Michael Ignatieff

July 13, 2010

L E T T E R to the E D I T O R
I thought it was quite rich, comparing Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s tour with old time hucksters.

Over the last four and half years, the people of Canada have been given promises and assurances by the current Prime Minister before each election.

January 2006 “Vote for me…I won’t tax income trusts.” Within eight months of being sworn in, the Conservative government reversed its course and taxed income trusts.

September 2008 “Vote for me..the only way there will be a deficit is if a Liberal government is elected.” Within two months of being sworn in, the Conservatives were predicting a deficit.

“Vote for me..if you want a transparent and accountable government.” Twice within a short period of time, the Prime Minister has prorogued parliament and avoided answering to the majority demand of the House of Commons to provide information on Afghanistan. Two months after an “agreement” was made between all parties, not a single credible document has been handed over.

I agree we should be wary of hucksters. We have been living with a snake oil salesman for the last four years.

N. Houston, Dundas

July 13, 2010

L E T T E R to the E D I T O R

I thought it was quite rich, comparing Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s tour with old time hucksters.

Over the last four and half years, the people of Canada have been given promises and assurances by the current Prime Minister before each election.

January 2006 “Vote for me…I won’t tax income trusts.” Within eight months of being sworn in, the Conservative government reversed its course and taxed income trusts.

September 2008 “Vote for me..the only way there will be a deficit is if a Liberal government is elected.” Within two months of being sworn in, the Conservatives were predicting a deficit.

“Vote for me..if you want a transparent and accountable government.” Twice within a short period of time, the Prime Minister has prorogued parliament and avoided answering to the majority demand of the House of Commons to provide information on Afghanistan. Two months after an “agreement” was made between all parties, not a single credible document has been handed over.

I agree we should be wary of hucksters. We have been living with a snake oil salesman for the last four years.

N. Houston, Dundas

December 10, 2008

I have a funny feeling the new guy in charge of the Liberal Party of Canada is going to hang on to his job longer than the last two leaders combined. That hardly amounts to much time considering the short reigns of Stephane Dion and Paul Martin Jr.

Today, Liberal MPs, Senators, defeated candidates, and party executives gave their endorsement to install Michael Ignatieff as the interim leader and presumptive permanent chief five months earlier than originally planned. Party members will have their say in May at a convention where he’ll have his official coronation given his candidacy will likely go uncontested now that Bob Rae has gracefully removed his name from the race.

There’s a lot going for Mr. Ignatieff. Besides the fact that he’s articulate, intellectual, confident, centrist, and without political baggage, perhaps the most significant strength in his leadership is the fact that he has effectively united a caucus in very short time. Demoralized by two successive electoral defeats, weak leaders, and a close call with a dubious coalition, Liberals must be shell-shocked but relieved to have someone at the helm who atleast provides some hope for the future.

He’s by no means without flaws. His intellect and high foreheaded references to Aristotle and Socrates will undoubtedly turn off the joe six packs. His mannerisms and airs may get the better of him but he’ll be anything but boring. He’ll most certainly be a capable match to Stephen Harper, who I doubt will be using his party machine to belittle Ignatieff the way it was used on Dion. For Harper, the easy days of being Prime Minister are now over.

November 27, 2006

It always happens… I take off for a few days and a huge story drops begging for mass punditry and editorial cartoons. Just as I’m starting a long Thanksgiving weekend with my wife’s family in the U.S. I hear the news that Stephen Harper drops a proposal before Parliament which would recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. Then, the radio reception fades and I don’t hear about the story until I’m on my way back home 5 days later. (The U.S. media took no notice of this Quebec as a nation news from what I heard).

So as Canada pondered its future in what I thought would become a new constitutional crisis I decided to shut out all access to the goings-on via the Internet and concentrate on personal issues: drinking beer, eating turkey, shopping for xmas gifts for the kids, dining out with my wife, attending a bowling birthday party for my 10 year old niece, going to see Borat with my brother inlaw, and capping everything off with more brown pops before heading home.

Much to my surprise was the speed in which things would be decided. All day today the motion has been debated, and despite a few exciting bits such as the resignation of a conservative cabinet minister, the proposal is to be voted on tonight, and it’s expected to be supported by all parties, including the Liberals, and including the Bloc Quebecois. Getting those two to agree on something so divisive as the old “distinct society” issue is monumental. Pierre Trudeau ought to be rolling in his grave as the Toronto Star’s Patrick Corrigan illustrated.

I guess this all came about after Gilles Duceppe put the motion before the house that declared “Quebec a nation” without the additional “within a united Canada” which was added by the Conservatives in their own motion. Am I right? If so, then that answered my question as to why this all of a sudden came about. Dolts calling into radio talk shows gave me the wrong impression Harper just pulled this one out of his a$$. (Actually, Harper’s put a lot of thought into Canadian federalism than a lot of people know.) In fact, this recent ‘Quebec as a Nation’ thing was started by the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc’s motion was probably inspired by Michael Ignatieff’s “Quebec is a nation” comments last month, designed to play a bit of cheap politics just on the eve of the Liberal’s leadership vote.

If tonight’s vote does in fact end this brief discussion on Canadian unity then I think Harper may have pulled off a brilliant political maneuvre as a simple response to the proposals raised by the Bloc Quebecois and Michael Ignatieff. I really don’t think anyone has an appetite to debate a largely symbolic recognition of status proposal, not now anyway.

* * * Update, Nov. 29 * * *

A little late but at least I drew something reflecting the Quebec is a nation thing:

Now I’m just wondering what’s going to happen the next time I take a couple of days off.

October 13, 2006

What’s the dealio on all the outrage following Stephen Harper’s remark that “virtually all” the 8 candidates running for the Liberal leadership race are anti-Israel? Oh, right, this is Canada. Canadians love to wax indignant especially when provoked by a Conservative Prime Minister commenting on the leadership choices running for the “natural governing party.” Harper’s comment came at an awfully convenient time for Michael Ignatieff supporters just as their leader was spastically flipping all over the place over the issue of Israel’s attack on the Lebanese town of Qana this past Summer. He’s gone from suggesting he lost no sleep over civilian deaths caused by the war in Qana, to suggesting Israel committed war crimes when it attacked the Lebanese town. Harper’s comments came at an opportune time for Liberals to loudly wail in protest in order to drown out a major gaffe committed by their Harvard Messiah. It’s a nice tactic of distraction, commonly used by 6 year olds.

While it would’ve been wise for Harper to keep quiet and allow the leadership contenders to pummel Ignatieff by themselves, it shouldn’t be lost on observers how serious Ignatieff’s flip flop puts to question his decisiveness on international issues.

Perhaps it was tactical for Harper to point out his own resolute stance on the recent mideast conflict which did not waver one bit, but in fact challenged the fence-sitting or non existant traditional stance Canada had played in that region of the world, primarily under Liberal governments. That fact is we saw examples of bias by the Liberal party against the state of Israel this summer. Let’s not forget the “fact finding mission” Opposition MP’s took to Lebanon this August. As well, calls to remove Hezbollah from the terrorist list.

Harper’s not accusing Liberals of being anti-semetic, he’s accusing them of being anti-Israel. Maybe it was a stretch for Harper to blanket the entire slate of Liberal contenders as anti-Israel, when in fact backbench elements in the Liberal caucus better fit the bill. It may not exactly be fitting for a Prime Minister to make such a statement, but to those who see Ignatieff’s bold statement claiming “war crimes” as refreshing, the same can be said of Harper who isn’t afraid of saying what’s on his mind as well.