Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

I think it is important, as the election draws near, that the willingness of the NDP to act not in accordance with what's best for the people of Canada, but rather to seek what's best for them and their big labour cronies, and the other interest groups which drive the NDP forward. They care not for the little guy who is concerned about union dues being used for political purposes, or the new guy just hired, or the small and medium sized businessperson trying to create jobs for Canadian workers. They care about lining the pockets of their special interest supporters with taxpayer dollars.

In light of that, I will post here part of the transcript from an NDP meeting which took place as the Coalition sought to hijack the House of Commons.

Jack (Layton): Thank you very much, uh, keep the myth alive that I’m exhausted and working incredibly hard (laughter) I appreciate you relaying that, I was asleep by ten o’clock last night, and had a very good night, a very good sleep, and that was my Friday night. So, an update on where we are, the, uh, we’re in the middle of a very historic time, and we’re playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day. At the same time, negotiation processes are underway, and in fact as we speak, our negotiating team that I’ve named to meet with the Liberal negotiating team are discussing the mechanics of a coalition government, and the form that it would take, the structure of cabinet, the way in which the logistics of a coalition government with the Liberals and the New Democrats would work, the key roles, and dispute resolution mechanisms, timelines, et cetera.

05:23 -
All of the logistics issues that you would expect would be a part of such a discussion are being negotiated now we hope that that part of the negotiations would be completed today. Our negotiating team consists of Brian Topp, who negotiated as a senior member of the Romano team in Saskatchewan, negotiating a similar coalition with the Liberal party there, and of course you know Brian is our campaign co-chair director. Ann McGrath, in her chief of staff role, she’s also wearing the president of the party hat still, and so she’s got several hats on at the moment. Ed Broadbent, Alan Blakely, Dawn Black, as a member of caucus I’ve selected to participate in this process, someone that I happen to know is also respected and trusted by key Liberals, Tom Mulcair, as our Quebec lieutenant, and Carl Belanger. Tom and Carl are the negotiating team with the Bloc team, and Brian and Dawn Black are negotiating with the Liberal team. We’re starting with two party talks, this will resolve itself into a tripartite conversation before the weekend is up, and the goal is to produce by the end of the weekend, an agreement on the machinery of the coalition, which would be signed off, particularly by the NDP and Liberals, but endorsed by the Bloc, and an agreement on policy program for the coalition, that would have three party agreement. I can’t go into the details on all of this stuff, particularly the machinery, but it’s in the process of negotiation, and we could consume an awful lot of time speculating about it, so I don’t propose that we spend that time today on this particular matter of question. But instead, there’s a golden opportunity today, for you to provide input on the policy matters, you can be assured that we have looked at our program, we’ve looked at our platform, we’ve looked at what I’ve been saying about economic stimulus, we’ve been in close consultations with the leadership of the labour movement around some of their key ideas and they’ve been providing terrific support, including at a high-level early morning meeting this morning, so much of what you would have want to see, it’s probably already there, you’ll hear a bit more about it later, but there’s an opportunity to touch base with all of you, because in the end, you’re going to be intimately a part of the delivery of all of this, and so that’s why we’re having this meeting at this point in time.
08:32 -
Jack: I made a list Judy, so I’ll take a whack and you’ll say if I’ve missed any…
Judy: Ya. Meetings, confidentiality, what can be said. Go ahead.
Jack: First, do MP’s have to be in Ottawa until we have a better sense of the potential confidence motion stakes. You have to remain agile. And with Ottawa being the base. Uh, and so when you’re organising your community meetings make sure there’s a speaker phone facility, or a webcam. Secondly, I believe that we should get immediately into the driver’s seats on organizing these community meetings, you have people who worked on your campaign who are exactly the kind of people, whether in labour movements, labour councils, uh, childcare groups, environmental groups, these are people that need to be pulled together. You get them together, and then they’ll take it from there, it doesn’t have to be your meeting, it shouldn’t be your meeting, but of course you’ll be there as the MP, and you’re part of the coalition, and you’re consulting with the community to make sure they’re open, so if anyone wants to come and protest and say it’s a bad idea, be there to make a real news event out of it, the youth comes with the emotion in favour of the coalition and an action plan coming from Thursday night, particularly focused on the weekend, with petitioning, and phone in shows, and god knows what else, a letter writing, one of the goals here is to of course, recruit as many names, addresses, emails, phone numbers as possibly can, because this coalition will need the support of these people, and then we will need their support when we get an election. Now, will there be an independent NDP caucus, yes. BQ stability issues, worry about BQ potentially being off-side, we’re taking that very much into account. We have numerous strategies designed to deal with it, I actually believe they’re the least of our problems, but in case I’m wrong, let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details, and the managing expectations, lists from groups, actually, the wisest people in the groups are already coming to the conclusion, some of them are in direct contact, saying probably wouldn’t be too helpful if we had long lists of stuff, right? What we really want is just to get Harper out and get the new group in because it’s going to be a hell of a lot better for everything we believe in, correct? Correct. So let’s stay on that track, and not start debating whether or not it’s twenty five percent change or fifteen percent change over here, let’s get them out, on the basis of unity not the basis of division. Somebody asked about Bill Casey, absolutely, in the game, uh, on confidentiality, we now have to get out and defend the idea of the coalition. This is not a secret that it’s been discussed, the various elements that are in it, you can say it’s all about getting the economy going, and transforming the economy for the twenty first century, use everything that you’ve seen in my speeches up until now, that you’ve all been using so well particularly when I’ve seen you on panels, and by the way, our team on panels, everybody, staff and MPs, rocking, absolutely rocking doing us proud, so yes, there is a coalition, we’re fighting for it, we’re trying to make it happen, we think it’s a good idea for Canada, the majority of Canadians voted to go in a different direction than Harper’s taking us, you can’t trust him, no matter anything, throw him out. What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us. So do not be defensive, to work among what we are doing is to give effect to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, have no doubt about that. The coalition for Canada, I love the idea, it could be a deal-breaker for the Bloc (laughter) so if we don’t go, we call it “The Coalition for Canada and Quebec,” (lots of laughter). Well, welcome to the real world of….that’s not funny
Jack: And let me come to, I know it’s complicated, so let’s just be wise about how we put this thing together. I think that there were many good comments that were developed from this, right from Aboriginal, which was on our mind, right through to many of these other suggestions and we will do our very best to put this together. And I’ll just say one other thing about the issue of the Bloc: nothing could be better for our country, than to have the fifty members who’ve been elected to separate Quebec to actually helping to make Canada a better place. I think we just approach it on that basis, and say we’re willing to make Canada happen, here’s other things that we’re going to be investing in and transforming together, they’re willing to work with us, we’ll accept that offer. What will be important to point out is that this will be an NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supported by the Bloc, with policy ideas that the coalition is bringing forward. Okay? And that’s going to be helpful to you in your dealing with those that have concerns, because they, you can see where Harper’s going here, he’s going to say it’s the socialists and the separatists and the opportunists getting together. You know? Those are their talking points, and so we just need to push back. I want to thank everybody for the input, I would get going this weekend on getting groups together, start talking about organizing those Thursday meetings, act as the catalyst to make it happen, and then just let it go, it’ll roar, and it’ll be very exciting. If you’re in a larger city, and there’s several of you, or if you’re in the largest city and you’re on your own, act as the catalyst anyway, chances are there’s a bunch of Liberals in the other ridings on whom we want pressure placed, as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation. I guess we’re at the end.
Judy: I just want to add one thing, and that is so the major thing is here that the message we’re focused on the message, so that’s not confidential, what’s confidential is strategy, the discussion, details, the speculation about the other parties and their motivation and what they will or they won’t do, we should not talk at all about war rooms, or campaigns in that sense. We’re building, trying to create a coalition government that will be a Liberal-NDP coalition that will be supported by the Bloc and that’s the message that we want to get out, nothing about the discussions in the background, and when in doubt, call, probably Brad, and Brad on that issue and on the whole issue of the campaign, and organizing meetings, people will want to reach you quickly, what’s the best way?
Jack Harris: Judy, Jack Harris here, I know it’s a structure question, but I’m at a loss at this point to know whether we’re talking about a short-term, quick economic stimulus coalition, or are we talking about something that could last two or three years, this is kind of important in our own minds, as well because aside from economic stimulus of course, this coalition will have to govern on every part of the government, of the legislative of the -
Judy: Okay, let me ask Jack to answer that and then Brad, you give the best contact information.
Jack Layton: Longer term. Not short term...
Fore the entire transcript, follow this link: Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

NDP's cynical vows

by William Watson - from the Financial Post

Most of us didn't pay much attention to the NDP platform when it came out, on the then-reasonable assumption the party wasn't going anywhere near power, so the platform didn't really matter -which also seems to be the assumption the party itself made in writing it. But now that millions of non-readers are about to vote NDP, it's time to check out what, apart from smiling broadly, the party actually stands for.

The NDP platform, which is 26 pages long, contains 19 pictures of Jack Layton and 12 pages of text. Even so, those 12 pages list 146 bullets' worth of policy, with another 59 sub-bullets, for a grand total of 205 policy promises. The platform's title is Giving Your Family a Break: Practical First Steps. If there are 205 "first steps," how many second, third and fourth steps will there be?

The centrepiece of the platform is to raise the corporate tax rate from the 15% it's scheduled to hit next year to 19.5% and to use the resulting revenues to finance 66 of the "first steps" for which a separate three-page budget document provides cost estimates. The NDP must assume either that the almost one-third increase in the corporate rate won't affect employment and economic growth or that the benefits of expanded programs will offset the cost in jobs and output. Many critics of the Conservatives, including Prof. Henry Mintzberg of McGill University, argue corporate taxes don't have significant economic effects.

It's therefore very interesting that one of the costed NDP policy initiatives is to spend $1-billion a year cutting the tax rate for small businesses from 11% to 9%. When you're introducing 205 policy initiatives in just 12 pages of text, you don't get to spend a lot of time describing each one. About the cut in the small business rate, the platform says merely that it is "to support a sector of our economy that creates nearly half of all new jobs in Canada."

But wait a second. If small business creates less than half the new jobs in Canada, who creates the rest? Governments are responsible for some, though only to the extent they can find tax revenues to finance them. But nonsmall business, that is, big business, does much of the rest.

This promise appears in a section of the platform entitled "Reward the job creators." Strictly speaking, the platform doesn't say tax cuts will encourage small businesses to create new jobs. Maybe we just want to reward them for the good work already done -though $1-billion a year just to say thanks does seem excessive when we're in deep deficit. In fact, the strong implication is that cutting these businesses' taxes will cause them to hire more people.

But if cutting business taxes leads to more investment and jobs, doesn't that mean raising business taxes leads to less investment and fewer jobs? So why encourage small business investment and jobs at the expense of big business investment and jobs? Why have the government take a position in this way on which businesses create the next jobs? Read more...

NDP's cynical vows

Sand in the Shorts: Hysteria Aside, Kramp and the Conservatives Are Canada's Best Bet (Full Version)

This column appeared (in edited form) in the Intelligencer, Saturday, April 30th, 2011


With this being my last column before the election on Monday, May 2, I figured I would join so many others in endorsing my candidates of choice, for both MP for Prince Edward – Hastings, and for Prime Minister of this great nation. Now, I realize that most of you can guess who these will be. While I always strive to be even-handed news wise, I have never made any attempt to hide my beliefs on the opinion side. So rather than simply saying whom I shall vote for (for the one position I can vote for), I will try to explain why I made this choice, in hopes my logic will motivate you, dear reader, similarly.

First, I am heartily endorsing Daryl Kramp for another term as Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings. Mr. Kramp has continued the trend of strong MP's for this riding, vigorously acting on behalf of his constituents whenever the need arises. It is noteworthy that even many local voters who might not support the Conservatives as a party, look upon Daryl as a quality representative, and the man they've voted for before, and will again. He is someone who, through his involvement in municipal politics, as well as being a small business owner, has gotten to know many people in the constituency.

While Peter Tinsley's CV is impressive, and he is clearly a smart man, he has yet to develop his place in the community as fully, and as such needs some seasoning (I know the issue well!). Michael McMahon is known by many after teaching them science, but in this riding the NDP, barring a miracle, has not moved beyond third party status, and Mr McMahon's demonstrated intensity when dealing with some issues might not fit the riding's make up either. Patrick Larkin, the Green Party candidate, is, like Mr. McMahon, a strong candidate for a party with little to no chance in this riding, but left me wondering where he stands on many issues of importance locally. Tim Hickey, the lone independent candidate, has a vision for the nation, but neglected to share one of what he sees as being important for local constituents, and where he stands on key issues. Andrew Skinner, the Progressive Canadian Party candidate, the last of the candidates, needs to work on toning down his use of anti-American rhetoric as a means of contrasting himself with the other candidates, and make sure he boosts his knowledge of the issues and the area.

Moving on to my endorsement for Prime Minister, I believe Stephen Harper is the best candidate for the job. Having governed already since January 2006, he has done a good job of governing through a vicious global recession, maintaining a non-ideological stance where necessary to govern, but not abandoning the principles which have driven support for the Conservatives since 2003. While his time in office hasn't been without problems, it is important to consider what his strengths are, and also who the options are.

Stephen Harper comes from the libertarian stream of Canadian conservatism, seeing a need for a preservation of what is essential to our nation but unwilling to die for issues which, while important to some, aren't essential. He is the quintessential small-c conservative, working to limit the growth of government spending, while careful not to cut away programs which are necessary for things other than making work for bureaucrats sucking at the public teat.

He is a supporter of human rights, demonstrating that all the more with his proposal for an office to advocate for religious freedom internationally. He is a strong proponent of opening up Canada's Arctic and of having a strong national defence, as demonstrated by his decisions to purchase new main battle tanks for the Army, build new icebreakers and an Arctic deep water port, replace the aging CF-18 fleet, and bolstering Canada's Special Forces capabilities. And he has returned us to an era when Canada was a respected player internationally by working with the Liberals in a minority parliament to extend the Canadian contribution to Afghanistan, and by sending Air Force and Navy assets to help protect Libyan civilians and rebels.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant man, with, based on his writings before he came back to Canada, strong, principled views on areas such as human rights. Unfortunately, since his return he has flip-flopped on issue after issue, which has only served to highlight the fact that the Liberal party needs – for all of Canada's sake – a ground up rebuild. This is a party which has lost it's way, has lost it's principles, existing now only to be elected. Canada needs two strong, electable parties. Hopefully the Liberals take this opportunity to leave Trudeau and Chretien behind and give a total re-think to what their party stands for.

Jack Layton is probably a nice guy, and pretty smart. But his ethical choices have not always been well thought out, and his opening up of the Quebec-Constitution can of worms shows him to be a dumb opportunist. No good will come of this, and indeed it could stir up a waning separatist movement – never a smart idea. He also abused publicly subsidized housing in Toronto while serving as a city councillor, and more recently refused to take action when deputy NDP leader, and House Leader, Libby Davies questioned the right of Israel to exist. These are not the makings of a Prime Minister.

As to the Green Party, Elizabeth May needs to get herself elected before they deserve to be considered a legitimate party in the sense that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are. At least the nut-bar separatists of the Bloc Quebecois have seats in the Commons (hopefully many less, soon) – even if they are illegitimate leeches feeding on the Canadian body politic until they reach satiation and retire.

That, then, is my take. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, please remember this: if you don't vote, you don't matter. Get out and vote for your candidate of choice – it's the very least a Canadian who loves their country can do.

Butchers and dictators can’t be touched. Canadians? Let the war crime trials begin | Full Comment | National Post

by Matt Gurney - from the National Post

Here’s a disturbing report. It’s speculative at this point, but should set off alarms for Canadians all the same:

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court says that if the federal government won’t look into how Canadian soldiers handled detainees in Afghanistan for possible war crimes violations, he’s willing to. … “We’ll check if there are crimes and also we’ll check if a Canadian judge is doing a case or not . . . if they don’t, the court has to intervene,” Moreno-Ocampo told filmmaker Barry Stevens in his documentary called Prosecutor.

In other news, Syrian soldiers are gunning down their own civilians … but the country still just got a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Well, I guess someone had to pick up Libya’s slack. And why was Libya given the boot? Oh, yeah, they sent soldiers to gun down their own civilians. Hmmm.

Yes, the UNHRC and the International Criminal Court are not the same bodies. But how much faith we should have in the ICC is directly linked to how much faith we should have in heavily bureaucratized international institutions. The answer? Not all that much. Once the ICC has found a way to haul Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir in on the war crimes and genocide warrants they have had out on him since February of 2009, maybe then they should check in on Canada again. Or, perhaps, having given up on being able to actually punish countries that won’t want to be punished, the ICC has decided it’s easier just to go after the nations that do generally adhere to international law? It’s a lot easier that way.

Canadian soldiers should not be above the law. There are rules in war, and when those rules get violated, there should be punishment. It’s one of the downsides of fighting for ideals, rather than territory, resources or glory of the king/God/whatever. You need to fight in a way roughly suited to your stated objectives — in our case, usually stability, democracy and the rule of law. That doesn’t mean the gloves can’t come off (a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki), because war does have its own brutal calculus. But it means that whenever it’s possible to honour rules and laws of war, it should be done, and when it’s not possible, it needs to be made plain to the world that the only other options were even worse.

Canada has shown a willingness to hold itself to a high standard of conduct on the battlefield. Just ask former Canadian Forces captain Robert Semrau, who was thrown out of the military (and nearly imprisoned) after allegedly shooting a mortally wounded Taliban soldier to put the enemy out of his misery. Such an act of mercy was contrary to the laws of war and to Canadian military laws and codes. It was probably the right thing to do, morally. But it was against the law, and the Forces almost destroyed Semrau’s life upholding their own rules. Read more...

Butchers and dictators can’t be touched. Canadians? Let the war crime trials begin | Full Comment | National Post

Senator Hugh Segal at the Kingston Event for Prime Minister Harper

Your humble reporter (right) with Senator Hugh Segal

Senator Hugh Segal

Jonathan Kay: Why I’m grateful that Britain’s immigrants chose Canada | Full Comment | National Post

by Jonathan Kay - from the National Post

When my father-in-law was a small child growing up in Leeds, his father George would take the family to the movies on weekends. Money was scarce. (George was an underpaid draftsman at the time.) But on the way home from the theatre, as a rule, they would splurge for fish and chips, a fast-food delicacy that, in those times, invariably came sheathed in day-old local newspapers.

But on one fateful occasion in late 1952 — my father-in-law was nine at the time — the family unwrapped their fish and found that the covering was not the Yorkshire Evening Post or the Wetherby News, but something more exotic: Ontario’s own Hamilton Spectator.

No one can explain how that steel-town newspaper travelled across the Atlantic to take its place around these Loiners’ battered haddock. But it changed all their lives — and, in time, mine as well. Read more...

Jonathan Kay: Why I’m grateful that Britain’s immigrants chose Canada | Full Comment | National Post

Libby Davies as a Minister in a Layton government?

    Tim Powers published an article today in the Globe and Mail speculating on who might be in the cabinet if Jack Layton were to form a government.  I just about choked when he mentioned Libby Davies as Minister of Foreign Affairs.  This is, after all the NDP MP who demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of history when she stated that the Israel has been occupying Palestinian territories since 1948 (the year Israel came into existence) and that "it’s the longest occupation in history".  She was caught on video making these comments at an anti-Israeli government protest in Vancouver on June 5, 2010.


    Now, were Ms. Davies to have checked her history, she would have found the Israeli military didn't move into the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, as a result of an imminent threat of attack by Jordan, Egypt and Syria.  So, for example, Tibet, which has been occupied by communist China since 1950, has been occupied far longer.  In history, other longer occupations include the German annexation of Alsace-Moselle (from 1871-1918), the Russian (Soviet) occupation of the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia)(1940-1991, broken by the German occupation of the area from 1941-1944), and the Allied occupation of Berlin (1945-1990).


    She also would have found that from 1948-1967 the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan. 


    The key point here is that, for all that Jack Layton wants to show his party as being ready to lead, this is a party which has not yet shown itself to be "a government in waiting".  Had a member of the Liberal or Conservative caucus displayed such blatant bias against the existence of the state of Israel, along with a ridiculous lack of knowledge in the areas of history and geo-politics (and an apparent unawareness of the existence of Wikipedia, where she could have checked her facts before embarrassing herself), said member would have at the very least been publicly admonished and demoted by the leader of their party.


   
Instead, the only member of her party to call her out was Thomas Mulcair, who earned the enmity of other NDP MPs and supporters for his efforts.  And the question also must be asked - was Jack Layton's refusal to remove her from the post of deputy leader (a position she holds to this day) a sign of tacit agreement on his part with her basic views (if not her blundered exposition of same)?  Is an NDP government one which would take the side of Palestinian radicals (aka Hamas) against Israel, for all the talk of "even-handedness"?


    The fundamental question the voter is led to is this:


Is the NDP under Jack Layton fit or competent to lead Canada as Prime Minister?  The evidence says not.

The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges - The Globe and Mail

From the Globe and Mail

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.

The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy. It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity. Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security. Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada's role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country's ethnic and cultural makeup – the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.

Whom should Canadians turn to? Read more...

The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges - The Globe and Mail

True peacekeepers don't need more fighter jets - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Someone wrote this letter to the editor at the Intelligencer:

Will someone please tell me who we are planning to attack with these state of the art fighter jets the government wants to purchase?

There's already enough collateral damage being hoisted on our fellow human beings by man-made nuclear accidents, global warming, earthquakes and tsunamis.

If we're really interested in democracy, let's do it by example. We are in an election campaign right now because or democratic process was threatened by a Conservative leader who has set himself up as an aggressor both at home and abroad.

Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage.

Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy and then maybe we'll be able to put a moral price on jets that are supposed to be worth $1 billion.

God help us all.

A. Meyers

Belleville

I replied:

    I wonder if the people whom we have saved from the Taliban and Ghadafi would agree with A. Meyers?


   
 This person's grasp of world affairs and history seems weak, as many of the millions who've died in Cambodia's killing fields, Mao's manufactured famines and anti-intellectual purges, and myriad other cases of genocide and government mass murder in the last 50 years would probably have celebrated an interested world acting on their behalf. And of course their was the western intervention in the Balkans in the '90s for just that purpose.

    Consider, too, that the intervention in Afghanistan was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, which led to the first ever invocation of Article V of the NATO treaty - the Article that states an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. As a result, the crude method of response would have been a simple brute force attack on Afghanistan, as it's government was complicit in the attacks. Instead, NATO aided the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban, and has since aided in the suppression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Have there been civilian casualties because of Allied action? Of course, but the Afghan peoples have consistently stated their preference for accidental casualties from Allied action to the deliberate brutality and murder of the Taliban. Girls having acid thrown in their faces for going to school ring any bells, Meyers?

    Your comment, "Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage," is entirely out of line. Once you get down off your moral high horse you might check to see how the term "collateral damage" is used and what it means. Collateral is a term referring to things of value - such as your house which might secure a loan. It is not something anyone would allow to be damaged without grave concern.


    The term as used in describing civilians killed during military action refers to losses which are always concerning to military planners and soldiers on the ground. These soldiers, who are also the ones called upon to be peacekeepers, have a much stronger moral conscience for you, as unlike you they put their lives on the line every day to protect people they've never met, have no vested interest in, and may never see again. They are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to create a peace in the first place. When these men and women return, they bring with them memories of battles, of friends lost, of seeing the horrors of war and the brutality of an enemy who does not hold human life to be as valuable as we do. These are your people without a "moral conscience". The reality is sometimes the recognition that civilian casualties were unavoidable is the only thing allowing soldiers to have any peace after being involved in a battle that included 'collateral damage'.

    "Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy..."

    And let's ask those who risk death every day in Syria, seeking democracy in the face of a brutal dictatorship how valuable, how worthy of sacrifice, democracy is. Or how about Iran, Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, Burma, Russia, and the former Warsaw Pact states - those now free because people risked death or died, while those still under the heel of dictators risk their lives to hopefully achieve freedom in the future.

    Your statement implies that in the pursuit of democracy the west has discounted the value of civilian lives. The opposite is true - when the west has acted, with a rogue exceptions, it has acted in a manner consistent with minimizing civilian, and sometimes even enemy, casualties.
Sir or Ma'am, I think you ought to give your head a shake - to start. Then you ought to apologize to our military. And finally, you ought to seek to educate yourself on the issues before applying pen to paper in the future.

Sincerely,
James Phieffer

True peacekeepers don't need more fighter jets - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Annie Lowrey: Imagining the worst-case if the U.S. comes close to debt default | Full Comment | National Post

There is a series called "Aftermath" on National Geographic channel that shows what would happen if the impossible were to become reality - oil diappears without notice, the sun becoming a red giant, the earth begins to stop spinning today. I think they might want to consider the much more possible - that Obama and the Democrat's intransigence at the idea of making real cuts as a condition of boosting the US borrowing cap leads to the scenario pictured here.

The idea that they will be able to get an increase in the cap without giving the Republicans a combination of real spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment is foolish. It presumes that the Democrats still hold the hammer in such negotiations, but since the Congressional elections last fall, they don't.

Obama has to realize that he has a choice - cut spending the easy way, working with the Republican House, or the hard way, such as in the event of a default.

Annie Lowrey: Imagining the worst-case if the U.S. comes close to debt default | Full Comment | National Post

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

By Andrew Steele - from the Globe and Mail

The prospect of an NDP government remains remote, but the election of an NDP government in Ontario in 1990 seemed impossible a week out as well.

The recent Angus Reid poll, showing the NDP just five points behind the Tories, raises a frightening spectre for anyone with a mortgage.

What would the election of an NDP minority government mean for interest rates?

The markets have made little movement so far, but Doug Porter with BMO Capital Markets thinks “we could see a significant shift next Monday if these polls are remotely accurate.”

Already, there is some speculation that the polls are hurting the dollar. During this morning’s rally of major currencies against the U.S. greenback, the Canadian dollar was notably sluggish.

It’s unlikely the dollar will swan dive immediately if the NDP is elected. There is still a five-cent cushion over parity, and U.S. fiscal policy, oil prices and interest rate speculation tend to be bigger drivers of the loonie’s trajectory than politics in the short term.

But some wobbling is likely over the next week, especially if the markets had already priced in a Conservative majority and tougher fiscal policy in their earlier buying decisions. Another round of polls showing continuing NDP strength will only exacerbate that uncertainty.

The real test for the economy would come with an NDP budget. Read more...

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

The NDP's missing constitution - Inside Politics

When so much of the complaints about the current government from the opposition focus on the need for openness, it is a trifle strange - to say the least - that the NDP is so busy hiding their constitution.

The NDP's missing constitution - Inside Politics

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

by Adam Radwanski - from the Globe and Mail

The obvious, instinctive reaction is to cheer for Jack Layton – if not nationally, then in the province where he’s most caught fire.

Quebeckers have long parked their votes with the Bloc Québécois – a party that by its nature has no interest in building a better country. Mr. Layton’s NDP, which has seemingly come out of nowhere to lead the Bloc in popular support, offers the prospect of more constructive representation and more thoughtful consideration of Quebec’s role within Canada.

But before getting out the pompoms, Mr. Layton’s message in recent days raises an uncomfortable question: Could the federalist party pose more of a threat to national unity than the sovereigntist one?

To create the “winning conditions” that sovereigntists have long been seeking, and that will be in demand if the Parti Québécois defeats Jean Charest’s Liberals in the next provincial election, requires a strong sense of grievance. The oui side came so close to victory in the 1995 referendum largely because of the perception that Quebec’s interests had been rejected by the rest of Canada, through the defeats of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But as of now, there’s nothing nearly so galvanizing in play.

For sovereigntists, it’s difficult to change that on their own. The PQ plans to try, with a stridently nationalist agenda aimed at provoking Ottawa. But Bloc MPs can make no serious claim to wanting to make federalism work, so it’s hard for them to help convey and spread a sense of disillusionment. Nor can they easily entice the federal government to launch into constitutional talks, of the sort that have previously ended in heartbreak, because no prime minister would be under any illusion that he or she could make them happy.

History suggests, however, that self-identified federalists are a different story. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney built a coalition with soft nationalists, then tried to appease them. His reward was a chunk of his caucus breaking off to form the Bloc, a gesture with much more impact than anything the party they formed could do today. Their revolt, along with the frustration of the federalist provincial government of the day, helped set in motion the near-miss in 1995.

Since then, federal governments have stepped more carefully. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals went nowhere near constitutional talks, and took the opposite tack by introducing the Clarity Act. (That they also created all kinds of bad will with the sponsorship program is a different matter.) Paul Martin was more ambiguous – making former Bloc MP Jean Lapierre his Quebec lieutenant, and embracing “asymmetrical federalism” in a way Mr. Chrétien didn’t. But after dabbling with soft nationalism – giving the Québécois a “nation within Canada” designation, and engaging in a flirtation with Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique du Québec – Stephen Harper has shifted back a little closer to where Mr. Chrétien was.

It remains highly unlikely that Mr. Layton will lead the government after May 2, but seat gains in Quebec and elsewhere could give him a big hand in shaping it. So it bears noting that there are a few shades of Mr. Mulroney’s approach in what he’s doing to win over Quebec.

The NDP has long had a commitment to provincial autonomy for Quebec that seems at odds with its interventionist message in the rest of the country. But Mr. Layton isn’t just promising not to impose federal programs. He backs extending Bill 101, Quebec’s controversial language legislation, into federally regulated workplaces. He is non-committal on the Clarity Act. He doesn’t want to add more seats in the House of Commons for underrepresented provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, without also adding more seats for Quebec so that it remains overrepresented. Read more...

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

Election Night Coverage on Belleville's CJBQ 800 AM

Looking for quality coverage of Canada's 2011 Federal Election?  Check out CJBQ, Belleville's news source, for coverage of Prince Edward - Hastings, Quinte - Northumberland, and other local ridings, as well as the latest on results across Canada.  I am honoured to be joining the coverage team to provide analysis, and hope those who enjoy my blog and column will tune in.  Coverage starts at 9:30 Monday evening.  Tune in to 800 AM in the Quinte region, or online at cjbq.com.

Second NDP candidate takes vacation from campaign trail

If the NDP can't field candidates who are serious about running for Parliament, how can voters place their trust in them to take a major role in the Commons as either the Official Opposition or, if Jack Layton is lucky, and the country is not, Prime Minister?

Second NDP candidate takes vacation from campaign trail

Kevin Libin: U.S. group crosses boundaries in urging Tory defeat | Full Comment | National Post

by Kevin Libin - from the National Post

This election may go down as the one where the Internet broke Elections Canada’s control over our electoral process. It’s already fairly certain that social media users will make hash of s. 329 of the Canada Elections Act: defiant Facebookers and Twitterers are promising to flout the ban on reporting eastern poll results early, despite the risk of fines.

But a U.S.-based Internet activist group is also shaking up traditional boundaries on the influence that foreign groups can bring to bear on Canadians’ voting intentions.

The Avaaz Foundation, a left-wing non-profit organization registered in New York and Delaware, isn’t hiding the fact that it’s crusading to defeat the Conservatives, buying ads urging Canadians to “vote strategically” in their riding to ensure “all the opposition parties together … win a huge majority of Parliament.”

And on Tuesday, the group announced it was bankrolling a lawsuit demanding the release of the Auditor General’s report into G8 spending, that might show the previous government “illegally handed 50 million taxpayer dollars to a Conservative riding and covered it up.” It’s even using Canada’s Charter of Rights to back its argument, claiming access to certain government documents are guaranteed.

Avaaz has turned up before in the midst of an election to campaign against Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. But its reappearance highlights how our elections laws seem increasingly ill-fitted to the digital era. In 2008, Avaaz registered as a third-party with Elections Canada, subletting space in Ottawa, only to decamp back to New York after the vote. It ran ads in ridings across Canada encouraging readers to vote strategically for whichever candidate stood the best chance of beating the Tory incumbent.

One target, former environment minister John Baird, called the group a “shadowy foreign organization” and complained to Elections Canada that Avaaz was demonstrating “possible” violations of restrictions on ad spending and foreign interference. Avaaz’s third-party returns did reveal some curious items: what the Tories alleged were breaches of spending limits by riding; ads bought in Halifax newspapers seemingly allocated to allowances for B.C. ridings; and while its American tax return reported US$137,724 of “political expenditures” in Canada in 2008, an Elections Canada third-party filing listed just $57,733.83. Nothing came of the complaint. Read more...

Kevin Libin: U.S. group crosses boundaries in urging Tory defeat | Full Comment | National Post

Fix No. 1 Highway | FP Comment | Financial Post

By Livio Di Matteo and Wayne Simpson - from the Financial Post

The federal election has highlighted the need for transportation infrastructure in Canada’s Far North with the recent federal budget’s announcement of $150-million for an Arctic highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. While the goal of a national highway system from sea to sea to sea can be seen as an important nation-building goal, the fact remains that the east-west Trans-Canada Highway system is still inadequate despite its crucial role as a national transportation artery. While much of Highway 1, as it is known in much of Canada, is four lanes, it is still deficient in parts of Eastern and Western Canada. Moreover, even what is four lanes is still a far cry from a world-class highway system, as exists in the U.S. Interstate system or the European autobahns.

Canada is the largest developed country in the world without a system of fully grade-separated roadways that allow uninterrupted traffic flow between its major urban centres. The key roadblocks include the two-lane stretches from the Manitoba border to Sudbury and much of the route between the Alberta border and Kamloops. Most importantly, the Trans-Canada is still a two-lane stretch through the vital zone of transit through northwestern Ontario connecting the East with the West from the Manitoba border to Sudbury, leaving the nation’s east-west flow of personal and commercial traffic subject to the whims of an errant moose. The slow travel times and disruptions make cutting through the United States an attractive option for east-west travellers, despite the absence of an Interstate route along the border, but U.S. border-crossing formalities have also made this more difficult and time-consuming. Read more...

Fix No. 1 Highway | FP Comment | Financial Post

Kelly McParland: Tory record on hiring lapdogs needs improvement | Full Comment | National Post

by Kelly McParland - from the National Post

The Toronto Star has a big exclusive scoop on how an agency created by the federal Conservatives to help crime victims was “just a $6 million public relations stunt to score political points.”

Who says? Steve Sullivan, the former ombudsman appointed by the Tories to head the office. The big scoop seems to centre around the fact the office hasn’t released its annual reports in a timely manner. Two of the reports, for 2008 and 2009, should have been released earlier this month, but weren’t. Jeez, no annual reports! That may not strike everyone as the scandal of the decade, but we’re talking the Star here. The paper that ran a death notice from a man whose dying wish was that people should vote Liberal.

While not much of a scoop, the story does point to one of the contradictions of Harper-hatred in Ottawa. While the HH camp keeps reminding us how Mr. Harper wants to stuff the courts, the bureaucracy and other official and semi-official bodies with obedient Conservative lackeys, his record on that front has been anything but stellar. He seems to have trouble recognizing True Blue Tory lapdogs willing to tow the party line (a mistake Brian Mulroney would never have made). Read more...

Kelly McParland: Tory record on hiring lapdogs needs improvement | Full Comment | National Post

Hébert: Why Gilles Duceppe has overstayed his welcome - thestar.com

By Chantal Hébert - from the Toronto Star

Danny Williams had it. So did Lucien Bouchard. It turns out that Gilles Duceppe did not.  When it comes to their exit from the political scene, few successful leaders have a reliable sense of timing.  Intoxicated by repeated victories, many end up staying past their prime and taking their party an election bridge too far.

On that score, the former premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are notable exceptions. Perhaps because they had more fire in the belly to begin with and little natural inclination to fade gently into the night, Williams and Bouchard had the instinct to bow out before they had exhausted their welcome.

Duceppe, on the other hand, has missed his cue. Over the past four weeks, he has been finding out the hard way that his deal with Quebecers was not open ended after all.  Even leaders who never have to wear the scratch of a single unpopular decision ultimately exhibit corrosion from the passage of time.

For the best part of the last year, the Bloc and its leader have been on a lengthy 20th anniversary celebration. In hindsight, that celebration was ill-advised. Read more...

Hébert: Why Gilles Duceppe has overstayed his welcome - thestar.com

What Egyptians Want Now: Not Necessarily The Muslim Brotherhood - Ilan Berman - Present Dangers - Forbes

By Ilan Berman - from Forbes.com

Call it belated full disclosure. Ever since the ouster of president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year, the Muslim Brotherhood has reemerged as a major force in Egyptian politics. For most of that time, however, it has played coy about its political aspirations and ideological agenda. These days, though, the Islamist movement has become a great deal more frank about its plans for Egypt.

“At this period, we would like to lead the society to achieve its Islamic identity in preparation for the Islamic rule,” Saad Husseini, a member of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, proclaimed at a recent rally in Cairo. These ideas have been echoed by other Brotherhood officials, who have outlined sweeping social changes once “Islam enters the lives, ethics, and dealings of the people.”

Not surprisingly, such statements have created an uproar among Egypt’s leftist and secular political parties, who are leery of political competition from their religious flank. Far more telling, however, has been the Egyptian public’s tepid response to the Brotherhood agenda. A recent poll by the International Peace Institute, for example, found only 38 percent of respondents had positive views of the movement, and just 12 percent said they’d actually vote for the Brotherhood if parliamentary elections were held today. This suggests the views of Husseini and company are of significantly more limited appeal than commonly believed—at least for the time being. Read more...

What Egyptians Want Now: Not Necessarily The Muslim Brotherhood - Ilan Berman - Present Dangers - Forbes

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

by Daniel Kaszor - from the National Post

While preparing for a trip to Canada, I have learned that many Canadians consider my country, Sweden, to be a model for good family policy. After all, Sweden has a universally accessible, government-funded daycare system, and a 2006 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Sweden at the top and Canada at the bottom in childcare provision. Indeed, Swedish family policies are internationally admired, offering comprehensive and affordable daycare, gender equality and a high percentage of women in paid work. This, however, is only one half of the story.

True, parental leave in Sweden is a generous 16 months. There are no babies in daycare. But when parental leave ends, practically the reverse is true: A full 92% of all children aged 18 months to five years are in daycare. Parents pay only a symbolic amount for this; tax subsidies for daycare are $20,000 per child, annually. Swedish taxes are among the highest in the world, and the tax system was designed to make both parents seek employment in the work force. Read more...

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post

by Jack M. Mintz - from the Financial Post

After the May 2 federal election, some politicians should sign up to a boot camp on corporate tax policy. Our election banter reminds me of the 1960s, with populist views that corporations only benefit the rich and powerful and should therefore be taxed to the hilt. The many myths about corporate tax policies being propagated are deplorable.  Read more...

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post