May 31, 2006 - Yesterday, I complained about the lack of notice from the Stéphane Dion campaign about a change of date for their invitation to participate in a national conference call. As a result, I soon incurred the wrath of Jason Cherniak, and received an email from Rob Edger, Dion's leadership E-communications Co-chair, telling me that the call was now taking place on Thursday, June 1, and that as soon as he had a time, he would pass along a confirmation.

Well, it is just before 3:00pm PST, and I still have yet to receive any information. Now I don't know if the Dion team expects that the people they contacted spend leisurely days in front of the computer posting incessantly, but I can assure them that this isn't the case in the work I do with TDH Strategies. Thus, without the benefit of enough advance warning as to exactly when they want to actually execute upon their plans, I am now going to have to decline the invitation due to work obligations. And this time, the "email box is full" excuse (which hasn't been accurate for the past week) cannot be used.

Like I have done in the past to all candidates, I will extend the offer to Mr. Dion to have an interview profiled on TDH Strategies. But for now, what seems to be a lack of organization has led to this website being added to a list of those that have had a communications breakdown with the Dion campaign.

May 31, 2006 - Canadian manufacturers crying foul against the Bank of Canada for the rising loonie must remember something:

The productivity gap with the U.S. has grown another 10% in just five years, now seeing Canada lagging almost 30% behind our American counterparts. This has resulted in the purchasing power of Canadians falling to almost 17% below that of Americans in 2005. The average annual average income gap between Canadians and Americans is now US$7,020.

Global commodity demand is going to continue the upward trend of the Canadian dollar, so maybe this is a time where we need to take a beating in job losses in order to continue making strides in improving our overall productivity.

May 31, 2006 - It is hard to offer a decisive comment on Joe Volpe's recent string of donations from five executives of the generic drug firm Apotex and their 15 relatives. The fact that multiple individuals under the age of 18 would feel propelled to donate $5,400 each to Volpe's campaign raises a lot of questions (including how teenagers would have that much money burning holes in their pockets), but until more information becomes available, I am going to hold back on passing judgement.

What I am just as concerned with at this point, however, is this response by national director Steven MacKinnon:

"Elections Canada regulates contributions to leadership candidates. The Liberal Party does not.

He said donors to political parties must be Canadian citizens - in fact landed immigrants can also donate - and must contribute their own money. "Until we have a reason to believe that neither of those is the case, no action is warranted."

Here's a question - why the hell not? MacKinnon is correct in saying that Elections Canada is responsible for monitoring the financial aspects of the leadership campaigns. Yet what we have here is MacKinnon also admitting publicly that there is no desire by the party apparatus to self-regulate its own candidates.

If kids are being used to filter corporate donations illegally, that should sound the alarm bells immediately. And thus to see our party (which has a lot of ground to make up with regards to rebuilding the public's trust) non-chalantly pass the buck and state that the responsibility for investigation isn't wihtin our purview, is indeed very troubling.

May 31, 2006 - As a quick follow-up to yesterday's response by Jason Cherniak to my information regarding the Stéphane Dion campaign, I encourage readers to scan the comments over at Cherniak's site. It seems that there are other Liberals in the know that can confirm the accuracy of the information.

May 30, 2006 - This is what I wrote in Jason Cherniak's comments section in response to his surprising and unnecessary angry posting against this website:

"Hi Jason,

Where exactly is this fear mongering that I am supposed to be involved in?

I commented that I hadn't received follow-up information. As soon as Rob Edger emailed me to say that the call had been rescheduled, I posted an update.

As to the financial situation within the campaign, I identified it as a rumour that I had heard. It doesn't make it true, and if you have information to the contrary, please correct me. Although I have heard this from people closely involved in your campaign.

I have not attacked Mr. Dion. I have a lot of respect for the man, and really have nothing negative to say about him.

Regards,

Jonathan"

May 30, 2006 - Rob Edger, who is the Stéphane Dion leadership E-communications Co-chair, contacted TDH Strategies last week to participate in a national bloggers conference call with the candidate on May 30. Well, today is that day, and I never received any follow-up information.

Meanwhile in other Dion related news, I have heard rumours that the campaign is quickly running out of money to the point where some formerly paid organizers are now being asked to carry on without financial compensation. Maybe Mr. Edger's silence means that he falls into this grouping.

UPDATE: I have just received an email from Mr. Edger stating that the conference call has now been moved to this coming Thursday. Also, another email from a Dion-affiliated party member seems to confirm my information about the financial shape of the campaign.

May 30, 2006 - The practice of emissions trading is a very odd type of concept that entirely perverts the notion of nations thinking globally and acting locally. There are many companies and independent middle men that have become very rich over the past decade within this new industry. Meanwhile, countries like Canada have done little to cut down CO2 emissions because of the purchase of credits from smaller nations.

So, for all her blatant shortcomings in her new portfolio, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was definitely on the right track back in February when it came to this position. Now, however, after she has been on the job for several months, she is already flip-flopping on that original statement.

So here's the test Rona: if you are so determined to prove that your policies are going to be tangibly different from the previous government, make a firm commitment to ween Canada off this practice entirely. That would be a start to matching actions with the empty rhetoric that you have delivered thus far.

May 30, 2006 - This is an audio recording of Gerard Kennedy's BC launch, which took place at the Delta Richmond Airport Hotel on Sunday afternoon (it is a relatively large file, so it might take several minutes to launch). There are some introductions of the provincial and youth chairs at the beginning, but then Kennedy gives a pretty substantial speech (it begins at 9:08 for those that want to skip ahead).

At the event, it was announced that Young Liberal President of British Columbia Coco Lefoka (whose name is very familiar to readers of this website) has been named as a national youth co-chair for the Kennedy campaign (he is the first voice you hear on the recording). I also had the pleasure of meeting another Young Liberal we have written about before - Shawn McPhee (for new readers, go check out TDH Strategies' April 17 post) - who no doubt will use his pool to full effect in his recruitment efforts. Without the benefit of a formal introduction, I did tell Shawn that I had brought my bathing suit, and inquired whether there would be a party after the launch, but he looked like a deer caught in headlights after being informed by his handlers who was behind the question.

May 29, 2006 - To those asking, I did indeed attend Gerard Kennedy's BC launch yesterday. Now, I am still working out technical details surrounding the recording, but if there is enough interest, I will post his entire speech if it is logistically possible. Let me know with your emails (if readers want it, I will work around the space issue one way or another).

May 29, 2006 - Without going into too much detail, the age old proverb states that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. So, I won't.

Except, of course, when it comes to our country's bastion of public safety, the one and only Stockwell Day.

As part of his address to a prayer breakfast in Edmonton last week, Day took a thinly veiled shot at Muslims while commenting on the current furor over Dan Brown's controversial book The Da Vinci Code:

"In an apparent reference to the violence sparked by recently published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, Day noted Christians have been restrained in their opposition to Brown's debunking of Christianity."

"I haven't seen the clerics order that the movie studios be destroyed or that the newspaper places be burned down," he said. "Isn't it great that the message of Jesus Christ is one of love and tolerance?"

One only needs to turn to the plight of homosexuals in Moscow and more broadly, Russia as a whole, to understand that tolerance is a relative term, to be generous.

To some extent, every organized religion is guilty of intolerance against certain groups and lifestyles. Thus for Day to try and portray Christianity's conception of love as somehow more virtuous than Islam's, is not only ignorant, but also dangerous.

Dangerous not due to the risk of Muslims rioting in the streets, but rather because his comments serve to foster divisions between people of different faiths.

And appropriately, to embrace a quote directly out of the mouth of Day's own leader Stephen Harper, "it's not the Canadian way."

May 27, 2006 - How funny it is to see the mainstream media outlets now covering Stephen Harper's gag order over the two mounties getting married (take a look here, here, and here) when this website broke that exact same story over a week ago on May 19th.

As I'm aware that reporters from the Toronto Star and other dailies read my daily rants regularly, I have two words for you: keep up.

May 26, 2006 - A Short Interview with Michael Ignatieff

This brief interview was conducted on May 13, 2006, outside the Roundhouse Community Centre in downtown Vancouver. It was cut short because the candidate had just wrapped up one event, and was moving onto his second. However, I have been promised more time to ask the remaining questions on my list at a future date.

I'd be very interested in receiving your thoughts on the responses.

"Many people are saying that this is the most crucial period for the federal Libearls since 1968, and it's time for a new mission. But in this world of political hegemony, global economics and appealing to the lowest common denominator for voters, can visionaries exist anymore? Or can we only hope for dreamers that are constantly handcuffed by the system?

I think that the horizons now in politics actually create massive opportunity for someone who is trying to play by different rules, and I think that this is therefore an opportunity for someone to not play it safe, and not play it close, and not play into ten second sound bites. The reason people don't is because it's risky...you know I am sitting here with you and I could risk electrocution at any moment. So if you're willing to take risks, and you aren't afraid to lose, you can do just fine. It depends what kind of risks you are prepared to take. There are smart risks and there are stupid risks; the stupid risks are where you just insult a lot of people, and then there are the smart risks, where you try and change the parameters of debate a little bit.

You said that PM Chetien was correct to keep Canadian troops out of Iraq, in spite of your support for the war. Do you have one particular position that stands alone, or are your views determined by the situation from which they originate?

Well, my position on Iraq's been very steady, and hasn't changed at all since 1992. I went to Iraq, I saw what Saddam had done to the Kurds, and I decided then and there that I would stand with these people, and I've stood since. I haven't changed my view over Saddam Hussein being overthrown by force, but that's consistent with the position that says if the Canadian public doesn't want to send troops, and didn't approve of the notion, then PM Chretien was entitled to take that course of action.

You have to remember that Prime Ministers are in the business to reflect the national view of the country. And I don't think it's right to send troops where you risk fracturing and fragmenting the country on a foreign policy issue. I had a different position in 2003 as a private individual calling it the way I see it, and I stick with that position.

Recent polls over the past year are very cynical and disengaged by the political process. What do you feel that the reasons are for this? And do people have a responsibility to become more active?

People say that there's a lot of cynicism and disillusionment with politics, but I constantly see an incorrigible hopefulness about politics. I've just been at a rally where there were 100 people that could have been sitting outside in the sunshine on a beautiful day in Vancouver, but they chose to come out and hear me, and they chose to come out for one reason - they want to hear a message of hope and inspiration. Politics is the field of dreams, politics is the place where we work together for this mysterious thing we call a country, and this very mysterious thing we call Canada, and I don't think that there is cynicism about that.

I think that people don't want to live their lives just for themselves. The reality is that people want to feel a part of something larger than themselves, be it the province of British Columbia, or Canada, or the globe, or whatever community matters to them. Individual private lives are often not enough, and people are constantly looking for something larger with which to give meaning to their lives, and politics is one of the most important places where they do that. And so their disillusionment about it, their cynicism about it, is a measure of how often they disapprove along their search for something bigger. But that doesn't mean, however, that people are going to stop searching.

What would you do to make politics more human and more accessible to the common voter?

Just talk to people, listen to people, treat them with respect. The leadership campaign is a small rooms campaign in which you sit and listen to people. I'm about to go to another small event where people are going ask me about my policies and my views, and we're going to have a discussion. I think that you can renew people's faith in politics if you treat people with respect and listen to them carefully. And then, the second thing you have to do if you are able to secure power, is that you really have to lead. Leading means making difficult decisions without perfect information, without enough time, that are bound to change the course of your country. Well, it's very difficult, and you succeed or you fail, but it is certainly built into the job description.

You have spoken about a more vigourous commitment to the idea of being a Canadian, but have spoken of "we" and "our founding fathers" when writing to an American audience. Do you find these two viewpoints to be in conflict with one other?

I think that it was a mistake, quite simply. I've never been an American, I'll never be an American. You appropriate voices when you are writing for different audiences, but I don't think that there has ever been a person who has taken a course of mine at Harvard who has had any doubt that I was a Canadian, and I've never been anything else.

I'm intensely proud of being of a Canadian, and that's precisely because we're not Americans. We're a bilingual country, we're a country with an Aboriginal heritage that has formed a part of our constitution, we have public health care, we don't execute criminals, we believe in the constitutional rights of all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation, we haven't politicized abortion so that the issue has become a battleground. There are all kinds of things that make us a very different society, and I'm very proud of those differences, and I'm in politics to maintain and strengthen them."

May 26, 2006 - First, a loving Happy Birthday to my Father, whom I love dearly, and who now can finally get seniors discounts legitimately.

I never thought that I would see the day that George W. Bush would utter words along the lines of this:

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. We've been paying for that for a long period of time."

"Mr. Bush said Thursday night he wished he'd never taunted insurgents with tough talk like "bring it on" or that he'd vowed to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

But like I have been preaching for many years, public humility, and the ability to admit mistakes, is a winning political formula. So now that Bush's bull-headed defiance has landed him with some of the lowest approval ratings in American history, he is trying a different tact.

Politicians often think that strength is reflected in holding staunchly to your position, regardless of the outcomes. In reality, real strength is being able to adjust to situations, and shift courses when you know that you have gone down the wrong path.

May 25, 2006 - Want to know why most politicians respond with "I haven't seen that article..." or "I am not aware of that report..." when asked by media scrums to comment on "documented" breaking stories? Well, Stephen Harper would probably be able to answer that question.

May 25, 2006 - Those checking in for the five questions with Michael Ignatieff will have to wait until tomorrow morning, as transcribing the static-filled recordings (the levels were set far too high) has been a challenge.

An interesting email from a regular reader and friend this morning:

"It's time. The use of TDH as the operative pronoun no longer works. You MUST start referring to yourself as "I."

Let's clear a couple of things up, before offering a comment one way or another. TDH Strategies, the company, does work with a small group of freelance writers and researchers on a regular basis. This commentary was introduced in January, 2004, as a means to draw attention to the website, and to have a forum in which to offer political opinions on a wider scale. Every one of the consultants that the company contracts out to is aware of the commentaries, and is comfortable about being included in the "we" that this website is so famous (or infamous) for using as a self-descriptor. At times, some of these writers have even taken over duties for maintaining the daily pontifications, when I, Jonathan Ross, have had to back away for personal or professional reasons.

It is frustrating to be in a debate with Dane Cook over at the Globe and Mail, for example, and have him criticize the use of the word "we" or a reference to "TDH" as this third party entity, just because he is on the wrong side of an issue (or too bloody insecure to admit that his paper screwed up royally). So, a decision has been reached.

From this point forward, I will be writing in the first person. Simple.

Now onto Stephen Harper's horrible media relations techniques.

It is hard to fathom Harper's following statement:

"Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government. They don't ask questions at my press conferences now."

First, if the press were serving as "the opposition to the government," then wouldn't they be asking questions constantly? Secondly, just because the press gallery won't accept Harper's staff choosing which journalists can ask questions from a list, doesn't mean that the press is without the desire for inquiry.

Scrutiny is part of the job, and that by definition means that you cannot control every aspect of where it is coming from, and the manner in which it is delivered.

It is a ludicrous expectation that reporters will obediently line up and follow the commands of the PMO press secretary or communications director when approaching the man who is leading the country. Do Canadians, or journalists, get the opportunity to opt out of government announcements, or choose the order in which ministers can make them? Absolutely not. So why should Harper be afforded this luxury?

Trying to manage the press is not a particularly new concept, and so Harper trying to pull rank is something that should come as a surprise to no one. His attempts to direct the role of the media and incorporate that into his own agenda, however, is like watching a petulent five year old bang his head against the wall until someone lets him have his way. The problem with that plan, of course, is that nobody is going to pick Harper off the ground when he gets that inevitable concussion.

May 24, 2006 - After listening to Michael Ignatieff speak at a couple of events, the two words that seemed to best characterize his speaking style were "intellectual honesty." Let's explain.

An appropriate description of the term revolves around responses, ideas, thoughts and positions grounded in a depth of knowledge, yet unencumbered by the restraints of political pandering.

Take for example Ignatieff's use of the term "boyscout diplomacy" to describe what he classified as Canada's cautious and at times, impotent international presence. He talked about how Liberals now belonged to the "party of urban political correctness," and that a tough and serious foreign policy requires military strength and an ability to take risks (referring not only to armed combat).

Now while Ignatieff did a good job in explaining his support for the Iraq war (from a compassionate point of view, it really does make for a man who has spent so much time and forged such strong relationships with the Kurdish people), he really fell down in his frequent characterizations of "the wrong side of freedom." In his attempts to show his passionate disdain for acts of international terror, he sounded like a George W. Bush disciple with the use of that particular phrase. Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war already puts him atop a slippery slope, and his unequivocal and correct views on Canada's role in Afghanistan make him an open target, but drawing a line in the sand between who and what constitutes "freedom" is a little high-handed, in our opinion. For an academic who seemingly tends to look at many points of view before coming to a conclusion, this was uncharacteristic of his background.

Ignatieff really intrigued the crowd when he brought out some new and fresh ideas. His support for CO2 sequestration (piggybacking off a bold launch of the policy proposal to the Calgary oil patch the day before) not only taught the audience about a relatively new concept, but also gave a fresh perspective on environmental measures Canada as a responsible nation can look into. His belief that Canada must be an "enabler" when it comes to research taking place in both educational institutions and proprietary enterprises was a new twist on an age old concept, last championed by Allan Rock and his Innovation Agenda. His proposal that perhaps foreign aid could be linked to the poorer countries that have suffered a brain drain to Canada through the loss of skilled professionals (including doctors, nurses, scientists, etc.) was not clearly defined, but very, very interesting. His inclusion of the rural/urban divide that Canada is currently facing into the realm of national unity was provocative, and a forward way of thinking about how we bridge the gap between large cities and smaller communities in the 21st century.

It is a safe assumption to deduct that many of Ignatieff's ideas are going to ruffle some feathers. From his personal affinity for the use of firearms, to his plain talk surrounding "false equivalencies" in the Middle East, to his characterization of Canada as a boyscout world power, it is inevitable that he is going to be a controversial candidate at times.

But his willingness to test out new ideas, offer opinons without walking on eggshells, and put his personal beliefs out front, are qualities that must be commended in any leadership candidate taking a crack at rebuilding a national institution such as the Liberal Party of Canada.

Tomorrow, TDH Strategies will post the five questions that we put to Ignatieff point blank in a brief but telling interview.

May 24, 2006 - To those readers who were asking about our coverage of Michael Ignatieff this week, let's make something perfectly clear: this is a courtesy that is being extended to all leadership candidates. As mentioned yesterday, Ignatieff's campaign has been the first which has reached out to this website in a substantial manner by offering direct access to the man and welcoming honest opinions (in spite of our previous criticisms). Thus, to any other candidate who would like to be interviewed, or would like to have TDH Strategies cover a visit out here to the West Coast, please feel free to drop us a line.

Check back later in the morning for TDH's impressions on some of Ignatieff's winning, and losing, policy messages.

May 24, 2006 - Watching CBC's coverage last night of the 16 civilians killed by American air strikes in Afghanistan was a real eye opener. Now maybe it is because our depth of knowledge about Canada's Afghan mission is less prounounced than it should be, but it was shocking to discover that American generals are still in charge of Canadian operations, in spite of the fact that our Canadian contingent leads the deployment of allied forces within Kandahar province. Thus, when air strikes involving American planes go awry, and innocents are killed, the Canadians become targets through no fault of their own operations.

NATO troops will move in to take control towards the end of the summer, thus ending the many years of American control over the missions. As reported by the Toronto Star:
 

"The U.S. has more potential military obligations than it can handle. It needs its troops for other wars. So, it is handing off most of its military operations in Afghanistan to NATO.

While not planning to bring home all of the 20,000 troops it currently has stationed there, Washington certainly expects to reduce this number over time.

In return, Canada, Britain, Holland and other NATO countries have agreed to take up the slack."

For the moment, however, it is very disconcerting to watch some of the elders living in the village of Azizi mistakenly blame Canadians as they sift through the rubble of what was once their homes.

The bottom line is, the Canadians' mission to "win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people" does not exactly mesh well with the U.S. war on terror. And so while our commitment to the Afghanistan front must not waiver, Canada's mission to bring peace and understanding to the country will be dramatically helped by NATO forces taking the reins from the Americans, who can continue to practice their shoot first, ask later type of policies in Iraq.

May 23, 2006 - What a move by Quebec premier Jean Charest, and what an embarassment for Stephen Harper. Harper have now given Quebec an official international presence, and so this is bound to sting even more as the Prime Minister is slowly shamed into realizing how badly he is screwing up this file.

May 23, 2006 - TDH Strategies has done a great disservice to the Michael Ignatieff campaign, in light of the courtesy and hospitality that we were shown over a week ago.

The excuses of work and personal obligations are now finished with the completion of the long weekend.

To say that we were very surprised by the time that we spent with the man would be a huge understatement. And it underscores a point in politics that not many people are willing to come to on their own: admitting that we were wrong.

The issues that TDH was critical of regarding Ignatieff - identification with Americans by the use of the word "we", his views on torture techniques, his support for the Iraq war - were completely valid. That being said, they were put forward without a lot of depth behind them. And while opinions can be formed on a whim, true understanding takes a little longer.

Over the next week, TDH Strategies will provide comments about some of Ignatieff's ideas, his manner, his ability to relate with people, and some of the answers we received to some tough questions.

Today, we will start off with the concept of Ignatieff's academic pedigree, and how that affects his ability to connect with Canadians.

It has often been contemplated that MI's long list of degrees and published works might be an impediment to being accepted by Joe Shmoe Average, who more often than not, likes politics to be light and fluffy. Politics 101 tells us that policy is for selling, not explaining, and that long intellectually stimulating dialogs are not likely to gain traction at the polls.

Rather than create a wedge with people, however, Ignatieff's long academic and journalistic careers have given him the uncanny ability to know how to identify with an audience. He was just as comfortable walking into a small room filled with wealthy socialites sympathetic to the plight of Israel as he was speaking to a large, semi-hostile Sunni Muslim audience celebrating Milad-un-Nabi. To say that he has been to mosques in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, to recant about trips to Israel, to understand the delicate balance of issues betwen the Israelis and the Palestinians, to boldly say that Canada does not have a large role to play in the Middle East peace process, requires a broad base of experience in which to draw upon. And, Ignatieff has plenty in which to work with.

Don't get us wrong...not everything we are going to say about Ignatieff is going to be positive. But the facts are very clear: this has been the first leadership campaign that has reached out to this website, and given complete and direct access in which to offer opinion upon. Secondly, we were impressed by far more than we were concerned by.

Tomorrow, we will delve into some of the more interesting policy concepts that Ignatieff had to offer.

May 23, 2006 - It is a strange occurence for this website to reference an American point of view on what Canada's global obligations are. Yet, in light of the Stephen Harper indifference towards environmental stewardship, external opinions are beginning to ring true.

Here is Al Gore responding to a question from Simon Houpt, an arts correspondent for The Globe and Mail currently in Cannes, about whether the rest of the world might follow Canada's lead if we decide to pull out of Kyoto:

"What Canada does matters, and I know enough about Canada to know the Canadian people take their obligations as citizens of the world perhaps more seriously than the people of any other nation on the face of this earth. That is why Canadians have participated more, and more fully, in every United Nations peacekeeping mission in the history of the United Nations. That's why Canada hosted the landmark Montreal Protocol negotiations to solve the first planetary emergency. That is why nations around the world look up to Canada as a source of moral leadership, and if the Harper government - which is, after all, in thrall to the tar sands interests and other polluting interests - tries to take the Canadian people for granted - personally, it's not for me as a non-Canadian to say, but I do not for one minute believe that the people of Canada would ever turn their backs on that noble political tradition."

With this morning's release of polling numbers indicating that Harper has now moved firmly into majority government territory, one thing is clear: the environment is an issue that carries little to no weight for the voting public.

Politics, particularly within the composition of a parliament that is poised to go back to the polls within a year, is strictly a short-term game. So maybe, just maybe, Harper is waiting to gain that majority before taking bold steps with environmental policy (although, the three opposition parties would likely give unanimous consent to an alternative plan that was substantial, specific, targeted and ambitious). More than likely, however, Harper's measures, whatever they might be, whenever they may be enforced, will be little more than appeasements to the corporate interests (oil & gas, car manufacturers, etc.) that Harper is now beholden to.

Stephen Harper in the role of a political tactician has been nearly flawless since his storied victory at the end of January. Yet just as we asked of Paul Martin throughout his time in office, we will offer the same query to the new Prime Minister: Where is your vision for the country?

Child care tax credits, an Air India public inquiry, harsher penalties on crime, a plan for accountability (at least on paper), a GST cut - all decisive measures that have very successfully accentuated the differences between this government and the ditherer. So what now?

Vision is setting a course to protect our country's environmental health over the next century; vision is deciding how Canada can really make a greater impact on helping the less fortunate across the globe; vision is understanding that federalism and national unity involves a plan that doesn't pit provinces against each other.

Who are we? Where are we going? These are the kinds of questions that would be interesting to have answered from the mouths of the men and women who are currently steering the ship.

May 19, 2006 - The story of two RCMP officers getting married is no longer something that could be considered controversial in a progressive country such as Canada.

"The Chronicle Herald

Mounties get their men -- each other

The Force is with them as RCMP officers to wed

By DAN ARSENAULT

Staff Reporter

METEGHAN - On a Friday night in Yarmouth this June, Const. Jason Tree and Const. David Connors will don their scarlet dress uniforms, stand before family, friends and co-workers and wed in the first same-sex marriage in the RCMP's storied history.

In an interview in their Meteghan home Wednesday afternoon, the men said they've had great support from the national police force, the community and their families.

"I've never had a single problem," said Const. Tree, 27, a native of Fredericton, who has worked in southwestern Nova Scotia for six years and is posted in Meteghan."

The pair, who've dated since meeting at the University of New Brunswick more than eight years ago, will be married by a justice of the peace at the Rodd Grand Hotel on June 30. Each will write his own vows, and each will have a best man. They expect plenty of fellow officers to attend and have yet to decide if they'll have their colleagues form an honour guard for them. They plan to honeymoon in France and England."

As articulated by Sgt. Frank Skidmore, "the RCMP welcomes a workforce that is representative of Canadian society, and that is the case here."

What is controversial, however, is the federal government's reaction to the situation. One of our sources on the inside has notified TDH Strategies that the PMO has issued an internal gag order ordering all MPs to refuse comment on the marriage. On top of that, the only person allowed to address the issue is Stockwell Day, a man who is on record stating that:

"Homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured through counselling."

Why would such a formal directive be issued regarding such an inconsequential situation that has absolutely no bearing on the government? Is Stephen Harper fearful that some of the fringe element that he includes within his caucus will actually open their mouths and speak freely with their true opinions?

May 18, 2006 - Stephen Lewis was magnificent - he is a man of international proportions who should be deemed a national treasure. The palpable, raw and sincere emotion that he displayed is the factor currently missing from Canada's political landscape. And, such compassion for a world that is bigger than the scope of what sits in our backyard is so very refreshing and inspiring. It's time for TDH to make some kind of contribution.

From participation in a middle childhood research forum, to our ongoing work into examining the outcomes of skilled immigrants in Canada, this has been a very busy time. Regular scheduled commentaries will be back tomorrow morning, and this 2 day absence will be made up on the weekend with a day's worth of observations on Michael Ignatieff, who provided TDH Strategies with amazing access to his campaign last weekend.

We will leave you with this one parting thought: sometimes the engagement of one individual, and meaningful work performed in isolation, isn't enough to salvage a larger organization that insists on cutting people out of the process.

May 16, 2006 - Today TDH Strategies is brimming with anticipation for our attendance at a talk that Stephen Lewis, Canada's former Ambassador to the United Nations and currently the UN's Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, is delivering later this morning. This kind of determination:

"I would like to throttle...those who've waited so unendurably long to act, those who can find infinite resources for war but never sufficient resources to ameliorate the human condition,"

is inspiring beyond anything that is heard in contemporary politics. Today's speech is entitled "Educating Our World: the Power of People."

10 days before the federal election, Stephen Harper promised to increase foreign aid spending by $425 million over five years, and bring it to the average level among members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (approximately 0.42% of GNP). This was a commitment that the Liberal party's platform did not match.

The budget tabled this week continues the Liberal policy of increasing foreign aid spending by 8%. That means Canada's international assistance will grow to about $3.8 billion in 2006-07 and to approximately $4.1 billion in 2007-08, figures still short of the OECD average, and lower than half of Lester B. Pearson's 1969 target of 0.7%.

This isn't to say that the Chretien/Martin governments were any better, because quite frankly, we weren't.

This cartoon that was sent to us by outgoing UN Ambassador Allan Rock yesterday about sums up the frustrations that Mr. Lewis faces every day in dealing with governments from around the world:

When will we ever learn? TDH Strategies will report back later this afternoon with our impressions of Lewis' answer to this question.

May 15, 2006 - A young person going to a political convention in this country will eventually hear this expression:

"Young Conservatives go to conventions to get drunk, Young Liberals go to get lucky, and Young New Democrats go to get pamphlets."

Well if this is the way that Tories think about speed dating, it's no wonder that they have such a hard time with the opposite sex.

May 15, 2006 - Irresponsible journalism at its worst.

On Saturday, the Globe and Mail opened their front page of the Saturday edition with the following headline: "Six Liberal contenders don't pass as bilingual." It was a damning condemnation, considering how important the ability to speak fluently in both official languages is within the Liberal Party of Canada. Amongst the six were Gerard Kennedy and Maurizio Bevilacqua.

So what happens if you click the link back to that story now? You get a revised version, with this explanation:

"Editor's note: Due to an error in the article published in Saturday's Globe and Mail, Gerard Kennedy and Maurizio Bevilacqua were misidentified as failing to meet the requirements for a bilingualism certificate. Anyone receiving a grade of 2 or more would be deemed bilingual. Both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bevilacqua received a grading of 2. A corrected version of Saturday's story appears below."

Too little, too late.

The original article caused great concern amongst many Lower Mainland Liberals that TDH Strategies encountered over the weekend, and definitely seemed to change thinking, or open up new considerations, for those who were still trying to decide where to place their support.

The Globe was in such a rush to create controversy (they interviewed the candidates under false pretenses, notifying them only after the fact that the interview was really an examination by a university professor) that they didn't practice due dilligence in reporting the results.

And as a result, the two misidentified candidates are going to have to battle this spread of false information over the next many months. Now in consideration of the fact that the retraction never has even 5% of the impact of the first story, this challenge is going to be very difficult.

Shame on the Globe for not having the integrity to properly manage their own manufactured story.

May 12, 2006 - When the Liberal government turned to the auto industry and trumpeted the voluntary agreements on emmissions that were signed, we called if foolhardy. So by the same logic, the Conservatives decision to forward a report to the United Nations requesting more "lenient" Kyoto Protocol deadlines and voluntary targets is just as stupid.

Why are the Consevatives even trying to negotiate entry into the second phase of Kyoto? They consistently trashed the agreement for many years while in opposition, and since coming to office, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has been talking about a "made in Canada" plan for environmental stewardship.

Could it be that the government is finally realizing the international implications of abandoning such an agreement? Or is the Conservatives' "made in Canada" plan thinner than Nicole Ritchie after a feast of chicken broth and lettuce? We suspect a little of both.

May 12, 2006 - Reading Don Martin's take on a recent gathering of the Liberal leadership candidates brought forth a familiar lament - one that this website alluded to just days ago:

"They all preach the same mantra with little variation. Loyalty to Charter rights, environmental protection, public health care, the values of innovation, education and immigration. They're too polite to point out differences between themselves."

The obvious question that arises is simple: Why?

Is it because in this early stage in the game, the candidates are under the mistaken assumption that showing themselves to be unique, or outside of an expected mould, is a threat to signing up new members? Because from the point of view of this website, that would be the best way to generate new interest without the "assistance" of aggressive ground organizers pushing forms in people's faces. Or maybe it is just the manifestation of a party that became so used to winning, it forgot how to hustle for a vote...how to take a new idea, and sell it on the streets. That's what having no real opposition for a dozen years can do.

Regardless, walking on egg shells, or parroting the same concepts with only slight differentiation because of speaking styles, is a dud strategy. In the end, the leadership candidates must expand their scopes beyond those precious few within the Canadian population who actually hold a Libeal memership card. This should not be about a race to Stornoway, an analogy that our friend the Calgary Grit points out so often. This should be about winning government.

And that means that the policies and mantra coming out of the mouths of each and every candidate must appeal to Joe Shmoe Average - a demographic that Stephen Harper has now stunningly begun to dominate.

Time to show some character, boys and girls, because unfortunately, the Liberal brand just ain't what it used to be.

May 11, 2006 - On par with the poetic renderings of one of our most beloved leadership candidates, comes this resignation letter from Conservative MP Maurice "G_d speaks to me" Vellacott. Among the highlights:

"They [referring to the Liberals] seem to think that they have some divine right to govern and it is greatly upsetting to them when the public judges otherwise." EDITOR'S NOTE: We're anxiously awaiting the text from a speech "proving" that Liberals have a complex of divinity.

"I think it a terrible blot on our Canadian history to rip precious children out of the arms of their parents to forcibly have them in schools of the government's choosing. To those who argue, that it was intended to benefit the Indian children, I say that is not for the government to decide those matters. As a present day Conservative and classical liberal, upholding parental autonomy is a core principal for me." EDITOR'S NOTE: Apparently, the Conservative party is the only place in Canada where you can find people arguing about the benefits of residential schools.

"I'm saddened as I voluntarily remove myself from this committee, in that I had hoped, before this earthly life is over, in some modest way, to contribute to improving living conditions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit. I submit to a sovereign G_d to provide me that opportunity at some point in the future." EDITOR'S NOTE: Vellacott seems very earnest, and TDH Strategies is confident that he will continue to speak to a sovereign G_d about the plight of Aboriginal people after his earthly life is over.

"...other aboriginals across the country will be best served, in the foreseeable future, by sharing their important concerns with my colleagues on the committee, as my energies and time will be devoted to another committee. I will continue to give attention to the serious agricultural issues through my riding and in the country." EDITOR'S NOTE: Vellacott has already begun to pray for rain in advance of this summer's anticipated record temperatures and inevitable drought conditions.

"With my wife's consent, I will accept some speaking invitations to promote historic monogamous marriage." EDITOR'S NOTE: No comment...that one's just too easy.

"I have no regrets about speaking against racism in this country and in Sudan. Humanly speaking, I know there is a cost, but I can do no other, because this life is too short, and ultimately I long to hear, "Well done!" from the One who is over all, at the time when it matters most of all!" EDITOR'S NOTE: So as to avoid disappointment, we hope that he isn't talking about Stephen Harper.

H/t to The Dan Report.

May 11, 2006 - In 1997, the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group stated the following within its report containing recommendations that were designed to guide future immigration and refugee legislation:

"Canada has no demographic policy for us to consider. Levels of immigration - on which the Minister is bound by law to seek advice - are found by some to be an intriguing topic. It seems to us, however, that the real question that needs to be asked in this regard is what, if any, relation immigration levels have to the resources available for integration and effective program management."

According to Jeffrey G. Reitz of the University of Toronto, "the so-called absorptive capacity of the country is one of the least analysed aspects of immigration policy," going as far as to state that these targets are arbitrarily "adjusted from year to year in response to political pressures."

Translation? The 1% target for immigration levels has never had the benefit of sound policy behind it. There is a reason why we as a country have never been able to reach this lofty objective: our immigration system is collapsing under the pressure of not having enough resources, and being inefficient with the ones that we have already devoted.

This is not to suggest that Monte Solberg's idea to restrict immigrant applications until the government has cleared a backlog of 800,000 people is a good one - in fact, TDH Strategies would call it non-sensical, putting your head in the sand type of political decision-making.

Current demographic facts are unmistakeable:

According to the 2001 census, for the first time in history, immigration over the preceding five-year period accounted for more than 50% of Canada's population growth.

Based on the anticipated continuation of current immigration rates, it is likely that immigration will account for virtually all labour force growth by 2011.

Boomers aged 37 to 55 in 2001 comprised 47% of the labour force, and in 10 years, half of them will be over 55 or older, and 18% will be over the age of 60.

But for immigration to really make up for the shortfalls that our ageing population is bound to produce, there are many things that need to be addressed - greater capacity to process immigration requests, better social integration strategies, expanding employment access opportunities, more aggressive promotion abroad against the rising tide of competition from countries like China and India - just to name a few.

So far Solberg has taken a very hands-off approach to his new responsibilities, often citing the fact that many of the issues at hand are "not a priority" of his government. Yet, the truth is that Canada pursues immigration as part of its continuing project of nation-building, and the intake of immigrants is now one of the most fundamental aspects of maintaining this country's growth over the coming decades.

Regardless of their overstated list of five priorities, Solberg and his cabinet colleagues had better wake up and take the problems of the current immigration system very seriously.

May 11, 2006 - The work that TDH Strategies is currently doing regarding employment access strategies for skilled immigrants means that we have a perspective with some depth regarding this decision by Immigration Minister Monte Solberg.

Now, based on some of his public statements and actions over the first few months of his tenure in this portfolio, it is clear that Solberg clearly needs to become better informed about the intracacies of such an important department. That being said, there is some substance to his claim that the target of accepting 1% of Canada's population represents "a meaningless figure." Check back for more details on this issue later in the morning.

May 10, 2006 - Isn't it interesting how all of a sudden the British Labour government becomes indignant over Guantanamo Bay on the heels of polls showing that only 26% of British voters are satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair, like usual, didn't have the guts to condemn the American detainment camp directly, so instead let Attorney General Lord Goldsmith do his dirty work:

""The existence of Guantanamo Bay remains unacceptable," Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said in a speech. "It is time in my view that it should close. The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, of liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol."

Blair's office was aware of the planned speech earlier today. Asked about reports that Goldsmith would criticize the U.S. government over the camp, Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister believed there was a "genuine dilemma" because American officials believed many of the detainees were dangerous and could not be released."

Now that's leadership.

May 10, 2006 - What a surprise. So Ralph Klein leaves the premier's chair for the Fraser Institute, while Preston Manning eases away from the Fraser Institute to enter the PC leadership race with the encouragement of Klein. How neat and tidy!

May 10, 2006 - After Paul Wells suggested that British Prime Minister Tony Blair should fire Gordon Brown for plotting a coup for the past few years, Jason Cherniak comments that the example provided by the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin affair (resignation? firing?) is reason for Blair not to act. Apparently, Chretien was the one who came out worse for wear.

So Martin tries to unseat Chretien while serving as Finance Minister, gets canned, finally shows off his blind ambition for the rest of the country, and then falls flat on his face when he gets to the big dance...but Chretien is the one who was embarassed?

Cherniak is probably the most prominent Liberal blogger this country has at the moment, and he is very good at what he does. But his continued misguided devotion to Mr. Martin often provides great fodder for scepticism regarding the value of his commentary. This revisionist viewpoint on Martin's departure from the cabinet is one of those times.

May 9, 2006 - In consideration of Section 2(e) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons:

"2) Given that the service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected:

(e) not to accept any gift or benefit connected with their position that might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity except in accordance with the provisions of the Code,"

and in consideration of this provision in the new Accountability Act:

"Prohibit nominated candidates or MPs seeking re-election from accepting large personal gifts,"

how does Stephen Harper justify this latest development? And more importantly, how do they continue to ride atop their hypocritical high horses?

May 9, 2006 - Several months ago, this website advocated for a formal policy rethink, if you will, in advance of the Liberal party choosing its next leader. The logic for this was derived from many streams of reason: the fact that voters had rejected a vision that was long in generalities, short on specifics; the appeal of having the membership shape a party direction upon which the leadership race could operate from; the opportunity to foster an environment where a clean slate was the foundation, and no idea was too radical or obtuse to at least consider.

Others argued that if a formal policy convention were held first, all candidates would have to eke out ground on a collectively prescribed platform, thereby cancelling out any chance at individual definition. Let the candidates present different visions, the boosters said, and allow a democratic process to choose the one which best represented the next stage in the evolution of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The latter approach won out, and here we are in early May with 11 candidates in the field. Now, as we mentioned a couple of weeks back, all campaigns are in membership sign-up mode, meaning that policy platitudes are enough for the moment. But a conversation the other day with a senior official in one of the camps gave us a very interesting perspective. From her point of view, the key to winning this race would not be to secure the most new bodies, but rather to convince the long-term members to jump aboard.

Is it alarmist to express concern that so many of the ideas and words coming out of the mouths of the candidates are so similar to each other...so, generic in nature? Because even though it is only May, TDH would have hoped that there would have been a little more differentiation between the different "visions" on the environment, health care, Canada's foreign policy, etc.

Everyone keeps hoping to find the next Trudeau amongst the field - someone who stands up and defines him or herself as a visionary that is worthy of excitement, anticipation, and devotion. But here is the question - in the world we live in, and more particularly, in the political climate that currently exists in Canada, are visionaries allowed to exist? Is global, national, or even partisan hegemony to much to overcome? Is it because candidates are not able to enter new realms of policy innovation, or just aren't afforded the opportunity?

This is simply the lament of a viewpoint hungry for substance, and so premature impatience may relegate this rant to insignificance. But shouldn't a leadership contest also test boundaries, and expand minds and hearts, alongside the monotony that is collecting signatures and membership dues?

May 8, 2006 - The promised Michael Ignatieff interview is currently being scheduled, and will hopefully be carried out sometime on his next visit to the west coast. Now despite our declared interest in another candidate, and our occasional critical stances directed at his record, much kudos must be given to Ignatieff's team, who have done a fantastic job of continuing to keep this website engaged on a regular basis. If Ignatieff is as impressive up close as some of the names he has lined up here in British Columbia, this should be a very interesting sit-down.

May 8, 2006 - Unlike what Jason Cherniak believes, this move by Gerard Kennedy is really kind of refreshing.

Any media outlet who accuses a man moving his very young family to another province as playing politics will be crucified. You don't disrupt the lives of children aged 3 and 7 years old just to make cheap political points for a tempororary leadership run.

Gerard was born in the West, made his mark in Ontario, and now is looking at experiencing Quebec. Sounds like a truly pan-Canadian man to me, regardless of the politics. And that, with TDH's strong roots both here in British Columbia and Quebec, is life experience - and more specifically, Canadian life experience - that in our opinion, is very attractive for a leader to possess.

This move must also be considered extremely brave, considering that Kennedy is likely to run for a federal seat in the next election.

May 8, 2006 - Question from this morning's The Hill Times to the party pundits:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's strategy still seems to be to answer most of the questions himself during the Question Period. Good or bad strategy"

Answer from Leslie Swartman, Liberal "strategist":

"Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. Good if you're the PM getting all the glory, but bad for his ministers who watch the PM getting all their glory! It's been widely written that the PM believes himself to be the smartest person in the room. A strategy therefore to hog the limelight in QP is surely, in the PM's mind, a good way to lower the risk of someone messing up on his watch. Mr. Harper only trusts himself to deliver a winning re-election strategy.

But apart from it being tedious to watch, it's a highrisk strategy. If the PM doesn't allow his ministers to be accountable and learn to think on their feet, he's only delaying an inevitable case of foot-in-mouth disease. Worse, the PM becomes accountable for everything, and will personally wear anything that goes wrong. Attempts to deflect the blame ring hollow (hello flag flap). And if Mr. Harper fails to win a majority in the next election, there will only be one person to blame."

So she thinks that a Prime Minister standing up and taking questions rather than ducking them is a liability. Then she goes on to state that if Harper doesn't win a majority (meaning she is already conceding a Liberal defeat), he will be in trouble.

Come on...is this the best the Liberal party has to offer? Because if it is, what a sad state of affairs for our future.

May 5, 2006 - The constant lament of writers is deadlines, preventing anyone here at TDH Strategies from offering a commentary yesterday. So, here's the ever-popular bullet point rapid fire to make up for Thursday's absence:

• Gordon Campbell deserves great praise for taking such a strong stand against Stephen Harper's abandonment of Aboriginals:

"Today, I want there to be no doubt where this premier and this government stand. We stand to behind our word."

This cannot be put down to a Liberal vs. Conservative thing, because the truth of the matter is that Campbell's party probably has just as many federal Conservative supporters as it does federal Grits. So in strict political terms, he risks alienating some of his base by this action. But in this final stretch run for the BC premier, Campbell is determined to leave his legacy, and the well-being of our province's Aboriginal peoples is where he wants to begin. We really like this elder stateman version of Gordon.

• For all his troubles, David Emerson is beginnng to do some things right, at least from the standpoint of his ministerial responsibilities. Having just achieved success through his active involvement in the softwood lumber deal, Emerson is now turning an eye towards the white tower of secrecy known as VANOC. Just because our olympic organizers come calling for an extra $55 million (to start with) doesn't mean that we all have to jump. Cost overruns in this era of huge resource prices and even more burdensome gas costs have to be considered unavoidable. So particularly because of this inevitability, the way in which VANOC is so closed off from the rest of the province, and indeed the country, is cause for great concern.

About 6 months ago, TDH took a phone call from a friendly reporter at the Vancouver Sun frantically trying to track down some kind of source within VANOC's staffing operations, as every door he turned to was ceremonially slammed in his face. Even contacts of ours back in Ottawa during the dying days of the Liberal administration were having trouble pentrating the information hoarding that was occurring.

VANOC has some strong individuals on its Board of Directors, including our friend Peter Dhillon, but until CEO John Furlong begins to instil a different corporate culture into his operations, Emerson has every right to question additional expenditures and publicly demand accountability.

• The next Rat Pack? Give us a break! Jean Lapierre? Well, at least they have one member that lives up to the name.

• We are not going to argue with the smug Robert Fife's comments about Hedy Fry's newly launched leadership campaign in this article because, quite frankly...it would very difficult. That being said, far be it from this website to piss on Hedy's parade - she is another woman candidate, and she is the first that originates from British Columbia. So, funnily enough, in spite of the person behind the bid, this candidacy is a healthy thing for this party.

• Here's hoping that Harper does something useful with this incoming $1 billion. Hey Stephen...you want to take a shot at extending your honeymoon period and at the same time making a positive impact? Give it to Aboriginals...all of it. Maybe you can create some daycare spaces to make up for the ones that you have eliminated over the past few months. Or at the very least, hand it back to the lumber producers who suffered for all these many years. But don't put into you coffers and sit on it.

That's it for now! Have a wonderful weekend.

May 3, 2006 - The devil may be in the details, but periphery viewpoints are what is going to make yesterday's budget a winner for the Conservative government.

Some massive, significant changes were delivered - the elimination of funding for any and all Kyoto related initiatives, the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord for Canada's Aboriginals, a rise in the income tax cut by half a percent - but none of that will matter, largely because economic talking heads will not be able to speak louder than the 28 tax cuts worth $26 billion over three years. And when these cuts are experienced at the retail cashier, when riding the bus, and/or at work, no amount of grumbling about a more individualistic society devoid of government funded social programs is going to rise above being categorized as political rhetoric.

The middle class is being won over because Stephen Harper is doing a masterful job of appearing that he is not only looking out for the best interests of Canadians, but also doing so in a manner guided by listening to the electorate. It is a brilliant strategy that contrasts well in public opinion with a recently departed Liberal government that had become such a well-oiled governance machine, it lost all touch with its traditional voter base, and in essence, cut its own fuel line.

But as the Tories cruise high in the polls, including overtaking the Bloc with the number 1 position of support in la belle province, Mr. Harper is quite possibly headed for one of the rudest awakenings to the realities of federal-provincial relations in modern Canadian political history. How is that you may ask? Two words: fiscal imbalance.

A year ago, the provinces appointed an expert panel to study the imbalance in transfer payments to the provinces. Just weeks ago, this panel delivered recommendations that Ottawa return an extra $9.6 billion to the provinces: $4.9 billion for health, social assistance and education and $4.7 billion in equalization payments.

The truth of the matter is, Harper doesn't have that kind of cash to spend. Yet he has raised expectations to such high levels amongst the premiers that the negotiations from a provincial point of view are going to be relentless and demanding far beyond the logic of reason. So unless Harper is ready to continue to slash major capital spending only to give it all back to the provinces, this meeting with the premiers that was promised yesterday is not going to be pretty.

And once the honeymoon is over, Harper's going to really find out what it is like to live the polygamist lifestyle with his 13 proverbial spouses.

May 2, 2006 - Go take a look at Environment Minister Rona Ambrose's blank stare in this video (3:50 in) after Rick Mercer asks about whether the environment will become a priority in the Tories' quest to reach a majority. Then take a listen at her generic follow-up answer to the question. Finally, go and read this article about Canada's non-presence at the UN Kyoto talks taking place May 15-26 in Bonn, Gernmany.

The budget that will be delivered just a few hours from now will really give an indication of the true extent of the Conservative cuts to the Kyoto related expenditures put in place by the previous Liberal government. Meanwhile, Ambrose is currently standing up in the House of Commons and delivering nonsense like this:

"The difference between the Kyoto plan and our made-in-Canada solution is the Liberals were willing to send billions of dollars in tax dollars overseas. Our made-in-Canada solution refuses to do that."

That would be an interesting claim to examine, if only this phantom Conservative plan wasn't a "secret" as described by Ambrose in the Mercer interview.

The government allegedly has new ideas, but Canada is one of the few major countries that has not submitted any proposals on how to advance the climate battle in advance of the Bonn meeting.

If Ambrose thinks that swinging a gavel, dealing with points of procedure, and setting the order of a speaker's list is going to serve as leadership (particularly in contrast to the activist approach of her predecessor Stephane Dion) in front of the rest of the world, then the immediate future for this country's environmental progress is in for a long, bumpy ride.

May 2, 2006 - The legend of Steve Nash continues to grow, with his inclusion in Time's list of the world's 100 most influential people. One of the other Canadians on the list is Stewart Butterfield, co-founder of photo-sharing website Flickr, and a former colleague way back when we worked together in a young upstart web company during the dot.com boom era of the late 1990's.

May 1, 2006 - An interesting post from BCgrit (whoever you might be). And although it is very rare to be classified as "slender and meek," and no one is getting mauled, the shoulder is very cold, and the silence has been deafening. This approach has been confirmed by more than one source close to the other half of the abovelinked story.

That's the way they have chosen to operate. Now it's time for us to make some choices too.

May 1, 2006 - At this point, let's not mention a name when discussing this conversation. But whether it happened in a personal one-on-one, or with a correspondent of this website, what does it say about a leadership candidate who is telling potential supporters behind closed doors that his/her strategy to achieve government is a two-election equation? Why would a candidate admit inevitable defeat in this introductory courting period?

We just found out about this utterance. Is this a realist approach, or or a view from the point of view of a person who thinks they have all the time in the world to make their mark?

May 1, 2006 - What a reversal of roles to read a quote like this about the budget that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will deliver tomorrow:

"Virtually every Canadian with an annual income between $10,000 and $85,000...who does not qualify for the child-care payment will be better off financially with the Liberal income-tax breaks than with a one-point GST cut and promised targeted measures. Even two-earner families with a combined income of $100,000 can expect to pay more tax overall." - John Williamson, National Director - Canadian Taxpayers Federation