The tissues that bind us

Where does Michael Ignatieff come up with this stuff?

"If this [Conservative] ideology prevails in this country it will permanently weaken the tissues that bind our society together," Ignatieff said.

Is it any wonder he is taking such a drubbing in the media lately.

Copyright and voting Conservative

Politics is not like shopping for groceries where you can fill your cart with the policies you like and leave the ones you don’t like on the shelf. Like it or not, when you vote for a particular party, you get the whole bundle: the good policies with the bad.

That said, I can understand where Alec Saunders is coming from. A recent post on his blog explains why he will be voting against Stephen Harper when an election is called. I have also been critical of the Conservative’s copyright bill.

As it stands now, Bill C-61 is so egregiously bad I think they want it to fail. We can only hope it never moves forward.

Given the groundswell of opposition to the current bill, which includes virtually everything corporate media interests have asked for, I can’t imagine the CPC actually proceeding with it. It makes no sense to turn people into criminals simply for making a backup copy of their store-bought Disney DVD for their kids to use. Now that they have tried with this bill, they can legitimately say to the next U.S. administration that it just won’t fly.

As for Alec Saunders, if this one issue is of such paramount importance to him, I would suggest he weigh his options carefully before voting against the Conservatives. Does the bad he sees likely to come from Bill C-61 more than offset all the good that might come from other "conservative" policies which he would otherwise be inclined to support? And what about the damage that the many boneheaded policies supported by other parties could cause?

In the case of the Liberals, there is really little fundamental difference between the previous Liberal copyright bill and that of the Conservatives. So a vote for the Liberals wouldn’t likely get him any further ahead on his one burning issue. In the meantime, he would have to swallow a lot of bad Liberal policies (can you say Green Shift?) with which he may fundamentally disagree.

That leaves the NDP which, of course, can adopt any policy it wants because it knows it will never get in power. But if Alec is truly conservative minded, it is hard to imagine him going to this extreme. In so doing, he would be in common cause with the likes of Lester, one of his commenters who advocates we “vote against this NeoConservative pig.”

I recognize that there is a real risk that the Conservatives may revive Bill C-61 in a similar form if they get a majority in the coming election. It is this very possibility that acts to temper my enthusiasm and desire to help the Conservatives win the election. But as important as this issue is to me, I’m not about to vote NDP. All I can say to Alec is to vote wisely.

The Green Grift

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation asks which came first, the SHIFT or the SHAFT? If Stéphane Dion gets away with this little confidence game, we'll be calling it the GRIFT.

A “carbon tax” in the style of Mr. Dion’s, which shields many people altogether from the price impact by various mechanisms, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pigovian taxes economists favour as a response to negative externalities. It’s simply another way of picking and choosing.

What is more truly dear to Liberal hearts, we suspect, is the redistributive fashion in which the returned revenue from the carbon pricing will be used to re-jig the income tax system.

[...]

But the Liberals, in cutting the lowest tax bracket the most, and the highest not at all, are actually proposing to raise the already high marginal tax rates on upper-middle-class Canadians. And they’re not only writing cheques to rural dwellers to make sure they don’t belong to the carbon-priced class with us city folk; they’ll also be increasing the Northern exemption, creating another group that has non-negotiable “higher requirements” for pollution.

Will Canadians play willing marks to Stéphane's redistributive grift? Let's hope not.

You've got Liberals!

They should have closed it after they discovered the first one. If you've got one, there's always more.

Public health authorities shut down one of Chinatown's most prominent restaurants yesterday after a passerby took a photo of rats on a countertop.

The rats were visible through a window of the Dumpling House Restaurant yesterday afternoon, passerby Vivian Hui said.

[...]

Dumpling House, at 328 Spadina Ave., hosted a photo op by then Liberal leadership candidate Paul Martin during the April, 2003, SARS crisis. The restaurant is popular with celebrities, and has been well reviewed by various publications.

More at blogTO

Kyoto and only Kyoto

I should know better than to try to engage Liberals in an honest debate about climate change, particularly young Liberals. The ultimate futility of debating with Stéphane Dion's young kool-aid drinkers is amply demonstrated in the exchange below on YouTube.

BalancedApproach (1 week ago) marked as spam

Ha ha ha! A tax credit on life preservers! Typical idiotic conservative thinking. Genius! The Young Liberals really hit the nail on the head. What a sharp crew. Awesome commercial. Well done.

comfyfur (4 days ago) marked as spam

Ha ha ha! One tonne challenge! Spend a bundle on advertising and wait for people to voluntarily cut carbon emissions. Absolutely brilliant. Only problem is our GHG emissions went up 27%. The Liberals were never serious about climate change. In contrast, CPC policies might actually work. Will we hit Kyoto? Not a chance. It was never possible. But now, at least, we are putting in place policies that will lead to real cuts in GHG emissions in the coming years. The Liberals should be embarrassed.

BalancedApproach (4 days ago) marked as spam

Nice try. The reality is that the Liberal plans on the environment were very progressive, but were put in place in 2005. So while they were very progressive, the tories cut them before they were able to do much.
As for the tories, they have little place suggesting others should be embarassed. After all, this is the party led by a man who called Kyoto a socialist scam and who has continually denied the existence of climate change. He might as well deny that the sky is blue.

comfyfur (2 days ago) marked as spam

Progressive? WTF? Liberal climate change policies were all rhetoric. Moreover, Chretien sabotaged Kyoto by agreeing to hugely unrealistic targets given Canada's population growth, climate, large land mass and resource-based economy. Add to that the fact that they wasted a dozen years consulting to defer any substantive action. It is really not surprising that industry did nothing while waiting for the government to get its act together.

BalancedApproach (2 days ago) marked as spam

Nice try, comfyfur. There's just a little something standing in your way: the facts. Look up Kyoto sometime before you trot out unresearched Conservative rhetoric. The Kyoto protocol was ratified by Canada on December 17, 2002 and came into force in February 2005. So the Liberals couldn't have wasted 12 years as you claim. Heck, the protocol wasn't even in effect for 12 months before the Conservatives took office! Sorry to expose your argument using the dirty trick that is Historical fact.

comfyfur (2 days ago) marked as spam

BA, hardly a dirty trick. For someone purportedly "balanced," you seem to have chosen sides. The Liberals had loads of time to show their cards on climate change. They were talking of it well before Kyoto was signed. Negotiations began in 1997. Since that time, all we got was rhetoric and snoozefest consultations. I sat through enough of them. The important thing is that we now appear serious about taking action. It is the right thing to do, whatever your political stripe.

BalancedApproach (2 days ago) marked as spam

I am glad that you agree that my exposing your partisan lie for what it is using historical fact is not a dirty trick. My saying it was of course meant tongue-in-cheek. That said, the fact remains that the protocol was not signed until 2002 and didn't come into force until 2005. The Tories took power 11 months later and have yet to do anything. I agree it's time to something. Now tell Harper that.

comfyfur (2 days ago) marked as spam

Ah yes. Don't debate ideas. Call people liars, or bullies. With a bit of googling I found a Sierra Club report card on Liberal climate change policy. Here are the Liberals' grades:

1993 Grade: D,
1994 Grade: C+,
1995 Grade: D+,
1996 Grade: D-,
1997 Grade: F.

Climate change is not Kyoto. The Liberals have been pretending to deal with the issue for a long time.

BalancedApproach (2 days ago) marked as spam

What is about Conservatives that whenever they get called out on their inaction and their lies, the only thing they can say for themselves is "But the Liberals did/didn't do this!!!!". Guess what, the Cons are in government now and they have been for the majority of time Kyoto has been in place. Either do something substantive (which they haven't yet) or get out of office for someone who will (Dion).

comfyfur (2 days ago) marked as spam

It all comes down to following Kyoto, no matter that that is unattainable. There is no other course of action. Dion says he will do it nonetheless. All aboard Dion's green train. He will deliver us unto Kyoto.

Sorry.

The issue is a lot more complex than that.

BalancedApproach (1 day ago) marked as spam

The simple fact of the matter is that Kyoto is not unattainable. That's a fairy tale the Conservatives under the disgraceful "leadership" of Stepher "Der Fuhrer" Harper have been spinning. Sorry buddy, but that dog won't hunt. The facts and the science is against Harper, just as it was against him when he tried to deny climate change. It's time he stopped dragging his feet. Dion and his Liberals are willing to do the job. If Harper won't do it, he needs to step aside for some real leadership.

comfyfur (1 day ago) marked as spam

You are absolutely right BA. Technically, Kyoto is not unattainable. But no politician in his right mind would attempt it. At this point, you'd have to shut half the economy down to achieve it.

Now, if Chretien had committed to only an 8% increase in emissions, rather than a 6% reduction, to reflect Canada's unique circumstances, we might have had a chance. However, the folly of his commitment totally paralyzed the government. The Liberals didn't do the job. Is anyone really surprised?

BalancedApproach (22 hours ago) marked as spam

More Conservative fear mongering followed by blaming the Liberals. Once again, the fact remains, Harper is in government now. Either he puts up and does something or he shuts up and lets a real leader like Dion do the job. Green economics can be insanely profitable, especially if we get in the game early. As ususal Harper isn't interested in losing his big oil, cowtown base. Canada includes 9 other provinces and 3 territories though. Time he learned that.

comfyfur (12 hours ago) marked as spam

You simply cannot reduce the amount of heating oil you use by half overnight unless you are willing to freeze. Similarly, to improve your gas mileage, or to switch to a public transit alternative, requires you to invest in new, more efficient equipment. That takes time.

Unfortunately, we have lost precious time, under both the Liberals AND the Conservatives. Now, at least, it looks like most people are on side with the need to do something.

BalancedApproach (10 hours ago) marked as spam

The potential solutions to the problem are more various and more involved than simply reducing heating oil and improving gas mileage. It is through making use of this varied response that we can indeed reach Kyoto. While time may have been lost in the past, it is the Conservatives that continue waste time now and deny that Kyoto can be met at all. We cannot as a nation accept this defeatist attitude. Either they get on it or they let the Liberals do it. It just makes sense.

comfyfur (6 hours ago) marked as spam

Reducing GHG emissions is about changing the way we do everything: heating and cooling our homes, how we get to work, the food we eat, the products we consume.

For much of what we do, we have been locked in by previous choices. To evolve to a less-profligate, GHG lifestyle means reorganizing how we live and eventually replacing most of what we have now. You cannot snap your fingers or pass a law to change things overnight. You know that. Dion knows that. So get real.

BalancedApproach (5 hours ago) marked as spam

More basless attacks on Kyoto instead of action. Typical Tory. Kyoto has never been about trying to change over night. Nice try, though. It's about incremental, but meaningful change and looking toward green technologies. Closing your eyes won't make the problem go away. It's time to act. Stop blaming the Liberals. Stop dragging your feet. Stop saying it can't be done. Just DO it!

comfyfur (59 minutes ago) marked as spam

I give up BA. There is no need to attack Kyoto. It is already dead. But I do question how you have framed your argument about climate change to be Kyoto and only Kyoto. That is not moving anything forward. It is pointless rhetoric.

We missed the target. To hit it now (i.e., cut average GHG emissions by 2008-12 by more than 30%) is virtually impossible. It is simply delusional to think we could achieve that. We would not be any further ahead if the Liberals had stayed in power.

Gerard Kennedy leaves Liberal ladies on sinking ship

As the S.S. Stéphane Dion heads into the reef, Gerard Kennedy has pushed ahead of the Liberal ladies of Parkdale-High Park -- Sarmite Bulte and Elaine Flis -- to hop into the sturdiest lifeboat available to take him to dry land. Despite his purported progressive credentials and entreaties from his leader to increase the number of women Liberal candidates in the next election, it seems Kennedy is only too happy to leave the woman behind.

There had been speculation that Kennedy would seek a federal seat in Western Canada (he was born in Manitoba and ran the country’s first food bank in Edmonton), to give the Liberals a strong candidate in the Conservative Party-dominated West, but in the end it was his roots to his previous constituency that were the strongest.

“If I’d been leader I’d have had a different kind of look at this perhaps, in the public interest,” he said. “[But] in my heart of hearts, this is the riding that I know best.

What else can he say? The rest of us know the real reason: under Stéphane Dion, Kennedy's prospects of getting elected in Western Canada are slim at best. Watch for other "star" Liberal candidates to similarly retreat to safe urban-Toronto seats.

Kennedy's decision to run in Parkdale-High Park, however, must be immensely disappointing to Elaine Flis.

It has been reported that Elaine Flis, the daughter of former Liberal MP Jesse Flis (who represented the riding from 1979-84 and 1988-97) would also seek the local nomination. Kennedy claimed to have spoken to Ms. Flis earlier in the year and promised to take nothing for granted in the nomination process.

I spoke briefly to Flis and she indicated she will not contest the nomination, so Kennedy is likely to be acclaimed. Getting elected, however, might not be so easy. NDP MP Peggy Nash is a tireless worker and is firmly entrenched in the riding. Ultimately, Parkdale-High Park may still be represented by a woman MP after the next election, just not a Liberal one.

An Honest Liberal?

I know, it sounds like an oxymoron.

More and more it looks like all Liberals are liars. It has gotten to the point where they even call each other liars.

But, I do not believe all Liberals are dishonest. These days, however, any Liberal who is fundamentally honest must feel awfully uncomfortable with Adscam and subsequent efforts of the Liberal Party to sidestep any responsibility for the scandal.

Consequently, it was with some relief that I read a letter from Beryl Wajsman, posted on Captain's Quarters last night. After having his name pop up in previous testimony at the Gomery inquiry, it seems Wajsman is chomping at the bit to tell his side of the story. As he puts it, “my story is one of a party reformer opposed, not a party consultant enriched.”

After a long talk with Wajsman this afternoon, I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would encourage my readers to have a gander at some of his articles at the web site of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal, of which he is president.

What I find most impressive is that Wajsman believes so strongly in his cause he resigned in June 2001 from the very party that has been the vehicle for much of what he has accomplished in his political life. Unlike those who have preferred to remain quiet, however, we finally have a Liberal who seems to genuinely put integrity ahead of self interest.

There is little doubt that Wajsman is an unrepentant “liberal” who is passionate about his beliefs. He finds inspiration in Trudeau’s just society and envisages "a national political culture where victory is won on the battlefields of ideals and principles are never vanquished in the backrooms of deals."

One thing for sure, he is not one to acquiesce to authority. As he inveighs against the corporatism that permeates the Canadian state, he assures me, “we are going to expose who is running this country.” And by this, he does not mean the politicians. It should make for very interesting testimony at the Gomery inquiry, if he ever gets the chance.

Waiting and waiting for Gomery

Andrew Coyne summarily dismisses recent speculation about “paragraph k” of the Gomery Commission’s terms of reference and the limitations it might impose on Gomery’s ability to assign blame in his blog yesterday.

On the surface, he appears right. But after a little searching, I discovered that the Krever public inquiry into Canada’s blood system provides a relevant precedent. Like other public inquiries, it would appear that the Krever Commission had a similar clause in its terms of reference regarding conclusions of criminal or civil liability.

What is interesting about the Krever case is that after years of legal wrangling, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, Justice Krever’s right to assign blame was ultimately affirmed (see Mapleleafweb for a useful overview of the powers of public inquiries and a summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Krever case).

But what the Krever case also shows is that if misconduct is found, named parties are prone to engage in legal tactics to prevent or delay the release of an inquiry’s report. The timeline of the Krever Commission is quite revealing:

• October 1993 – Krever Public Inquiry into the Canadian blood system established
  

• December 1995 – Krever gives notice to 95 persons, corporations and governments about possible misconduct
  

• January 1996 – a group of the named parties asks the Federal Court of Canada to prevent the Commission from making findings of misconduct
  

• June 1996 – Federal Court rules that the Commission may make allegations of misconduct
  

• January 1997 – Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision
  

• September 1997 – Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirms Krever’s right to make allegations of misconduct
  

• November 1997 – final Krever report released

The whole process took more than four years. So what are the prospects for similar legal interventions by named parties to derail the conventional view that Gomery will report this year, with an election held by March 2006?

Jean Chrétien is already challenging Gomery’s right to head the inquiry in Federal Court. As the report deadline approaches, you can count on other legal interventions by parties likely to be named in the report.

In my view, the conventional view of a winter 2006 election is looking like a best-case scenario. And Paul Martin knows it.