The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Layton imagined Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities. It was adorable.

By Scott Feschuk - from Macleans.ca

The most surreal moment of election night 2011 took form as it became apparent to one and all that Jack Layton, leader of the Opposition, had lost his mind.

It’s well and good to celebrate a historic surge in one’s popular support. A wide smile and a jubilant bit of cane-waving are undoubtedly in order. But a few lines into Layton’s speech, a nation gaped as it grew clear the NDP leader had mistaken his moral victory for, you know, an actual victory. He seemed to labour under the impression that he would hold sway in the next Parliament. Indeed, Layton went so far as to imagine that Stephen Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities.

It was kind of adorable, like a kitten pawing at a vacuum. One envisioned Layton’s aides whispering between themselves:

—Should we tell him?

—Nah, it’s cute. We’ll put it on YouTube and call it “I Can Haz Influence?”

All campaign long, Layton had ended his speeches by vowing theatrically that, as prime minister, he. Would not. Stop. Untiltheworkisdone. He stuck to this rhetoric on election night. But the Opposition leader doesn’t get to do the work. At best, he gets first dibs on criticizing the work. With more than a hundred seats in a Conservative majority, Jack Layton has never been so undeniably relevant—and so utterly inconsequential.

Layton’s wild imaginings were merely the evening’s most flamboyant. The Night of 1,000 Delusions had gained momentum only a few minutes earlier, when Elizabeth May of the Green party ventured a curious interpretation of her own election to Parliament. “Today we proved that Canadians want change in politics,” she told supporters.

Is that what we proved? Because when the governing party wins a third straight election, and does so with a strengthened mandate, some of us are tempted to resort to the familiar Latin of status quo. Although to be fair to May, her party did attract 40 per cent fewer votes nationally this time—so that was change of a sort. Read more...

The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Siddiqui: How Harper won and Ignatieff lost - thestar.com

By Haroon Siddiqui - from the Toronto Star

In a parliamentary democracy, no election is unnecessary, really. Elections bring clarity, even those that don’t change party standings much — the government gets a new mandate, the opposition becomes more constructive. Sometimes, elections spring surprises. Stephen Harper, who derided this election as “unnecessary,” has ended up its biggest beneficiary.

Any prime minister who strategizes his way to a majority deserves credit — Harper more so, since he’s the first in seven years to have done so. This is all the more remarkable considering that he campaigned on what he had assiduously avoided in 2006 and 2008: asking for a majority. This time he read the public mood right, tapping into the broadly held sentiment that political shenanigans in Ottawa were trumping the nation’s business.

Those downplaying his majority say he won only because the NDP resurgence drained away votes from the Liberals, especially in the Toronto area. So what? Them’s the breaks in three-way races — just as the Liberals used to benefit from the splits between Progressive Conservatives and Reformers.

In fact, not all Tory wins can be explained by the splits — in many ridings, the Conservatives amassed a record number of votes. Read more...

Siddiqui: How Harper won and Ignatieff lost - thestar.com

Election Day Cometh

So it finally comes - Election day 2011, the day of the 41st General Election in Canadian history.  After starting off with a whimper, looking like it was a Question of a small Conservative majority or a return to the ante electione status quo, a political earthquake appeared to take place (according to polls), this election has turned into something of a horse race, for lack of a better metaphor.

Right now, the polls are open, Canadians are voting, and we don't know what will happen.  Until 9:30 PM EDT,  NDP leader Jack Layton's dreams of 24 Sussex Drive on the shoulders of the other opposition leaders live on in the candy-coloured (think red smarties) lands of his imagination.  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe can tell himself the feelings of impending doom are nothing but the dim memories of a bad dream.  And Green leader Lizzy May can tell herself she will in a few hours she will be leader of a party with as many seats as an independent.

Liberal and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff can tell himself that forcing this election wasn't such a bad idea, and won't necessarily lead to the annihilation of his party and political career.  Prime Minister and Conservative leader Stephen Harper can imagine the possibilities of helming a majority government.  These dreams may or may not come true, but until 9:30 PM tonight, the possibilities are myriad.

So let your dreams run wild, political leaders, for some time tonight, at least some of you are in for a most rude awakening.

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

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.

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

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

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

John Sainsbury: Rewriting history for political gain | Full Comment | National Post

by John Sainsbury - from the National Post

In a televised town hall-style infomercial, paid for by the Liberal party and aired on Sunday, Michael Ignatieff assures us that he is not “a standard-issue academic.” In sharp contrast to that tedious breed, he portrays himself as an interesting man who has led an interesting life. He’s been “out where it’s mucky and dirty and violent and scary,” dodging bullets as a war correspondent.

In 1993 he related one of his tales of derring-do in the introduction to his book Blood and Belonging. The setting is the war-torn Balkans, in the conflict zone between Serbian and Croatian territory. Our intrepid correspondent describes what happens when he and his film crew try to cross a UN checkpoint into Serb-held territory. Two Canadian infantrymen, whom Ignatieff dismissively refers to as “anxious adolescents,” man the checkpoint.

The Canadians wave Ignatieff’s party through, but their van is immediately surrounded by 15 Serbian paramilitaries, drunk from a wedding in a neighbouring village. They accuse the crew of being Croatian spies. The drunkest one (“with dead eyes and glassy, sweat-beaded skin”) seizes the van’s steering wheel and starts to drive off.

One of the Canadian soldiers, “breathing heavily,” attempts to stop him. “We’ll do this my way,” he says, pulling and cajoling the drunken Serb out of the driver’s seat. But the Canadian soldier is in turn pushed aside by a young Serb in combat gear, who seizes control of the van, arrests Ignatieff and his crew and takes them to a Serbian police station. There they wait anxiously, until an order for their release arrives, apparently from “a local Serb warlord.”

The anecdote captures Ignatieff’s thesis in Blood and Belonging, a thesis he summarizes as follows: “The key narrative of the new world order is the disintegration of nation-states into ethnic civil war; the key architects of that order are warlords; and the key language for our age is ethnic nationalism.” International agencies such as the United Nations are powerless to intervene and Ignatieff is contemptuous of their attempts to do so. Read more...

John Sainsbury: Rewriting history for political gain | Full Comment | National Post

David Frum: Ignatieff signals a return to duplicity on israel | Full Comment | National Post

By David Frum

Michael Ignatieff used this week’s English-language leaders’ debate to send dog-whistle signals to anti-Israel voters.

One occurred at about the 20-minute mark:

“Canada has lost its seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. First time it ever happened … ”

Another at minute 29:

“The fact remains, Mr. Harper, that you are the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to lose the seat that we were eligible to occupy on the Security Council of the United Nations … Talking about [the aid group] Kairos, talking about aid agencies who work in Africa, you’ve muzzled them, you’ve shut them down … For ideological reasons, you shut them down. When Rights & Democracy, an independent organization trying to represent human rights around the world, gave you a little trouble, you basically destroyed the organization.”

The word “Israel” does not appear in these remarks. Friends of Israel who want to vote Liberal can continue to remind themselves that Ignatieff condemned “Israel Apartheid Week” in a speech at the global anti-Semitism conference a year ago.

But people who follow the issues more closely will hear a very different message encoded in Ignatieff’s remarks.

Kairos and Canada’s Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development did not become notorious by “working in Africa.” They became notorious because of their attacks on Israel and their too-close associations with anti-Israel extremism. Read more

David Frum: Ignatieff signals a return to duplicity on israel | Full Comment | National Post

Sand in the Shorts: Heath Care Is Not a Federal Issue

This column appeared in the April 16th, 2011 Intelligencer


  During this federal election, a lot of the discussion 'on the street' seems to be focusing on issues like education (with Michael Ignatieff proposing his 'education passport' which will mostly help the upper middle class and wealthy) and health care.

  People are frustrated with what they (rightly) see as a dysfunctional health system, hospitals that provide slow and often mediocre care, and increasing concerns that, with the ageing of Canada's population, the whole system may be approaching overload and collapse.

  So they are turning to the government for answers. Unfortunately, it's the wrong level of government.

  According to the Constitution Act, 1867, these areas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: education, and health.

  As such, the federal government has no role in these areas except for what is allowed it by the provinces.

  This means two things.

  First, Mr. Ignatieff is meddling in provincial affairs with his 'education passport', which has already drawn some fire from the provinces.

  Granted, most of it has come from the government of Quebec, which would complain if a drowning resident were thrown a federal life preserver instead of a provincial one.

  But there are legitimate reasons for the separation of responsibilities which make such jurisdictional adventurism troublesome.

  These centre on the matter of confusion. If there is no clear distinction of responsibility, then there is the problem of holding the appropriate authorities responsible, and different levels of government could, and likely will, end up stepping on each other, and wasting tax dollars.

  Second, those who are complaining about health care during the election are barking up the wrong jurisdictional tree.

All the federal government does is fork over tax money to the provinces, who are then responsible for how the money is spent.

  The current funding system is based on the Kelowna Accord, signed by the provinces and (then) Prime Minister Paul Martin. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already said he will maintain funding based on the accord (which gives a six per cent increase every year to the provinces, an impossible to maintain growth rate over even the medium term) even after it expires, making that issue largely irrelevant in the context of the current election.

  Rather, let's lay the blame for the current health care mess where it belongs — with the provincial Liberal (McGuinty) government.

  This is a government which, rather than focusing on front line care, instead created the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) — a make-work program for expensive bureaucrats, and probably the most egregious contributor (in terms of lack of bang for the buck) to the Sunshine List (government employees making $100,000 or more).

  When a system has become as bloated and inefficient as Ontario's health system has, the idea of adding another level of pure bureaucracy is idiocy. And that is just what the McGuinty government, including our own MPP and provincial minister, Leona Dombrowsky, did.

  So if you want to complain about defence, foreign relations, or the postal system, complain to the federal government.

  But for health care, lay the blame where it properly belongs: Dalton McGuinty and Leona Dombrowsky.

"‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada?"

It seems Mr. Ignatieff is lying to someone. He has been quoted at different points as having in the past referred to himself as an American. Now, though, he is quoted as having both referred to himself as an "American Democrat" and having voted for John Kerry in 2004. How can he be lecturing the government on ethics when he is apparently a proven serial liar?


‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada? Or Another Non-citizen Caught Voting in U.S Elections? - Big Government

Sand in the Shorts: Elections - Such a Hardship

This column appeared in the April 2nd, 2011 Intelligencer


So another election is upon us. While I know some are bothered by that, and much is made by the media of the idea that that this is some sort of massive imposition on Canadians, I enjoy them. As a longtime policy wonk and political junky, this is my idea of March Madness.

And is it really such an imposition after all. How will it impact you?

• Candidates and party leaders will come to town and give speeches, shake hands, and generally work to convince you they are just like you, care about you, and will share your views when you elect them to parliament.
  • Impact on you: Only if they come to where you work, or you choose to go and see them. As these are usually publicised in advance, it is really quite easy to avoid such an event unless it is in your workplace. If it’s in your workplace, and you don’t like the visitor’s party, why not try to make rabbit ears behind them while they pretend they actually enjoy being there for the cameras. Could be funny. Could get you fired - as it should if you do it to my candidate.
• When you turn on the news, you will see (or hear, on the radio) stories about people trying to bribe you with your own money, in touching and heartfelt ways. Stories about Libya and Japan will be pushed back (and CFTO News won’t be able to devote half of a one hour newscast to a transformer fire!). If you ignore the possibility of national bankruptcy as a result of an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition, that means the first 5 minutes of your news will be much less depressing.
  • Impact on you: If you want to get right to Libya and Japan, I’d like to introduce you to CNN and the Beeb (that’s the BBC - not Justin Bieber, in case there was some confusion - Bieber would be ‘the Bieb’, after all). And don’t forget the entertainment possibilities, such as “take a drink every time you see Jack Layton’s moustache”, pools on the colour of Steven Harper’s sweater in his next ad, or a race to be the first to document Michael Ignatieff’s flip-flop of the day (full documentation of the original statement required, with bonus points if you can find more than one about face in the same speech)
• You will be exposed to political advertising (see above about being bribed with your own money).
  • Impact on you: This will end as soon as you:
    • Mute the TV
    • turn down the radio
    • turn the page of the newspaper
• You will have to read smart-assed columns by writers who are of the opinion they are the ones who truly get it.
  • Impact on you: None, as soon as you turn the page. Which of course won’t be necessary in the case of this column.
• You really should vote. You don’t have to, but you should. Don’t use the ‘I don’t like any of them’ excuse. That’s irrelevant - choose the one you least dislike. Don’t say it doesn’t matter. Your vote could put a candidate over the top. And if you want to make a statement about your disgust, move your lazy carcass to the polling station and spoil your ballot properly.

And if you can’t be bothered to go to your polling place to make your mark on a ballot, don’t irritate those of us who cared enough about our great country to do so by sharing your clearly under-educated and irrelevant opinion. IF YOU DON’T VOTE, I DON’T CARE! (about your opinions)

So, if you will excuse me, there’s an election going on.