July 31, 2006 - When they catch this guy, they should lock him up and throw away the key. No more chances - let him be dealt with in the way that men of his ilk usually are by the general prison population.

July 31, 2006 - I find this article by Angelo Persichilli kind of amusing, for a couple of reasons.

First, while anything is possible, it seems like kind of a stretch for Frank McKenna to all of a sudden pop back into the leadership fold, particularly in consideration of Persichilli's own opinion that:

"Frank McKenna doesn't like races, he wants to be acclaimed."

So then, why would a field of 11 candidates (at least half of which are unlikely to drop out) be of any appeal to a man who is supposedly unwilling to compete?

Even funnier still, however, is his take on the Michael Ignatieff organization, which according to Persichilli is built like a house of cards:

"Some might argue that he doesn't have the time to build an organization. This, in fact, is not a problem. Mr. McKenna has never had time to build organizations, he rents them.

"Mr. Ignatieff, on the other hand, doesn't have one. He is not the one who has created the organization: the organization has created him. They can drop him like a stone if he's not perceived to be a winning candidate any longer."

Let me assure Mr. Persichilli that the pan-Canadian team that surrounds Mr. Ignatieff are people that were attracted to a candidate that didn't need to be "built" by anyone. He is a man of great stature and accomplishment, and someone who has from the beginning, had a tremendous amount to offer the realm of politics. It is because he represents many of the ideals that politicians preach about, but rarely deliver upon, that supporters like myself are ready to back this guy until the end - regardless of who else comes along (OK, if my boy Chretien came out of retirement, I might have a dilemma on my hands : ).

Persichilli finishes off his speculation with this:

"From what I've seen in the Liberal Party in the last few years, it is very hard to see the difference between reality and hallucinations."

After reading this piece, I would venture that the same can be said about his brand of journalism.

July 28, 2006 - No introductions, no disclaimers, no feigned accusations...let me jump right into a reply to Jason Cherniak's rebuttal:

• The quote directly from Stephane Dion is that he believes that "the 2012 target would still be achievable" if an election were held in early 2007, and he was elected as Prime Minister, and "Project Green and other actions were implemented."

But in stating this, Mr. Dion shows that he is a little confused on what exactly is specified in our Kyoto commitment. Kyoto never assigned a "2012 target" to Canada, as Dion frequently suggests. Kyoto requires Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by the five-year commitment period of 2008 to 2012 (Note: this means beginning in 2008). So, if our emissions are 30% above 1990 levels in 2008, then our effective cap for the years 2009 through 2012 becomes 15% below 1990 levels. If we then get emissions down to, say, 10% above 1990 levels by the end of 2009, then our effective cap for the years 2010 through 2012 becomes 23% below 1990 levels. Therefore, it is just not credible for Dion to say that Canada could have achieved the Kyoto target if we had fully implemented Project Green - the numbers just do not add up. That is why Mr. Dion's statement is misleading.

• Just so Jason is aware, the reason that the C.D. Howe report uses the year 2010 as a marker is because it's the mid-point of the commitment period, and a more accurate characterization of what it will take to meet the target.

• Jason states that Dion always knew the costs of meeting Kyoto would be high, but that we should be willing to do what it takes. If he re-reads the C.D. Howe report, he'll see why this isn't a debate about having the guts to find the money. The research is critical of the entire approach, and states that there are far better options to consider that would cost less and be more effective - "Project Green, represented an intensification of the information and subsidy approach. Many Canadians believe we have been taking action on climate change when we have actually been doing little. In fact, it could be argued that without a substantial shift in policy, we will be burning our money to warm the planet."

• Jason also states that Dion never accepted the premise of the study. Which premise would that be? Is it the fact that the report is grounded in a real research and numbers, or perhaps it is because it employs the model which the government uses to assess the cost of climate policy? Which part of the report does Dion disagree with? Mr. Cherniak and Mr. Dion should look closely at the report's authors before they criticize the C.D. Howe Institute. The researchers are all from SFU's reputable "Energy and Materials Research Group." They are no right-wing lackeys.

• If self-admittedly Jason only just found out that Dion was planning to invest money outside of Canada, then how can he possibly make such an emphatic statement like this - "[h]e was never going to buy hot air credits." - ???

• Jason claims that Mr. Dion "does not accept the study as correct." If Mr. Dion wants insight into what the experts tell us is good climate policy, and how he can fill in the blanks when it comes to his mysterious "other actions," however, he should read Jaccard's previous 2004 C.D. Howe report "The Morning After: Optimal Greenhouse Gas Policies for Canada's Kyoto Obligations and Beyond." The sad reality of Project Green is that it does nothing to transition our economy and stimulate innovation. It relied on a mix of old and ineffective instruments that have been proven failures in over 20 years of research. There have been big advances in climate policy globally, but Project Green failed to learn from any of them.

I still stand my by my earlier assertion that Dion's comments are misleading. And in light of Jason's argument that Mr. Dion completely disregards the research and findings in the C.D. Howe report, I also find his comments to be ill-informed.

July 28, 2006 - Jason Cherniak, after much humming and hawing, has finally offered a rebuttal to my post, and for that, I commend him. This is a debate about ideas and future visions, and unlike Jason's take on the exchange thus far, I think it is very healthy. Differences of opinion when it comes to public policy are not smear jobs, no matter how indignant the other side of this back and forth has become.

Quite frankly, whether Mr. Cherniak decides to remove TDH Strategies from his sidebar or not is of no consequence to me. Let me also say that I will continue to have no comments section for many of the same reasons that my friend Warren doesn't use one - leeches, libel, and lassitude - I don't want to deal with the associated bullshit. This website is a platform for me to express my views more than it is a vehicle to gauge public reaction to those very pontifications.

Finally, anyone who has read my writings for a prolonged period of time knows that I don't chase jobs or money, and am rarely concerned with currying favour. I call a spade a spade, and write what I feel. I do not defend my party blindly if I don't particularly agree with an idea or practice, I do not predict majorities in the midst of one of the worst run campaigns in the history of Canadian politics, and I certainly don't automatically demonize every idea that originiates from the opposition simply for the sake of partisan advantage. I like Jason Cherniak as a person, and have a level of respect for all that he contributes to the Liberal Paty of Canada. But it is crystal clear that we have very different styles.

Off to a breakfast meeting downtown, and then I will return to offer a response to the policy hole that I believe Jason has dug for himself and his candidate.

July 27, 2006 - There have been numerous complaints from within the Liberal party (some originating from this website) that the leadership race thus far has been short on ideas and policy specifics. So, with regards to one of the most important issues facing Canada, let's do a little digging.

My entry on Stephane Dion from July 24th referenced an interview conducted by the candidate with columnist John Ivison, which was then translated into an editorial that ran across the Sun newspaper chain. Here is Mr. Dion's response to that piece:

"KYOTO PLAN WASN'T HOT AIR

Having read your editorial "Kyoto was always full of hot air" (July 23), I am compelled to clarify the reporting of comments attributed to me.

It is true that I told the National Post's John Ivison: "In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it." But the important part of the sentence is the words "in 2008."

Indeed, if I am selected federal Liberal leader in December, but no federal election is held until 2008, then there will have been a period of two years through which the Conservative government would not have made further progress on greenhouse gas emission reduction, as they have cancelled Project Green, the 2005 Climate Change Plan aimed to honour our Kyoto commitment. That would make the 2012 Kyoto target ever more difficult to hit.

However, if elements of the former government's Project Green and other actions were implemented as soon as early 2007, if that is when the next election were held and the government were to change, then the 2012 target would still be achievable in my view. Even the C.D. Howe Institute's study found that Project Green would get us 75% of the way toward hitting the target.

My overarching point, though, is that while the 2012 target is important, more important still is the way we must change our economy to be more energy, and indeed, carbon efficient. This has to become a national preoccupation.

STEPHANE DION, MP

Yes, and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass every time they hopped. Here are some substantial points to consider in reference to Mr. Dion's claims:

• First, he misleads readers by claiming that Project Green would have got us 75% of the way to our GHG reduction target by 2010, and that this is supported by the C.D. Howe report. However, the GHG emissions estimates he uses for his calculations are from 2002, thus failing to account for the rise in projected 2012 GHG emissions between 2002 and 2006. If the period between 1997 and 2002 is any indication (where the "Kyoto gap" estimate more than tripled from 69 million tonnes to 210 million tonnes), we should expect a much higher number, and therefore a much lower claim, as even Project Green documentation confirms. Mr. Dion should not be claiming that he as Prime Minister would almost make it to our targets, because in reality, we will not even come close.

• Second, he fails to mention that even his misguided claim in reductions would cost taxpayers $12 billion. The Liberal government spoke of Budget 2005 as "the greenest budget in Canadian history". We committed $5 billion over five years to the environment. That said, only $4 billion of that was climate change related. So, an extra $8 billion would have been required to achieve Mr. Dion's targets, roughly 3.5 times the rate of spending in the 'green' budget."

• Third, nowhere does he state (as the C.D. Howe report does) that approximately half of all reductions would need to be purchased as offshore GHG emissions credits. Not only is this a political non-starter because of the fact that we should be investing in our own economic transition, but it also undercuts Mr. Dion's rhetoric about needing to "transform the Canadian economy." Credits are currently in short supply, and many are of dubious origin (e.g. Germany's GHG credit pool includes "hot air" credits resulting from East Germany's economic collapse post-1990; the same goes for the U.K., as Margaret Thatcher dismantled the domestic coal industry in the early 1990s).

• Fourth, he neglects to explain that the C.D. Howe report he cites represents a complete evisceration of Project Green by taking issue with a climate policy that relies predominantly on information and subsidies. The vast literature on this topic states that this approach has never worked, and worse, often more than half the subsidies for energy efficiency measures are absorbed by free-riders who would already have taken action without the subsidy. It does not change behaviour and therefore would serve as a monumental waste of money.

• Finally, he never mentions that emissions would skyrocket after 2010 regardless of Project Green. If one looks at the graph on page 27 of the C.D. Howe report, it becomes clear that even with a $12 billion investment by 2010, emissions would continue to rise dramatically. In fact, if this approach was continued, even an $80 billion investment over 35 years in Project Green-type projects would result in emissions still rising by 50%.

The long and short of Project Green is that it would a) achieve much less than 75% of our Kyoto target by 2012, as claimed by Dion b) still require three times as much money as budgeted ($12 billion instead of the allotted $4 billion) c) see Canadian money go towards the purchase of dubious offshore emissions credits and d) make virtually no impact in the skyrocketing emissions trajectory.

If we truly want to get tough with regards to environmental stewardship, first we have to be honest with ourselves and the Canadian public as a whole.

July 26, 2006 - With regards to this story about Dr. Gulzar Cheema's impending switch (which should be formally announced tonight), let's keep things in perspective. The man was involved with the Manitoba NDP, before being elected as a Manitoba Liberal MLA, before becoming a BC Liberal cabinet minister (in a party he eventually deemed as "too right wing,"), before failing as a federal Liberal candidate in BC, and now finally jumping to the Tories. And, for anyone who doubts that this decision is inspired by his ongoing attempts to get appointed as the Consulate General in Chandigarh, then I have bridge in downtown Vancouver for sale that I'd like to show you.

July 26, 2006 - Two excerpts jumped out at me from yesterday's Globe and Mail Comment page. First, from BC Premier Gordon Campbell:

"If the federal government has more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, its first priority should be to reduce the tax burden on all Canadians with a significant tax cut. This should take precedence over any increases in equalization or massive new increases in federal transfer payments to other governments."

Now granted, the current success of the BC economy makes this kind of a statement a lot easier to utter (even though this province is still considered a have-not province for the moment). But how truly refreshing it is to hear a premier that isn't going to Ottawa to beat a drum for more cash transfers for this, that and the other. I tell you, as Mr. Campbell eases into his second term as premier, he is really beginning to demonstrate a new side of his political personality - one that I like very much.

Secondly, from Jeffrey Simpson's column on the Lebanon evacuation efforts:

"We seem to believe that, because a person carries a Canadian passport, that person thinks of himself as a Canadian and has an absolutely right to assistance from the Canadian government while outside Canada. Both beliefs are false, and potentially dangerous."

This is probably not the "politically correct" thing to say. But I tend to agree with Simpson's view, and this applies to those living in Lebenon, the U.K., or even the U.S. - it doesn't matter. As a country with a marginal military infrastructure and in turn limited capabilities in the evacuation and transportation of Canadians stuck in Lebanon, is it so wrong to state that we should put a priority on rescuing those Canadians who actually live in Canada? Not at all.

Now while I don't agree with Simpson's next paragraph on the parameters of Canadian citizenship after acquisition (once you're a Canadian, it doesn't matter where you reside quite frankly), I completely agree with his concern for citizens that have families, jobs and lives back in this country. Our primary obligation should be to assist those Canadians temporarily in Lebanon over those who for the most part, permanently live in that country.

July 26, 2006 - I just got an email from a regular reader, who sent along a recurring message that I continue to receive from a number of different sources:

"I enjoy your site because, as I have said before, you are prepared to call a spade a spade as opposed to being a shill for all things Liberal."

I take a lot of pride in living up to that kind of a reputation. Because, at the end of the day, I firmly believe that the blind partisanship of our political system is a major factor in the lack of depth and honesty in our public policy debtates, and ultimately one of the biggest obstacles to politicians truly connecting with people.

I am a loyal Liberal that makes no attempt to hide that fact in my daily rants. On the other hand, I am not one who cheerleads without thought, or criticizes without reason. This is the basis for my cordial and friendly relationship with the Minister's Regional Office's Conservative head honcho here in BC. This is why many of the Paul Martin supporters of the past are unwilling to fully accept my return to the party. And it is the reason that I am unafraid to examine politics, and policy decision-making, on a case by case basis.

Nothing is black and white. I mean, if politics is about people, and people are imperfect, then politicians are bound to make mistakes like anyone else. It is those individuals who understand this fact who are going to ride the wave of change that we are headed towards in the future - a pragmatic political climate that embraces our fallible natures, and allows politicians to thrive by just being human.

Oh, and to the author of the above-mentioned email, Michael Ignatieff's ability to demonstrate this kind of intellectual honesty is going to break through many of the so-called barriers you have identified for him as a candidate. He might not always say the most popular thing, but he is the straightest shooter amongst the pack of 11 vying for the Liberals' top job, and in the end, people are going to appreciate that more than you can imagine.

July 25, 2006 - Poor Don Bell. It looks as though he got blindsided by his BC caucus colleague. Kind of akin to asking a friend to allow a buddy to crash on his couch, only to have that friend find out about the guest's sordid history of B&E's as a result of coming home to an apartment that no longer contains any furniture, electronics or valuables. I am already hearing that there are several prominent Indo-Canadian leaders who are furious with the referral. Why Ujjal, why?

July 25, 2006 - Here is a picture of Dr. Ruby Dhalla, MP for Brampton Springdale, myself (I'm wearing the loud orange shirt), and various Ignatieff supporters in Kelowna when we met up with the Michael Ignatieff BC Youth Caravan:

If you would like to read about the ongoing adventures of the caravan tour across BC, you can check out Paige Gibson and Geoff Fleischer's blog at http://micaravan.blogspot.com.

July 24, 2006 - I was reading over Calgary Grit's interview with Stephane Dion, and stumbled on this statement:

"Since we're talking about the environment, I'd like to say that I was extremely disappointed in Michael Ignatieff's article in the National Post. He's thrown out some ideas, but he didn't even include a single word recognizing the work which myself and the Liberal government did on the climate change file or on our 2005 climate change proposal."

Well, one of the ideas he has thrown out was the introduction of a carbon tax, a concept which many within the political community raised their eyebrows over. What has consistently been mischaracterized by the Conservatives and Michael's Liberal leadership opponents is the omission of the following caveat:

"An emissions tax should be offset by reductions in other taxes, so that there is no net tax increase. This would represent an environmental tax shift from taxing activities we want to encourage to taxing activities we want to discourage. Any payments received in excess of the tax reductions would be returned to the source province to fund emissions reductions and other programs, which can be the catalyst for a boom in sustainable development."

But regardless, this concept is the kind of decisive action that this country needs to consider if we have any chance of coming close to meeting our targets committed to in the Kyoto protocol.

What strikes me about Dion's comments is that they are not consistent with some of Dion's past actions and statements. Take for example Dion's wishy-washy last minute negotiations with the auto industry in the days leading up to the Kyoto Protocol taking force on February 16, 2005. It was our Liberal government, with Dion at the helm of the portfolio, which accepted voluntary agreements by car manufacturers on fuel economy rather than insisting on legally binding regulations.

Dion has also just recently admitted to the National Post's John Ivison that:

"In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it."

So in essence, he has stated that the targets that Canada agreed to within Kyoto are unachievable. Yet when Ignatieff calls a spade a spade, and makes statements like the following:

"I think our party has got into a mess on the environment. As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to."

"We [the Liberal Party] think Kyoto has been an asset for us. It's actually been a huge political liability,"

people start to go crazy with transparent indignation.

I am glad to see Mr. Dion starting to speak openly and honestly about Kyoto and Canada's environmental future. I just wish he wouldn't criticize Michael Ignatieff for doing the same.

July 24, 2006 - When you raise expectations without the benefit of specifics, or even a defined plan for that matter, someone is bound to get disappointed. So with news that the Conservative government is now readying the provinces by "trying to lower expectations" when it comes to "fixing" the fiscal imbalance, one can expect plenty of fireworks from the Rock this coming week.

Don't get me wrong - the fiscal imbalance, and the whole idea of equalization, is a uniquely Canadian concept that is fraught with potholes for any government, regardless of political stripe. It is a complicated matter for which no solution will entirely please everyone, particularly when you have most populous province (Ontario) and the current economic engine for the country (Alberta) sitting with an opposing position to the other eight "have not" provinces. These are the elements, however, that should have served as huge warning signs to the Tories when they campaigned specifically on achieving "...a long-term agreement which would address the issue of fiscal imbalance in a permanent fashion" and making "...changes to the equalization formula which would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula."

Now of course, six months into their term, the parameters of these promises have changed. For one, the Tories "now admit that some portion of resource revenue may need to be included." This is going to be a huge barrier for cooperation for provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador. Secondly, there is not going to be a huge cash infusion as some of the premiers might have been expecting. On top of that, Quebec (as a "have not" province receiving transfers) and Ontario (as a "have" province having to dole out) have for years been pushing to change the equalization formula so that "have not" provinces would receive payments based on a per capita population basis. That also isn't likely to happen.

Ultimately, this is a mess that wasn't solved when Paul Martin tried to serve as the doormat to the provinces, and it certainly isn't going to be any easier with Stephen Harper at the helm. Like Martin, Harper has mistakenly raised the expectations of the provinces when it comes to equalization - optimism that in the end he cannot come close to fulfilling. It's very easy to cut the GST by half a percentage point, or give parents a measly $1,200 per child, when you cancel billion dollar agreements like the Kelowna Accord and the National Child-Care Plan. It is quite another, however, to promise to fix the fiscal imbalance on little more than a hope and a prayer.

And with the wrath that Harper is likely to face from the premiers this coming week, his entire caucus would be wise to recite a prayer or two for him.

July 22, 2006 - Now that this split has occurred, maybe now Joe Volpe can have a little of the spotlight. Jimmy K? He'll have to play Godfather for someone else.

July 21, 2006 - Thanks to Ted over at Cerberus, I now know that Michael Ignatieff's mother-in-law is very ill, and that is the reason he is in Europe. Having been travelling across BC for the campaign over the past week, I was unaware of MI's status, leading to my posting showing concern about the lack of a statement on the crisis in the Middle East. Thus, I owe Mr. Ignatieff an apology, as in my books, a) family comes first - always and b) making a half-assed statement on the issue in the midst of such a personal situation wouldn't be doing justice to anyone looking for substantial input.

Now there are some that have sent me views such as this:

"How refreshing it is to find that there is at least one thinking person who does not feel that his opinion be made public on what should or shouldn't be done in the current crisis. Just as political photo ops in this case would be disgusting and counterproductive so one more opinion from an outsider would also be.

Frankly, whether I agree with his position or not, I wish the Interim Leader of the Opposition would just shut up and let the government (not the Conservative Party) get on with the job they are meant to do. The last thing this situation needs is a bunch of back-seat drivers yakking away for no other reason than to attempt to score a few miserable political points. Who CARES what the Liberals would or wouldn't have done. They are not in a position to do ANYTHING so should just butt out. When the dust settles we can talk about how the Conservatives handled this thing, but for now let them do what they must."

This comes from a Liberal, and it is a view that I completely disagree with. It is the kind of logic that would render the opinions, ideas or criticisms that the Official Opposition had on any public policy matter irrelevant.

More than any other candidate in this race, Ignatieff has much insight to offer into the current situation, and I for one will be very interested to hear it. I hope Michael has the time and space needed to take care of himself and his family, and returns to this race to assume the leadership role that I know he is capable of serving.

July 20, 2006 - Even as a Liberal, I can say that I think it is absolutely ridiculous that Stephen Harper is being accused of political opportunism and getting criticized for his attempt to take Canadians out of harm's way on his plane. How can anyone be in a credible position to make this kind of assertion? It is a bold move, and it must be commended.

One thing that has become clear as a result of Harper's excursion, however, has been the embarassing inability of Canada to react to crisis'. Whether it was our attempts to send in the DART team during the tsunami, or now with the complete chaos that is being created by Canadian rescue efforts, we seem completely clueless in how to run these types of operations in a timely and efficient manner.

This isn't a partisan Liberal vs. Conservative type of comment, but one that should be of concern to everyone. God forbid that something similar ever happens within the confines of the Canadian border.

July 20, 2006 - It is so funny how the mainstream media covers leadership races, because more often than not, the information that is reported upon is taken directly out of the press release of one the various camps. The Hill Times, Canada's top political newspaper, regularly dispels this kind of journalism, which only serves to spread misconceptions and/or falsehoods. From Angelo Persichilli:

"...the question that's intriguing political strategists is how many new members the 11 candidates for the leadership have been able to bring inside the tent. Of course, everybody is trying to spin his or her own truth. And truth is also a matter of interpretation. And sometimes this can be very funny.

On the other side of the country, in British Columbia, according to my information, Gerard Kennedy is the one who has presented the highest number of new members: 4,300. Kennedy is also concentrated mainly in three ridings: two in Richmond and another in Vancouver."

Yet when the stories started surfacing just after the membership deadline, that 4,300 number was tossed around constantly as an indication that Gerard Kennedy was firmly in the lead with new signups.

Well, maybe so. But with most of his memberships coming in 3 out of 36 ridings in this province, that is the kind of interpretation that only tells less than half a story.

July 19, 2006 - The day in which I finally decided to make Michael Ignatieff my choice for the Liberal leadership, I heard him speak about Middle East politics, and more specifically, what he believed Canada's role should be within the region. And, as a man who has spent time working and reporting over in that part of the world, his views (which are unique and brave in my opinion) need to be heard.

Blind support is never productive, and from my point of view, Michael needs to weigh in with his depth of knowledge and perspective immediately.

Off to some more meetings. Now I know why I don't miss being a political staffer.

July 18, 2006 - As usual, I find Bob Rae to be completely on the wrong side of an issue. For the record, I found Bill Graham's interview on CBC this morning to be the most appropriate response to the Israel-Hezbollah violence. He emphatically asserted Israel's right to defend itself, but also talked about the grave concern he has for innocent civilians. The moral high ground in this conflict is occupied by both sides of this conflict.

Leaving Kelowna, off to Merritt and Kamloops this afternoon.

July 17, 2006 - I am off to the Okanagan to do a little political work until Wednesday. Will check in periodically if I can get to a computer over the next couple of days.

July 17, 2006 - So Stephen Harper is going around the country calling the softwood lumber deal a matter of confidence and "the best Canada is ever going to see." There is now much speculation on the prospect of the government falling in the fall as a result of a vote in parliament.

Under the deal, Canadian producers accounting for 95 per cent of the outstanding duties paid to the United States must drop their legal challenges before it comes into force.

So in essence, the deal is not strictly contingent on a vote in parliament, despite the claims of International Trade Minister David Emerson, who told the media last week that the lumber industry does not have a veto over the proposed softwood agreement. The clause requiring complete cooperation from corporate interests sure sounds like veto power to me.

Truth be told, none of the opposition parties would be smart to go to the polls over this one, largely for the lack of traction that the issue would have to an exhausted electorate. I can see a much more likely scenario of the Tories somehow engineering their own defeat to take the Liberal party, which will be in the final stages of its leadership race, by surprise.

This then brings up a valid question, sent in by one of this website's regular readers: what will be the battle strategy of the Liberals? Well, in my opinion, if we were forced into such an unenviable position, the best thing that we could do would be to make use of the multiple candidates that are running for the top job. Thing of it...Michael Ignatieff in the Maritimes talking about wind power and sustainable energy...Gerard Kennedy in British Columbia talking about a new platform for immigrants...Scott Brison in Ontario, talking about economic innovation. Any leader debates would have to be handled by Bill Graham, but it would be a very interesting endeavour to make use of the breadth and strength of the 11 declared candidates.

July 14, 2006 - This kind of pontificating is why I have a hard time believing in the current leadership within the Liberal party out here in BC. Impartial? Give me a break. Time for a change.

July 14, 2006 - I received an email yesterday that Scott Brison would be having a small get together about a block away from me in downtown Vancouver, so I made an impromptu decision to attend.

Brison had some interesting ideas to share, including a unique analysis on how in the same way that the media underestimated Stephen Harper in his cowboy outfit 12 months ago:

they are also selling short the current chances of the Liberal party to rebound from defeat.

The most intriguing aspect of chatting with the young Nova Scotian, however, was to witness the middle of the road approach that leadership candidates have to take when it comes to meeting people. Let me explain.

Amongst the small assembled group, there was one former municipal politician who as usual, tried to hijack the conversation with his personal priorities and complaints. The fact that he was ill-informed on a number of issues (urban infrastructure investments, the viability of Harper as competition, the Liberals inability to capture rural votes) didn't matter - he was going to have his platform, come hell or high water.

Thus, for the first 30 minutes or so, I saw Mr. Brison play it safe, having to respond to an over-excited know-it-all who wasn't prepared to let anyone get a word in edgewise. He seemed cautious, and not overly comfortable. And it was at that point that I understood how easy it is to comment from the sidelines on how a candidate should act, but how difficult it can be when you are the centre of attention.

For many years, I have waxed poetically of how it would be nice to see more politicians take off the kid gloves, break down the barriers, and become more human in their dealings with the public. I always listen to elected officials, examine their words, and then question whether this is the way they speak to their handlers and advisors once the cameras and the crowds die down. And in the case of Mr. Brison, once he got the chance, he showed that he is that genuine type of character. Whether it was talking to a transplanted Kentuckian about the favourite late-night snack down in his part of the southern U.S. (Gold Star Chili), or the way he has found success against the odds as a young man making his way into the political realm, Brison became real when someone talked to him as an individual.

Brison is going to be a star in the Liberal party for many years to come, and so I gave him this pearl of wisdom, for what it's worth (and some might say not much): throw caution to the wind, and be yourself above the glad-handing politician. Because in my view, regardless of whether Brison wins or not, he has an opportunity to a) truly frame the rest of his political career and b) distinguish himself from the pack of 11. In my assessment of this race, Brison really has nothing to lose by taking some chances, throwing down the protocol, and shaking things up a little.

I really hope he thinks about it.

July 13, 2006 - On so many different levels, appearances can be very deceiving when it comes to this Liberal leadership race. However, if what the Toronto Star is claiming is true, Gerard Kennedy should be happy. Still, a first ballot victory is going to be impossible for anyone, meaning that the horse-trading between the camps before and on the floor of the convention will make the ultimate difference between first and second place in December.

July 13, 2006 - With research showing that the average Canadian spends a ridiculous 12 days a year commuting between home and work every year, isn't it interesting to read that Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson doesn't feel that he should be subjected to the same kind of inconveniences.

Instead, Thompson feels that it is his right and due to spend an exorbitant $18,000 to charter five return flights from his home in New Brunswick. Thompson's chief of staff, Jacques Dubé, was also reimbursed $8,100 for air travel listed as being for him to attend five sets of "regional meetings in New Brunswick." That was a lie, as the dates of travel didn't match up to the fact that Dubé was actually in Ottawa, and used those flights to travel between his home in Fredericton and the nation's capital. Dubé apparently expensed Ottawa-based meals to the taxpayer at the same time as his travel expenses falsely placed him at regional meetings in New Brunswick. BUSTED!

Once again I am baffled by political office holders and staffers who have absolutely no regard for the expenses they rack up on the backs of the taxpayer. If for nothing else, you would think the fear of being caught would deter people from these kinds of practices, particularly in this supposed new era of "accountability" that the Conservative government likes to trumpet.

I'd be curious to find out exactly how much constituency work Thompson got done on his chartered sojourns back home.

July 12, 2006 - I really like the following excerpt from this piece:

"Aboriginal rights are not based on race, but, as the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated in another fishing rights case, on the fact that "when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries."

The source of an aboriginal right to fish, therefore, lies not in a racial designation, but rather in the use and management of the fisheries by distinct political communities whose existence long preceded the British assertion of sovereignty."

Does anyone else think that Stephen Harper's rhetoric on the eve of the Assembly of First Nations electing their national chief is designed to pick a fight? I mean, he's had guys like John Cummins and Phil Eidsvik run for his party before, and never has it been a particularly pressing issue for the Prime Minister. So why now?

Seems like yet another move to solidify his political base in advance of an election within the next nine months.

July 11, 2006 - Bart Ramson/Calgary Grit (I will never get used to that unusual name) does a fashion review of all the Liberal leadership candidates and their attire for the Calgary Stampede. To no surprise to anyone who has seen the change in style of "Bart's" writings over the past few months, of course Gerard Kennedy came out on top. Thought provoking stuff!

And for the record, Micheal Ignatieff first gave a speech regarding his views on carbon emissions to an oil & gas business audience at the Canadian Club of Calgary:

"We need to develop together a carbon management standard; so that the fossil fuel industry takes responsibility for the fate of the carbon it extracts and stops releasing it into the atmosphere. This would require some regulation by government, but with maximum flexibility as to how emission targets would be realized. An emissions market should be created to allow carbon emitting industries to trade among themselves and form consortia to achieve aggregate limits as cheaply as possible."

July 11, 2006 - This is one of the highlights of this past parliamentary session, according to Conservative strategist/pundit Tim Powers:

"Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. After a relatively quiet first term as a government member Dhalla is emerging as potential "rat pack" material. Given Bill Graham's obvious discomfort with opposition the Liberals need someone who can irritate and addle the government. Dhalla the Disturber is emerging."

Ruby is proving to be one of the Liberal party's brightest lights, and it seems as though that interpretation is traversing party lines. Ruby's a good friend, and I have seen her evolve in this party, from the Muliticultural representative for the Young Liberal national executive, to opposition critic and national political figure. I am looking forward to working together with her in the coming months to make Micheal Ignatieff our party's leader. See you next week, Ms. Dhalla.

July 11, 2006 - You have to love a guy that refers to his new gig on a major American television series like this:

"This is a summer job, dude!" Put another way: "My mother can watch me on TV in Canada and I like that."

Congratulations to George Stroumboulopoulos, who has just secured an 11-episode job as the host of ABC's new show The One. It's nice to have a Canadian star that doesn't look south of the 49th to fulfill their long-term career goals. The Hour is a wonderful show, and the future format of what young people will be inclined to watch to catch up on current affairs.

July 10, 2006 - I loved reading Kinsella this morning - not only does he have a similar take on Susan Delacourt (seen below), but he also pointed me in the direction of this article, which rings very true with my own life experiences.

July 8, 2006 - I am not surprised that TDH Strategies wasn't included in this article, considering how it was the Toronto Star and more specifically, Susan Delacourt, who weren't too happy (and contacted me directly to let me know) when on April 20 & 21, I provided a completely different account of events surrounding the infamous lunch between David Emerson and his former assistant, and called their coverage "fishy". And, only a day later, this article (the first link) in the Globe and Mail confirmed my version, much to the chagrine of the newspaper that gave Jay Epworth a national platform without doing their research properly.

July 8, 2006 - In honour of today's third place game, here is one interpretation of Christiano Ronaldo's skills:

July 7, 2006 - With the level of respect and accomplishments that Indo-Canadians have achieved in this country, with the way that Indo-Canadians have integrated into the fabric of the nation, with the way that Indo-Canadian immigrants have come to Canada for decades and made a better life for their families (mine included), this kind of crap from down south makes me physically sick. But of course, Senator Joe Biden is claiming that he was "misquoted" in his current media tour of damage control. And bare in mind, this is a man who is rumoured to be considering a 2008 presidential bid. Bloody amazing!

July 6, 2006 - And another one:

"As many of you are aware, I have taken a step back from active involvement in the Liberal Leadership race this past month. Many of you have wondered why I have not been at team meetings or at key events. I have felt uncomfortable being privy to any information, as I began to question my early support for Gerard Kennedy. I supported Gerard at the on-set of this race, due to the fact that many of my close personal friends were supporting him and I felt that Gerard's youthfulness and energy would benefit this party for years to come. I still feel the same about Gerard today. I have no doubt that one day Gerard will make a great leader and Prime Minister.

Recently I have learned more about Michael Ignatieff and have had the opportunity to speak with him about the future of our country. I have been impressed with what Michael has to offer and his vision for our country, and its place in the world. I have come to realize that Michael is today's man and Gerard is the leader of the future. Therefore, after much contemplation, I have decided to support Michael at the November convention."

July 6, 2006 - So Stephen Harper of Calgary, Alberta:

gives George W. Bush of Crawford, Texas:

a Calgary Stampede belt buckle and a Stetson for his birthday:

 

Just what he needed!

July 5, 2006 - This is a 1974 Volkswagen Westphalia that has been purchased by the Michael Ignatieff youth campaign here in British Columbia:

It was bought through Craigslist.org, it's rusty (to the point where holes in the floor make going Flintstones a real possibility), has uncomfortable seats, and some funky retro knobs, dials and switches. The top also pops up as a second sleeping quarters.

And this will be the focal point of the 2006 MIBC Caravan tour, which will traverse the province over 22 days, meeting with Young Liberals across the province. The depature date is tentatively scheduled for July 14.

In my opinion, this is the coolest idea to come out of any group of Young Liberals in years. I will be providing periodic updates of the travels of Paige Gibson and Geoff Fleischer, who are the two brave souls that are going to make a go of it. They will also have their own blog, and a very cool postcard idea that people can take advantage of.

The caravan is still seeking out donations for their tour, and can be contacted at bcyouth@michaelignatieff.ca.

Watch out for some surprising special guests that will be hopping in the van from time to time over the next month. Stay tuned!

July 5, 2006 - I want to comment on this Sheila Copps article because it mirrors a passionate debate I had with fellow Liberals last night around a table of beers celebrating the end to membership madness.

There is no doubt that for many years, the youth in the Liberal party have either bent the membership rules in their favour, or been used by senior party operatives looking for a delegate quick fix. Paper clubs would be formed through the magic of typing up fake minutes for an AGM that never occurred, in an institution that has no political affiliations in sight (Sprott Shaw Community College???), with names of members that often don't even exist.

Now due in some small part to the coverage that this website gave to the UBC Young Liberal fiasco in early March (which surprisingly gained some national attention in the party), the Young Liberal national executive did a little house cleaning - several dozen of these clubs were eliminated in April by a conference call vote.

Where my viewpoint diverged from my friends, and apparently Sheila Copps, is with this party decision:

"The Liberal Party has also decided to allow membership by non-citizens, in the interest of promoting an interest in democracy among newcomers. Allowing non-citizen and multiple memberships means those who cannot vote in a general election could play a key role in determining the party's choice for leader."

One of the main opposing arguments I heard last night was that if a non-citizen is able to have great influence over the candidates or the leader that the Liberal party presents to the general public, then they should also be able to vote in the general election. The other was your traditional "insta-members, using ethnic communities, etc." type of refrain.

Personally, I don't see the problem.

In terms of membership, the Liberal party is an organization like any other, from the Rotary Club to a union. If you pay your dues, your rights as a member, regardless of whether you are a citizen or not, are the same as everyone else. You cannot purchase the same types of priveleges when it comes to becoming Canadian.

There is no right and wrong on this issue, but to those who cry foul for candidates whose members were dwarfed by hundreds of "non-citizens," I say that's politics - if you can't organize people, you are bound to fail.

To those that say that non-citizens should have different types of rights and capabilities, I firmly believe that any two-tiered membership system is a horrible idea.

To those who lament that these non-citizens have no interest or knowledge in what they are voting for, I would argue that apathy and/or ignorance are conditions that see no boundaries, regardless of nationality or citizenship.

And to those who worry about ethnic communities being used and herded, I say that this kind of "fear" is often grounded in a disdain for ethnic communities that can effectively organize and subsequently dominate the proceedings. Once again, that's politics, and numbers are power - period.

As this country continues to see voter participation rates decline, and an anemic interest in the political process become firmly entrenched, what is wrong with giving people hoping to become Canadian citizens the opportunity to get involved? Nothing I say - and the fact that all major Canadian political parties allow for this is another aspect about this country that we all can be proud of.

I would be VERY interested in readers' opinions on this isuue.

July 4, 2006 - I have to agree with Jason Cherniak when he states that "Bob Rae may be a leading contender for media coverage, but he is not a leading contender for Liberal leader."

I am really kind of baffled by all the hype surrounding Mr. Rae, particularly from some of my Chretien-era cohorts. I find it amazing how far the past service of one's brother can propel such a foreign candidate into the Liberal party mix.

Regardless of his media profile and the attachment of some high profile people, let's set things straight - Rae is no better off in membership sales than the rest of the second-tier of contenders.

July 4, 2006 - Leadership endorsements come and go, and in the end, the majority are trumped up to be more valuable than they really are. The support of Senator Romeo Dallaire, however, easily breaks out of this mould. For him not only to back the candidacy of Michael Ignatieff, but also offer this line of reasoning in doing so:

"I decided to come forward at this time because, to me, the debate on Afghanistan went ridiculous,"

is significant on a number of fronts. Most importantly, it indicates that we as Liberals have to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a battleground for Liberal party disunity - we engineered the mission, and its combative nature, in the first place. So far, Ignatieff and Scott Brison are the only two candidates that have any understanding of this recent history.

July 4, 2006 - Isn't this story the equivalent of Brian Mulroney teaching a course on "Meritocracy and the Public Service?" Similar to Hedy Fry starring in a tourism advertisment for the city of Prince George? As silly as Bob Rae calling for Canadians to embrace a two-party system? I mean, political rebirth is one thing...laughable hypocrisy is quite another. Joe Volpe is like that kid who keeps picking at his scab - he won't be satisfied until it is painful and bloody again.