up in the Commons by the Bloc. But when Mr. Ignatieff took over, he chose not to defeat Mr. Harper's government on the January budget.

"I have a certain credibility on the coalition issue. I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada. I turned it down. We turned it down in January," Mr. Ignatieff said yesteryday.

But the Conservative ads use two items from before that vote to charge that he would form a coalition now.

The first is Mr. Ignatieff's signature, along with that of all Liberal MPs, on Mr. Dion's coalition agreement with the NDP - and the document that Mr. Ignatieff pointedly signed last, to signal he was cool to the idea. The Conservative ads make it sound like that document, from last December, is freshly inked:

"Just as Canada's economy is starting to recover, He's doing whatever it takes to get power, even signing the coalition pact with the Bloc Québécois and NDP," the narrator says.

But it also includes a clip from a press conference that Mr. Ignatieff gave after he took over the Liberal leadership last December, when he warned Mr. Harper he would defeat him and form a coalition if his budget did not include stimulus spending - an attitude that he summed up at the time as "a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition."

"I'm prepared to form a coalition government. And to lead that government," Mr. Ignatieff says in the clip.

While both the Conservatives and Liberals are now airing ads designed to prepare the ground for an election campaign, a new series of government ads - paid for by taxpayers - appear to echo the anti-election lines that Conservative politicians have been using.

Tories like Transport Minister John Baird have argued that an election would slow stimulus spending of infrastructure projects. The government's new taxpayer-funded $4.1-million TV ad campaign to tout the stimulus package - purchased in August - airs commercials that include the tag line: "We can't stop now."

I, personally, hate government propaganda, even when it is done by the party I support. It is a colossal waste of money and it cannot help but give Canadians the impression of chicanery, even when (rarely) none exists.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Norman Spector provides the justification for the Tory coalition ads in this blog piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/what-ignatieff-didnt-say/article1284562/

What Ignatieff didn't say

Norman Spector

Friday, September 11, 2009

As Doug Bell perceptively points out, Michael Ignatieff kept open his options on the question of a coalition yesterday. And, notably, today he did not deliver the fine speech that Rob Silver drafted for him — notwithstanding its wide circulation among Liberal insiders yesterday.

As Paul Wells has noted , “It’s pretty clear that, under some circumstances, an alliance of parties to replace the Harper Conservatives would be contemplated by members of those parties.” Until and unless Mr. Ignatieff says that the party that obtains the most seats in the next election will have the right to govern, and that the only way he would move to change that is through another election, Stephen Harper will be fully justified in pointing to his hidden agenda.

So, it appears, there is a “ragged shred of ‘truth’” in the Tory ads. Prince Michael might have left himself some wiggle room.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jeffrey Simpson makes the case for a majority in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

Minorities: all politics, all the time
Every decision is taken with short-term political calculations in mind

Jeffrey Simpson

Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009

Political calculations will never be removed from government, but in minority governments, especially a string of them, every decision is taken with short-term political calculations in mind.

Today's problems in whatever field are complex. They take time to think, get expert advice and consult widely about, and then to be put through the political process. Little of this happens in unstable minority governments.

Put another way, it's hard enough to get politicians to think long-term at the best of times. Try getting politicians in a majority government, let alone a minority, to think about broad geopolitical trends and where they leave Canada. Or about the country's competitive position a decade from now. Or where we want Ottawa to position itself in postsecondary education, health care, transportation etc.

It's impossible to know how many Canadians like minority governments, per se, but many do. Minorities are more fun for those who enjoy political theatre. Voters who don't like the largest party of the day think minorities are great because they sometimes stop the biggest party from getting its way. Still others think minorities are more “representative” and “democratic.”

There's a reason, however, why all around the democratic world, presidents or prime ministers and their majority governments have fixed terms of three, four, five or six years. Anything more mocks the democratic desire for periodic accountability; anything significantly less places too great a premium on partisan politics.

Minorities in our system centralize even more power in the hands of the prime minister and his political operators. Any government always on political alert has to run everything through the political nerve centre of the government: the Prime Minister's Office. The result is that even small stuff has to be vetted by PMO.

That kind of centralization has been a hallmark of Prime Minister Stephen Harper from the beginning, since he distrusted so many ministers and utterly dominated the government. He had begun, after a while, to trust a few ministers and give them some leeway, but in an all-politics-all-the-time pre-election situation, centralized control is back with a vengeance.

Throughout Ottawa, important policies are held up, or never see the light of day, because they don't meet short-term political requirements. Groups that want to raise issues are either refused a hearing or given one that isn't serious. Very few pieces of legislation got passed since the last election, including some budget bills.

One example among dozens. The government has prepared an overhaul of the refugee-determination system. The system cries out for change. Whether the government introduces the measures depends on the political calculations of the PMO about whether they want to divert pre-campaign attention away from the economy. Even if the package is introduced, it will never be debated in this Parliament because of the election.

Minority governments take easy decisions, but avoid hard, although often necessary, ones.

The core of any government is taxing and spending. As we have seen repeatedly from the minority Conservatives, they have done the easy things: cut taxes and raised spending. Now, they propose, according to a close reading of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's speech in Victoria, to continue for a few more years (at least) refusing to take hard decisions.

The government won't raise taxes, won't curtail transfers to provinces, clearly won't cut defence spending or pensions, so eventually will have to cut deeply in many other areas, but won't say where or when. Hard decisions have been pushed over the rainbow. Forget deep cuts, though, if the government is a minority when the time comes for them.

In theory, minority governments should force parties to work together to keep Parliament functioning for at least a few years. In practice, since everyone is looking at every statement and decision through a short-term political lens, posturing and partisanship overwhelm the theoretical possibilities of co-operation.

Parties can't easily co-operate today when they think they might be campaigning against each other tomorrow. The big parties certainly won't co-operate, since they seem to believe that the next election will give them the knockout blow for a majority.

The Bloc Québécois offers co-operation, but on such limited terms – all take for Quebec but no give – that the offer is better described as political extortion than co-operation. And the NDP, generally speaking, is of such an opposition mindset that co-operation seems to mean the much bigger parties should mostly do what the NDP, the smaller party, wants.

Four elections in just over five years, at a cost of more than $1-billion. All politics all, or almost all, the time. It's a helluva way to run a country

No, it’s not a typo; there was no period at the end of ”It's a helluva way to run a country” in the print edition, either.


It is, indeed a “helluva way to run a country” but Canadians, with absolutely stunning – but very typical - inconsistency, proclaim themselves “happy” with minority government, presumably because the government cannot implement its hidden agenda®, and “unhappy” with “all politics, all the time.”


Here, from Simpson's column, is why we don’t need another minority government:

• ”Minorities in our system centralize even more power in the hands of the prime minister and his political operators.” That’s a structural problem that produces bad politics and bad policy;

• ”Important policies are" [have been and will be again] "held up, or never see the light of day, because they don't meet short-term political requirements”;

• ”Minority governments take easy decisions, but avoid hard, although often necessary, ones;” and

• In a minority parliament ”posturing and partisanship overwhelm the theoretical possibilities of co-operation.”


I think Simpson’s logic is unassailable. We need a majority government for this, ongoing, critical period. The question is:

• A Conservative majority – for which they need to capture barely a dozen “new” seats from the Bloc, Liberals and Dippers, while, of course, hanging on to all of the 143 they currently hold; or

• A Liberal majority – for which they need to double their seat count, from 77 to 154.

I think the answer, even for those opposed to Harper’s Conservatives, is obvious. The Liberals cannot (barring some Conservative disaster) get a majority; they will be hard pressed to find a minority. The Conservative can do it, just, even with the dislike Canadians have for Harper and the mistrust they have for Canadian Conservatism.

If Simpson’s analysis and the numbers are correct then a Conservative majority is the only “right” answer for Canada in 2009.


Caveat lector: I am a card carrying Conservative. I am not an unbiased observer.


Edit: typo

 

[Old Sweat]

And just to roil the waters a bit, Taliban Jack now claims that an election is not inevitable. The following report from CTV is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act:

Fall election not inevitable, Layton says
Updated Sat. Sep. 12 2009 2:10 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he doesn't believe an election is inevitable, despite speculation that a non-confidence vote next week could topple the Conservative government.

A ways-and-means motion is expected to be introduced in Parliament next Friday. If the opposition parties -- including the NDP -- vote against the Tories, Canadians would have their fourth election in five years.

At a Liberal caucus meeting two weeks ago, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff declared that he no longer supports Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. Not long after, the party released a series of election-style ads, and the Bloc Quebecois followed suit.

Layton said Saturday he would prefer that the parties work together on Employment Insurance reform, a job-creation plan, help for the elderly and consumer protections.

"We'll side with the Canadian people, that's who we'll side with," Layton told CTV News Channel on Saturday. "And I guess I'm looking for results for Canadians. And I'm not ready to say that an election is somehow inevitable. We should be trying to make Parliament work."

Layton called on the party leaders to "put some of these partisan considerations -- the focus on how many seats you've got, how large your caucus is, and so on -- aside and instead get results for people that are in need."

But Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo said each party will likely weigh how an election might sway their fortunes before deciding whether to support the government.

"The Liberals have made a calculation that I think makes sense for them -- that the longer they keep on supporting the government, the less they can differentiate themselves and set themselves up as an alternative," Donolo told News Channel.

Layton refused to say whether he would act as kingmaker and side with the Liberals should the Tories win the most seats in an election, or vice versa. He said he would not speculate on "hypothetical scenarios."

Layton would only say that should the opposition parties force a fall vote, the responsibility will be with the prime minister.

"In a minority Parliament you either work with people or you go into an election. That's a choice that Stephen Harper has got to make," Layton said. "I think leadership would suggest that he should work with other Parliamentarians."

Donolo said Layton may have other motives for propping up the Conservatives, beyond a legislative agenda.

"In Canadian history, minority governments have always had third parties keeping them in office, not the official opposition," Donolo said. "So Mr. Layton's probably considering that. Mr. Layton also has to consider how the NDP might fare in an election going forward."

Donolo said it is difficult to speculate where -- or if -- each party would make gains should Canadians go to the polls this fall.

Western Canada, with the exception of parts of B.C., is Conservative territory, while Atlantic Canada will largely support the Liberals, Donolo said. The Bloc will hold much of Quebec.

That may put Ontario in play as the province that could make or break an election fortune.

"The Conservatives have the most seats in Ontario and remember, they only need 12 more seats to win an election. But they have to hold on to everything they currently have," Donolo said. "So a race to a majority I think is what both leading parties want the election to be. And maybe Canadians are fed up with minorities and want a majority."

 

[Old Sweat]

Further to the above, here is David Akin's blog re Taliban Jack's statements, reproduced under the fair comment provision of the Copyright act:

OTTAWA — Does Jack Layton want an election?


Last spring, it certainly seemed that way. As his caucus voted against the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one confidence vote after another, Layton and the NDP taunted Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals for propping up the Tories.


They even took out radio ads that challenged Ignatieff to "take a stand" and defeat the government.


But now, as MPs prepare to return to the House of Commons Monday and with the Liberal declaration that they will no longer support the Tories and will indeed push for an election at the first opportunity, Layton's springtime ardour to "stand up" to Harper has changed.


"I think some Canadians are going to be looking for a new direction," Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. "There's two ways we can get it: either by Mr. Harper working with other parties to establish a new approach on some key issues — that's what we're offering — or by rattling the cages and trying to take us off into an election."


Layton has been here before, ready to "offer" a prime minister with a minority government the chance to continue governing.


In 2005, with Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's government teetering as a result of the sponsorship scandal, a deal was struck. Martin postponed a corporate tax cut and committed to billions in new spending on public transit, affordable housing, and post-secondary training — all key elements of the NDP policy agenda. In return, the NDP voted in support of Martin's government even as Harper, who was then Opposition leader, was trying to engineer a Liberal defeat.


"I think Canadians saw that as a way minority Parliaments can be made to work," Layton said.


But the rest of that story did not end so well for Martin. A few months later, Layton withdrew his support and Martin would lose to Harper.


Layton did well in that 2006 campaign, winning 29 seats, partly by convincing voters that the spending concessions he extracted from Martin were evidence his party could be influential. In last fall's election, Layton's campaign built on that idea and he did even better, winning 37 seats, second best in the party's history to Ed Broadbent's 43-seat haul in 1988.


Harper, according to some of his advisers, believes Layton is now angling to do the same thing to him that Layton did to Martin: extract concessions to advance the NDP agenda, then withdraw that support and campaign on the party's achievements in advancing that agenda.


"Harper will be damned before he lets Layton do that," said a former member of the prime minister's communications staff, speaking on condition he not be identified.


Darrell Bricker, president of pollster Ipsos Reid, says Layton's strategy was a good one for 2005 — but it won't work now.


"He has to have somebody like Martin who's afraid to go to the people," Bricker said. "The problem he's got with Harper is that Harper probably wants an election."


For Layton, then, the week in Parliament that is about to unfold will be one in which he will try to advance his party's agenda on a case-by-case basis.


"We're trying to get Parliament working on behalf of Canadians instead of having an election," Layton said.


Both Layton and Harper have said there will be no pacts for support as there were in 2005.


"I don't think Canadians are looking for backroom deals," Layton said. "I think Canadians are looking for parties working together on their behalf. It's sort of a common sense point of view we're bringing to this discussion."


Among other things, Layton is seeking an improved employment insurance program. The Conservatives will, in fact, be introducing legislation next week to do just that but the Conservatives may only be agreeing to extend the EI benefits period, while Layton has been calling for changes to make it easier to qualify for benefits. Would those changes be enough for the NDP?


"There's thousands of people who are being denied the help that they need right now. There's an area where Mr. Harper could work and actually help people," Layton said. "We're prepared to work in these areas but what we're not seeing is a willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to make (a) minority Parliament work. That's the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in right now. But maybe there's still time."


Sweatie wonders if the NDP are trying to create an image as the only voice of reason that does not want to dash to the polls at this time. This could, repeat could, again be because the party believes that it will not be able to increase its seat count and may even be facing losses. Or is it that they dread the prospect of an increase in the CPC seats with the chances of a Tory majority increasing. I am not skilled enough at comprehending what appears to be, crudely put, political ADD so as to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Norman Spector ask some pertinent questions is his blog which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/questions-for-our-leaders/article1285487/

Questions for our leaders

Norman Spector

Saturday, September 12, 2009

For Canadians, Brian Mulroney’s appearance before the commission looking into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber was a teachable moment. For six days, viewers saw him slip and slide and do his best to avoid answering difficult questions. In politics, that kind of slipperiness is a survival skill — the public be damned. And Mr. Mulroney was and is a master at it.

Based on weekend news reports, here are the questions I’d like to see our current crop of political leaders pinned down on.

1. Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Mr. Harper: Is it not true that — protests to the contrary notwithstanding — you actually would prefer an election now over cooperating with the opposition?

Why he should be asked this question:

Harper, according to some of his advisers, believes Layton is now angling to do the same thing to him that Layton did to Martin: extract concessions to advance the NDP agenda, then withdraw that support and campaign on the party's achievements in advancing that agenda.

"Harper will be damned before he lets Layton do that," said a former member of the prime minister's communications staff, speaking on condition he not be identified.


2. Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff

Mr. Ignatieff: If the Conservatives win the most seats in the election, will you rule out trying to take power through an arrangement with one or more opposition parties?

Why he should be asked this question:

"Let me be very clear – the Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow," Ignatieff said yesterday.
… However, when asked whether he excluded a coalition with the opposition parties if the result of an election were another Conservative minority, Ignatieff called it a hypothetical question he didn't "like."


3. NDP Leader Jack Layton

Mr. Layton: If the Conservatives win the most seats in the election, will you rule out helping the Liberals take power? And would you rule out helping the Conservatives take power if the Liberals win the most seats?

Why he should be asked this question:

NDP Leader Jack Layton has helped to keep the issue alive by refusing to rule out participating in an Ignatieff-led coalition.
“We have shown a willingness to work with any party in the House to get things done for Canadians,” he said during an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National.


4. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe

Mr. Duceppe: If the Conservatives win the most seats in the election, will you rule out helping the Liberals take power?

Why he should be asked this question:

“(Bloc House leader Pierre Paquette)added that the Bloc Québécois would not rule out supporting a coalition government formed by the Liberals and NDP if it offered the same favourable policies to Quebec as last December.”

Good questions.

I remain convinced that relying, formally, on the Bloc for support will do real, measurable damage to either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

The party that wins the most seats can “accept” Bloc support – but they must never have any sort of an “arrangement.” First: it will never be a secret. It will be leaked to the press. Second: Canadians will not accept an “alliance” that includes the Bloc. Con/Lib? Yes. Lib/NDP? Yes Anyone/Bloc. No.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It appears that “Harper” [who is reported to believe that] ”Layton is now angling to do the same thing to him that Layton did to Martin: extract concessions to advance the NDP agenda, then withdraw that support and campaign on the party's achievements in advancing that agenda” and David Aiken are correct in assessing Taliban Jack Layton’s motives according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/layton-strikes-conciliatory-tone-amid-looming-showdown/article1285726/

Layton makes conciliatory noises
amid looming showdown
NDP Leader ratchets down election rhetoric with soothing words about making Parliament work

Toronto — The Canadian Press
Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009

NDP Leader Jack Layton is ratcheting down the election rhetoric with soothing words about making Parliament work as a confidence showdown looms.

The Commons returns for the fall session Monday after a break of almost three months, but a vote that could end the latest 10-month Conservative minority government might come before the week is out.

An unusually media-skittish Mr. Layton said little Saturday during an event in Toronto, but what he did say lowered the temperature somewhat.

“I think that everybody involved would want to see us co-operate in the House of Commons and get some results for people — especially those that are struggling right now: the unemployed and people being left behind,” Mr. Layton said as he inched away from reporters at an archway opening in Toronto.

“So that's going to remain our preoccupation.”

The New Democrats hold 36 seats in the 308-seat House, more than enough to keep Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government alive through the autumn if they can find common cause on an issue such as Employment Insurance reform. The Tories are likely to unveil EI proposals this week.

“That's all I have to say about elections,” added the NDP leader.

Whether Mr. Layton's NDP can change course after trumpeting its steadfast opposition to the Conservatives for the past three and a half years remains to be seen.

Mr. Layton deflected a question about whether he's open to a deal with the Conservatives, responding instead that New Democrats are “going to support the Canadian people and try and get some results for them. I think that's what people want.”

What's even less clear is whether Mr. Harper actually wants to work with any of the opposition parties in the House.

The next Conservative campaign strategy appears to shaping up as pitting the governing party against an spectral coalition of Liberals, “socialists and separatists.”

In a closed-door speech to party faithful last week in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Mr. Harper made the explicit pitch for the need for a Tory majority in order to forestall any chance of the Liberals usurping power with the aid of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

“If they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back there with a majority, and make sure their little coalition never happens,” Mr. Harper said in a speech videotaped by a Liberal observer.

It's a far cry from Mr. Harper's words in opposition, when he lectured Paul Martin's minority Liberals that they had an “obligation” to find common ground with one of the smaller parties or give up power.

“What the government has to do if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it,” Mr. Harper said in a CBC interview in 2005.

The Harper government now appears prepared to bring the confidence matter to a head on its own terms, and quickly.

A critical vote has been tentatively scheduled for Friday, sources tell The Canadian Press.

The so-called ways and means motion is usually a routine matter that signals an impending vote on a budget bill. But it is a confidence matter, meaning a majority vote against it would trigger the government's fall.

Conservative sources say the motion is likely to be introduced Sept. 18. As per parliamentary rules, it must be voted on immediately. Harper will have just returned from a trip to the United States, and would be ready to visit the Governor General to kick off an election.

The Liberals announced recently they will no longer support the Tories, and the Bloc Québécois appears poised for a campaign. That leaves the NDP — and Mr. Harper — to decide the fate of the 40th Parliament.

Layton is between a rock and a hard place. He can “grow” his brand, a bit - but only, really, at the expense of the Liberals – in some of the major urban centres: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and St. John’s. Other Western Canadian and Franco cities and most suburbs seem immune to the NDP's siren song.

None of the national leaders, including Taliban Jack, are very attractive to Canadians, so there is no advantage in “being Jack Layton.” That leaves policy and/or accomplishments as the only way to “beat” the Dippers’ two enemies: the Greens and the Liberals. Policy has not proven to be a popular election topic with Canadians. That leaves “accomplishments” – something Layton did use, with success, in the last elections: “We made parliament work for your benefit.”

That – establishing a list of “accomplishments” – appears to be his current tactic. He can, then, bash the Liberals on two fronts:

1. They propped up the Tories when they (Conservatives) were making bad policy choices; and

2. We listened to Canadians and made parliament work when the power hungry Liberals wanted to force an election over nothing at all.

 

[CougarKing]

And tensions continue to rise at Parliament Hill.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090912/national/fedelxn_confidence_vote_2

Government could fall as early as Friday: sources

Sat Sep 12, 12:39 AM

By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - A critical vote that could bring down the minority Conservative government has been tentatively scheduled for next Friday, sources tell The Canadian Press.

The so-called ways and means motion is usually a routine matter that signals an impending vote on a budget bill, but this time might very well act as the trigger that launches an election.


Conservative sources say the motion is likely to be introduced on Sept. 18, and as per parliamentary rules must be voted on immediately. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have just returned from a trip to the United States, and would be ready to visit the Governor General and kick off an election.


(...)

The Liberals have said they will no longer support the Conservatives, and the Bloc Quebecois seems ready to hit the campaign trail. That leaves the NDP to decide the fate of the 40th Parliament, and members there are sounding increasingly skeptical about the chances of a compromise.


"I really think that most people across the country are saying to themselves, can't these people talk and get something done on the important issues?" NDP leader Jack Layton said in an interview.


"I say to the Prime Minister again, that it's incumbent upon a prime minister in this country in a minority parliament to work with other parties."


Next week is shaping up as a full scale preview of an election campaign.


Layton will kick things off with a public speech to his caucus on Parliament Hill, outlining why his party is the only one truly interested in addressing the needs of Canadians.


Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will deliver a major speech on Canada's place in the world to the Canadian Club the same day.


Another Liberal insider said Ignatieff would make the case for why the party is best positioned to manage the Canadian economy.


The Conservatives will continue to frame themselves as focused on doing the government's work, and will introduce a package of changes to Employment Insurance.


The Canadian Press has learned some of those changes will likely include measures that would stop the treatment of severance packages as earnings and an extension of benefits to those who have paid into the EI system for years.


Although the legislation won't be a confidence measure, it will be an important tool for the Tories. Voting against improvements that help the unemployed would put the opposition parties in a difficult position.


(...)

 

[Edward Campbell]

The second Liberal English ad is out, on You Tube.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lysiane Gagnon asks another good question in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/playing-the-coalition-card-is-risky/article1285011/

Playing the coalition card is risky
Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?

Lysiane Gagnon

Sunday, Sep. 13, 2009

By raising the spectre of the opposition coalition returning to back his call for a majority government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is making a risky bet.

On the one hand, it might be a shrewd strategy. Remember the huge wave of anger last year's short-lived Liberal-NDP coalition (propped up by the Bloc Québécois) raised throughout English Canada? A revival of the same threat will rally the militant base of the Conservative Party and mobilize many undecided voters who otherwise would have been tempted to stay home.

On the other hand, the strategy might backfire because it will be extremely divisive. It will pit Quebec – where the coalition was very popular – against the rest of Canada, and it might jeopardize the Tories' chances in the second-largest province. But maybe they are resigned to writing off Quebec? Conservative organizers are already contemplating the possible loss, at the hands of the Bloc, of as many as half of the 10 ridings they hung onto in last year's election.

In a recent fundraising speech in Sault Ste. Marie, that the Liberals released to the CBC, Mr. Harper denounced the idea of a coalition of Liberals and “socialists and separatists” overthrowing a minority Conservative government, adding that the election of a majority Conservative government was the only way to prevent such a scenario.

Is such a scenario unthinkable? Certainly not.

Last year, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was unsympathetic to the coalition – he was the last MP to sign the petition to the Governor-General, and he quickly distanced himself from the endeavour. But later he reopened the door to the idea by proclaiming: “A coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition.”

Mr. Ignatieff might have had his own reasons to dislike the coalition. It would have comforted then-leader Stéphane Dion, suddenly transforming him into a prime minister and derailing Mr. Ignatieff's own leadership ambitions.

But today, who knows whether Mr. Ignatieff, frustrated by another minority Conservative government, wouldn't be more compliant to the pressure of the NDP, which certainly would push again for a coalition. If indeed such a coalition were to be resuscitated, the Governor-General might allow it to form a government in order to avoid a third election in two years.

Already, there are signs the Canadian left is ready to go down the same road. “Why did so many … object to a coalition last winter?” left-leaning commentator Rick Salutin wrote in these pages recently. “It was the very definition of making Parliament work in a minority situation. … A Liberal minority could well find enough common ground with the Bloc and the NDP to enact many things that most citizens would value.”

The dream of a coalition is also quite alive in Quebec's nationalist and left-leaning circles. Many Quebeckers liked the idea of the Bloc being closer to the centre of power, where it would be positioned to extract more advantages for the province. These same voters thought Mr. Harper wanted to ostracize the Bloc, and they especially hated his way of characterizing the Bloc as a party of “separatists” – an illogical reaction since the Bloc's first mission is indeed to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. (For years, the secessionists have used the softer and more pleasant word “sovereigntist,” but both words have the same meaning.)

The other funny thing is that quite a few commentators are indignant that Mr. Harper, in his Sault Ste. Marie speech, referred to the NDP as a “socialist” party, as if this were an insult or a lie or the beginning of a witch hunt. Don't its own members proudly identify themselves as democratic socialists? Logic, please!

“Writing off Québec,” not totally, but being content with winning a half dozen seats at ecstatic at winning a whole dozen, IS the best long term strategy for the Conservatives. Electorally, Québec matters, less and less as time moves on. The route to political power lies, increasingly, West of the Ottawa River. From a politics and policy perspective Québec is disconnected from Canada – especially from the “new Canada.”

So, Mlle. Gagnon, “Yes, I hope the Conservatives are resigned to writing off Québec.”


Edit: spelling (twice)

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?"

Is Quebec resigned to writing off Canada?  Each time Quebeckers return a large number of Bloc MPs, the message is that in our national parliamentary assembly they choose to place the interests of Quebec before the interests of the nation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CTV News website, is a snapshot of the “election fever” as Parliament prepares to meet, today:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090914/parliament_election_090914/20090914?hub=TopStories

Election talk rampant as Parliament resumes

Mon. Sep. 14 2009

CTV.ca News Staff

Election speculation is reaching a fever pitch as the House of Commons resumes business for its fall session, with some political observers suggesting federal politicians could be hitting the campaign trail within weeks.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has made it clear that his party will no longer support the Conservatives, and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe has said he, too, is willing to bring down the government if necessary. That means the Tories will likely have to court support from the NDP if they wish to hold onto power for any length of time.

Globe and Mail political reporter Jane Taber said there are a number of ways that the Liberals may attempt to bring down the government in the near future -- perhaps within a few days.

"There is some talk that it could happen as early as Friday of this week, that still is up in the air," Taber, also the host of CTV's Question Period, told CTV's Canada AM on Monday morning.

"There is a possibility of a non-confidence motion that would be brought by the Tories over the budget and this, of course, includes that home renovation tax credit that hasn't yet passed into law."

Taber said if the government is defeated on Friday, the campaign would begin as early as Monday.

If Canada enters into an election, it will be the fourth time in six years that federal politicians will be campaigning for their jobs.

But the Conservatives may be able to avoid another election: The government plans to announce employment insurance changes Monday that could garner enough support from the NDP to survive a non-confidence motion.

The changes will allow long-tenure workers -- those who have worked at least seven of the last 10 years -- to claim EI for an additional 20 weeks, which would give about 180,000 Canadian workers some extra support.

CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the EI offerings could be enough to have the NDP back the Conservatives in the short term.

"The people who are going to be affected and benefit from this package will be auto workers, forestry workers, mining workers and manufacturing workers. Many of these people work and live in NDP-held ridings," he told CTV's Canada AM.

NDP members will scrutinize the EI changes carefully before deciding what to do.

"This might be something that they (the NDP) will buy into," said Fife, but he noted there have been "no backroom negotiations" between the two parties.

"The prime minister is going to put this forward. It'll be up to Jack Layton to decide whether he wants to buy in, and buy a little bit more time before we have an election," he added.

Since the last election, the NDP have voted against the Conservative government 79 times.

Heritage Minister James Moore told CTV's Canada AM that the Conservative government does not want another election and will work with "reasonable members of Parliament" to avoid having one.

"We as Conservatives don't want to campaign, we're going to make sure we do everything we can to make this Parliament survive," he said during an interview from Ottawa. "And we'll put forward reasonable proposals that should have the support of reasonable members of Parliament who want Canadians to weather the economic storm and come out of it stronger on the other side."

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said his party doesn't believe that Canadians need another election, but that it cannot support the Conservative government.

"The fact that we're in these immediate election cycles every year or so, is really because right now we have a government in Ottawa that divides," he told CTV's Canada AM.

Moore disagreed with Trudeau's assessment.

"In this minority Parliament, all we're simply doing is implementing the budget that Justin Trudeau, himself, voted for," he said. "All we're doing is following through on fulfilling those promises in that budget and now Justin Trudeau and Michael Ignatieff want to call a campaign. So, we'll see how this Parliament goes."

The advantages, it appears, to me, are still all with the Conservatives. I suspect most Liberals are hoping and praying that Taliban Jack Layton will pull their irons out of the fire but I cannot see why Layton would want to do that. IF the election is as unpopular as the polls suggest and IF the Tories and the Dippers can make the unnecessary election, itself, an issue then they (the NDP) get to attack both the power hungry Liberals and the stubborn, doctrinaire Conservatives for forcing an expensive, wasteful election that no one wants.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?"

Is Quebec resigned to writing off Canada?  Each time Quebeckers return a large number of Bloc MPs, the message is that in our national parliamentary assembly they choose to place the interests of Quebec before the interests of the nation.

L. Ian MacDonald is a Conservative hack and a long time Mulroney apologist but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have valid insights about Québec, his home province. Some of those insights are reflected in this opinion piece, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post:

http://monroelab.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Daedalus-and-icarus.jpg

L. Ian MacDonald: The Conservatives are back in the Quebec game

September 14, 2009

L. Ian MacDonald

There are two Quebecs represented in the House of Commons, Montreal and the Rest of Quebec (RoQ). The math of Quebec's 75 seats is very simple. There are 25 seats in Montreal, and 50 in RoQ.

The Liberals are currently a Montreal party, with all 14 of their seats in the city and the bedroom community of Laval. The Conservatives are an RoQ party, with eight of their 10 seats in the 418 area around Quebec City. And the Bloc is two mints in one, with nearly a dozen seats in Montreal and Laval, but most of its current 48 seats in RoQ. Oh, and the NDP has one member, Tom Mulcair in Outremont.

If we do have an election this fall, the Liberals hope to increase their Quebec deputation to 25 members, by making gains from the Bloc in both Montreal and RoQ, as well by regaining the historic Liberal redoubt of Outremont.

As for the Conservatives, if you asked them tomorrow if they would take the 10 seats they have, they'd sign on in a heartbeat. They once thought Quebec would be the road to a majority in 2008, but it became the roadblock to one, as Stephen Harper got tangled up in a bunch of Quebecois values traps set by Gilles Duceppe. Harper's rhetoric denouncing "the separatist coalition" during last fall's parliamentary crisis, wasn't a great day at the office for the Conservatives, either. Their poll numbers in Quebec bottomed just above double digits in the spring, right around the time Harper's office put it out that Brian Mulroney, a favourite son of Quebec, was no longer a member of the Conservative party. There was a certain meanness of spirit to that action which further harmed Harper's standing in Quebec.

But recent poll numbers show the Conservatives have clawed their way back into contention in Quebec, or at least to the threshold of support they need to be the competitive federalist alternative to the Bloc in 418, where seats start to fall very efficiently to the Conservatives once they cross 20% of the vote province-wide. Only two Conservative MPs come from outside 418, Christian Paradis, the Quebec lieutenant from right next door in the Monteregie, and Lawrence Cannon, the foreign affairs minister from Pontiac in the Outaouais region.

At one point last spring the only safe Conservative MPs were Maxime Bernier and a player to be named later. But over the summer, there has been a cautious revival of hope in the Conservative camp, as their poll numbers have gradually edged up to the critical 20% mark.

A recent Nanos poll for La Presse had the Bloc at 37.3%, the Liberals at 32.3% and the Conservatives on the bubble of where they need to be at 19.3%, with the NDP falling back into single digits at 8.9%.

What's happened over the summer to allow the Conservatives back into the game in 418?

They did the smart thing. They built a moat and a drawbridge around it. Very few government announcements have been in Montreal. Why bother? There's no electoral return for such an investment. Most of them have been made in the Quebec City area, including stops on the PM's summer-long infrastructure tour. The Conservatives have poured everything into defending what they have in RoQ.

And then Michael Ignatieff had a very ordinary summer in Quebec, as in the rest of the country. In retrospect, part of his honeymoon last spring was simply the result of his not being Harper, who was then very much out of favour. While it will take more than a blue sweater for Harper to regain the trust of Quebecers, he does now have a consistent message that his government is delivering the goods for them.

Harper has also re-engaged over the summer with Premier Jean Charest, who went out of his way at a joint appearance for a highway announcement to praise Harper for moving infrastructure money out the door in a very efficient manner. Quite apart from the resumption of harmonious relations between the two, Charest happens to control something called the Big Red Machine, the only federalist ground game of any consequence in Quebec.

Something for both Harper and Ignatieff to keep in mind.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy Options magazine.

As a Conservative partisan I, of course, hope MacDonald is right. As an experienced observer I am confident that Gilles Duceppe will find ways to set new, better “value traps” to ensnare Harper, who often demonstrates a tin ear for Québec’s issues.

As a Canadian I hope Harper ignores the “value traps” and puts Canada first. You remember Canada? It’s that country that includes Québec as a province – a large and  important province, but a province comme les autres all the same.

 

[GAP]

If the Conservatives are able to eek out a small majority without Quebec being a large factor the power of the Quebec seats will diminish dramatically....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Tories have lobbed a softball towards the Dippers according to this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News website:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/14/employment-insurance.html

NDP to mull over Tories' EI benefit extension

Monday, September 14, 2009

CBC News

The Conservative government is proposing legislation to extend employment insurance by up to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers, raising questions as to whether the measure will be enough to garner NDP support and stave off an election.

Following the announcement, NDP MP Paul Dewar said his party will study the details of the proposal very carefully, saying that in parliamentary terms, "it's a first start."

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley announced Monday that the proposed measures, which would cost $935 million, would provide from five to 20 weeks of additional benefits depending on how long an eligible individual has been working and paying into EI.

Finley said the proposed legislation, aimed at workers who have worked seven of the last 10 years, is a temporary measure that will be phased out gradually as the economy improves.

"We believe that this is the right thing to do and that it is both fair and responsible," Finley said. "It would help Canadians who have worked hard and paid EI premiums for many years and who now find themselves in need of a hand up."

The NDP and the Liberals have been pushing for changes to employment insurance amid the economic downtown.

Some analysts have said the package is meant to woo the opposition parties ahead of a confidence vote that could come as early as Friday.

On Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton suggested he would leave the door open for negotiations with the Harper government, but that the ball is in the prime minister's court.

Layton told CBC News on Monday that the NDP needs to see some real action from the government.

Dewar said the EI proposal, if it is what it appears to be, is a "good start" and will be a "serious advancement."

"If they're going to put forward something that's going to help Canadians who are hard hit, we would be irresponsible not to seriously consider and support that," Dewar said.

The Liberals have already indicated that the package is not enough to save Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government from a confidence vote.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said on Monday that the Tories can no longer be trusted and are only prepared to move on issues if there's some kind of showdown.

"We have this death-bed repentance and that goes directly to the issue of trust," Goodale.

The Canadian Press reported Friday the government is planning to bring forward a financial ways-and-means motion on Friday. The motion is considered a confidence issue, and its defeat could trigger an election campaign.

The Conservatives, who (I think) want another election, are in the catbird seat. If the Dippers (and the Liberals) desperately want to avoid an election all they have to do is vote with the government or (in the Liberals’ case) stay away in sufficient numbers to allow the government to survive. Either way they (the Liberals and NDP) get branded as Tory supporters – just Celine Stéphane Dion clones.

If the Dippers vote against the government then the Tories can go to the polls saying, “We tried. We offered extended EI benefits but the power hungry coalition of the separatists and socialists defeated us."

Win-win.

 

[Old Sweat]

The following opinion pieceby Kelly McParland which is posted on the Full Comment section of the National Post's web site is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

Note that I have only read reports of Ignatieff's speech, but it appears it was full of nostaliga for the good old "pro Bono" days of Liberal foreign policy.

Kelly McParland: The new, insufferable Ignatieff. Arrogance personified
Posted: September 14, 2009, 2:24 PM by NP Editor
Kelly McParland, Full Comment Canadian politics

It appears Hedy Fry was telling the truth when she claimed she had nothing to do with a demeaning flyer sent out by the Liberal Party, which suggested Canada is no longer a country worth being proud of. Badmouthing Canada and its place in the world appears, bizarrely enough, to be a new Liberal party strategy.

That became evident in an insulting, offensive speech delivered by party leader Michael Ignatieff to a lunchtime gathering of the Canadian Club of Ottawa today, the day of Parliament’s return. If you were wondering what Mr. Ignatieff did all summer, now you know: drinking deeply at the well of Liberal arrogance, filling himself with huge draughts of the conceit and self-importance so central to the party’s existence, to the point he is now capable of casually writing off whole sections of the country’s history and millions of Canadians because they don’t comply with the one essential element of true Canadianism: they aren’t Liberals.

The essence of the flyer sent out under Fry’s name is that Canadians can no longer be proud of their country, because it is run by Conservatives. That message was reinforced again and again by a sneering, dismissive Ignatieff. Never mind the democratic system, never mind that true Canadians love and respect their country no matter who occupies 24 Sussex or has the most seats in Parliament. To Ignatieff, as to so many Liberals before him, Canada only counts when it’s run by Liberals.

Listen to this hogwash:
“After the last four years, it’s hard to remember how much Canada once mattered,” Ignatieff claimed nonsensically, writing off the risks, sacrifices and achievements of Canada’s troops in Afghanistan as nothing. Canadians may care deeply about the men and women who have sacrificed their lives there -- they line the highway in honour every time another body comes home -- but to Ignatieff and his Liberals this is nothing to be proud of, not enough to make us “matter”.

Or this drivel:
“For the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the international scene exists only to score points on the domestic scene. And our credibility on the international scene has suffered in consequence. The Conservatives are giving up Canada’s place in the world.”

So the Conservatives’ principled stand against China based on its human rights abuses is dismissed as a cheap grab for votes. From who, the huge Canadian Taiwanese community? Ignatieff is far more upset that we’re not angling for more trade with Beijing, as the Chretien government did so vociferously, because human rights can always be ignored when money’s on the line. Harper’s strong line on the Middle East -- which Mr. Ignatieff happens to share, though he neglected to mention it -- is forgotten. Far better to pander to fashionable assaults on Israel by leftwing cranks who think the only democracy in the Middle East is the equivalent of apartheid.

No, Mr. Ignatieff, in the unctuous, condescending tone he gets when he’s angling to establish his innate superiority, has concluded that Canada’s voice has gone mute: “They note our silence in international councils and ask: Where is Canada?”  -- a notion that might come as a surprise to President Barack Obama Wednesday when he sits down for his latest face-to-face discussion with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ignatieff is all trite talk and happy history. He hauls out all the hoary old Liberal icons -- blue helmets, peacekeeping, multilateralism, Lester Pearson. In what can only be classified as a direct accusation of racism, he asserted that Conservatives only care about white Canadians, charging that “if their name is Souad Mohammed, our government abandons them.” Ottawa may have mishandled the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud -- Mr. Ignatieff’s deep concern apparently doesn’t entail spelling her name properly -- but deliberately mistaking bureaucratic bungling for deliberate government bigotry is beneath contempt.

Mr. Ignatieff declared that under Liberal plans for a “Big Canada” (because Canada under any other party is small, weak and unimportant) we would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011, a position that ignores the fact the Liberals had to be dragged kicking and screaming into endorsing the Conservatives’ desire to keep them there even that long.

“Our Canada will champion an agenda of international governance reform ... and to ensure a truly inclusive global forum, we would offer to host and fund a permanent G-20 secretariat in Canada.” Oh boy, a new building full of civil servants in Ottawa. Now THAT will make us important.

Best of all, he pledges: “Our Canada will renew our relationship with the U.S. At a time when Europe is tearing down its borders, North America is raising fences between friends. The number of visitors to Canada from the United States has fallen to its lowest level in a generation. The impact on cross border trade will hurt the United States as much as it hurts us.”

So after Liberals spent eight years mocking, lampooning and insulting the U.S., when Liberal MPs stomped on replicas of the President and paraded around self-righteously denouncing a war in which American troops were giving their lives, after all that Mr. Ignatieff will now sail in and “renew our relationship.” Well gee, I bet they can hardly wait.

If this is the “new” Michael Ignatieff, the one who’s been in the development stages for the nine months since he assumed the Liberal leadership, they should stuff him in a crate and ship him back to Harvard. Canadians don’t need to be insulted by a man who thinks we’re small and unimportant and can only be made suitable for the world stage through the leadership of him and his insufferable party. Canadians took their measure of the Liberal party over decades of exposure, an experience Mr. Ignatieff didn’t share while he was living and working elsewhere. The party lost the last two elections as a direct result, and I can’t believe this kind of imperious sermonizing from a visiting professor is going to win back any of that lost respect.

National Post

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright from today’s Globe and Mail website, is a report on Prince Michael’s attack on the current government’s foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-blasts-tory-foreign-policy/article1286916/

Ignatieff blasts Tory foreign policy
Liberal Leader uses Ottawa speech to criticize Harper government's decision to redirect aid away from Africa

Jane Taber

Ottawa

Monday, Sep. 14, 2009

Michael Ignatieff took on Stephen Harper's government in a major foreign affairs speech today, criticizing it for tying Canada's aid to trade and moving it away from Africa.

“The Conservatives are giving up on Canada's place in the world,” Mr. Ignatieff told the Canadian Club of Ottawa.

“We have a Prime Minister who thinks so little of foreign affairs that he changes foreign ministers the way he changes shirts. We've had four in just three and a half years. They come and go with the seasons.”

Mr. Ignatieff said a Liberal government would return Canada's aid focus to Africa and make ending poverty a top priority.

He said that, if elected, the Liberal would “engage” China and India, saying Mr. Harper has turned “a cold shoulder” to the two emerging economic superpowers. And he vowed a Liberal government would bring back the Team Canada trade missions that were trademarks of previous Liberal governments under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

The Liberal Leader's speech comes just two weeks after he announced to his caucus in Sudbury that his party would no longer support the Tory minority government, precipitating a possible fall election.

Since then, the Liberals have moved into an aggressive pre-election mode, featuring election-style television ads. The Liberal's second ad, on employment issues, was broadcast Sunday. The Liberals expect to be bringing out new theme ads each week.

Monday's speech is another piece of that pre-election strategy as Mr. Ignatieff is under fire for not articulating his vision for the country. Speaking to the luncheon crowd, the Liberal Leader emphasized a constant theme of his – that Canada needs to be a strong voice in the world.

That same theme formed the first election-style Liberal ad, which was released just after Labour Day.

There is a view among Liberals that the Harper government has changed its focus on aid to Africa, concentrating more on Latin America. Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin had directed most of their efforts at Africa, which is languishing under grinding poverty and the AIDS epidemic.

Mr. Ignatieff also spoke about reaching out to China and India. He has been critical of the Harper government's policy as the Prime Minister has not yet visited Beijing.

The Liberal Leader was to travel to China last week but cancelled his visit after his announcement that he would no longer prop up the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

As he did at the caucus meeting in Sudbury, Mr. Ignatieff also spoke Monday about the G20 and a commitment if he forms the government to bring a permanent secretariat to Canada for the G20.

Part of Ignatieff’s attack is well aimed: Canada has, for the past few years, stumbled badly in our relations with Asia, especially with China. In fairness, the current government is playing catch-up but it is a bit late.

The shift in focus, away from Africa and towards the Western Hemisphere is, contrary to Prince Michael’s assertion, a good move on two grounds:

1. The Western Hemisphere is our “backyard” and we should tend to it; and

2. Our – the whole “West’s” – aid to Africa for 50+ years has done more harm than good. It is time to reassess.

As to the G20: it doesn’t need a permanent secretariat, yet, and we, Canadians, do not need the expense of hosting it – and rest assured, if we want the G20 secretariat hosted here we will have to pay for it. We need to focus on getting rid of our new deficit: the G20 secretariat can join the National Portrait Gallery on the rubbish heap.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"The Conservative government is proposing legislation to extend employment insurance by up to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers, raising questions as to whether the measure will be enough to garner NDP support and stave off an election."

Whether or not it is enough to garner NDP support is Layton's problem.  Ignatieff has pulled the pin on Layton's sanctimonious game, and Layton is pooched.  He either has to whitewash a sudden change of face and vote with the government, or face an election short on funds, short on new ideas, short on favourable poll numbers, and with the dead weight of the "coalition" hanging around his neck.  Commenters should stop trying to spin the issue as if it is the Conservatives who have to reach out in desperation to preserve this parliament.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"For the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the international scene exists only to score points on the domestic scene."

Wrong party, Iggy.  Yours is the party that deals in superficial foreign policy initiatives designed to help Canadians feel holier.  Where will the Liberals next send soldiers and then obfuscate all the messier parts of the mission?