Michael Ignatieff shakes the hand of protester Lee Asher and promises her that a Liberal government would work to free Pavel Kulisek. Photograph by: Adrian MacNair (click for high resolution)

I was in North Vancouver today doing a freelance job for a community newspaper when I saw a crowd gathering at Lower Lonsdale. Getting closer to it I could see demonstrators asking for “justice for Pavel Kulisek” with signs being waved by adults and children alike. I knew what it was about. I had read the news regarding Kulisek’s incarceration in Mexico for the past three years.

As it turned out, Michael Ignatieff was due to arrive in North Vancouver for a campaign stop. Stepping out of the bus he was flanked by protesters and by activist Lee Asher, who spoke to the Liberal leader for several minutes before shaking hands. After Ignatieff promised to free Kulisek should the Liberals form the next government, he continued into the building where he was rallying for North Vancouver Liberal candidate Taleeb Noormohamed.

I interviewed Asher afterward and this is what she said:

Mr.Ignatieff told me that he was outraged by the case and he thinks that it’s absolutely imperative that the Canadian government do something about it. So I asked Mr.Ignatieff what are the steps in the Canadian government to do something about this. He basically told me that he needs to assemble a team of people to go in, visit Pavel, let us know that he’s healthy. I stopped Mr.Ignatieff and told him we already know Pavel’s not healthy, we already know that it’s a crisis level, so what are the next steps that we need to do. And he told me that a phone call needs to be made to the Mexican Ambassador. I asked him who makes that phone call and he said the prime minister does.

So what’s interesting for me is that the Canadian government releases statements telling us they can do nothing with a sovereign country, we have to wait for the due process, but Mr.Ignatieff just told me right now that the prime minister can make a phone call to the Mexican government and can intervene.

Asher added that she believes Ignatieff would intervene because she shook her hand and made a promise, and that it’s on the record for all to see. She said a reelected Conservative government would, in her mind, have “no inkling at all to bring Pavel home.”

Click on the photo gallery below to see high resolution photos:

BONUS COINCIDENCE

Terry Milewski was doing a standup as I walked away. When I took his photo he explained there was no need because he’ll be on TV later. To which I replied, “yeah but nobody is going to get a photo like this.”

The exclusion of two apparent Liberal party supporters from a Conservative campaign event in London, Ontario is being blamed on a sinister plot by the PMO to screen out opposition supporters. The story has even led Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to directly accuse Stephen Harper of demanding more rigorous background checks on people showing up at his campaign events than advisers he hires to work for him.

Ignatieff went on to tell reporters during a stop in Newfoundland that “you are in a very un-Canadian place” when people get barred from public meetings for being friends with him on Facebook. One of the women who said she was barred from the event had to pre-register for the rally and that’s how the Conservatives screened her out.

First off, it’s an obvious bit of turnabout being fair play for Ignatieff, who is taking the opportunity to mock Stephen Harper for his party’s own campaign against Ignatieff’s own allegiance to Canada. And it’s clear that he’s exploiting the situation to create his own media spotlight, happily granted by the mainstream press.

Second, it seems to be taken for granted that this was deliberate, and further indicative of the sort of contempt for democratic practices that the Conservatives have displayed in this country’s most hallowed institutions. Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

But does it seem logical, or even practical, to screen every person who pre-registers for a campaign event, and then exclude them if they’re seen to belong to another party? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the party would be less interested in the decided Conservative voters who will do little more than wave banners, and more interested in the kind of people who might be pursued to abandon Ignatieff and add a vote for the Conservatives?

Lost in the narrative of this whole exclusion story is the fact the Conservatives are on a campaign to win over the soft Liberal support that will grant them the majority government they so desperately covet. The idea that Stephen Harper is ordering the PMO to draw up lists of political enemies to exclude them from campaign rallies is about as ridiculous as it gets.

And if these women were excluded because of the Quixotic decision of one or more Conservative staffers, then it seems a little overdone to continue belabouring the point long after the party has issued a statement of apology and indicated it was a mistake. Assigning motives from the highest tiers of power to exclude potential voters from rallies is pretty much the textbook definition of Harper derangement syndrome.

Of course there is another, albeit equally implausible, version of events to this story. As ridiculous as it is to suspect the prime minister of trying to exclude voters from a campaign rally designed to gain more voters, is it at all possible the Liberal party hired young students to go to these rallies in order to make the claim they were denied entry?

I mean, is it at all possible that given the political fodder that has been made over the claims of two people in the entire country of Canada, that a calculation was made somewhere in Liberal party headquarters to further the conspiratorial theories that Stephen Harper’s anti-democratic government is out to be mean and nasty to young, innocent students?

Possible? Yes. Plausible? No. But neither is the sort of claims that are being given serious consideration by people who pretend to have serious minds in organizations that pretend to be serious dispensers of news.

Well, the above video is the latest attempt by the Liberals to reply to the campaign-style ads that the Conservatives have floated on YouTube. I’m not sure whether either party have aired their ads on television yet, but it certainly seems as though the rhetoric has been amplified toward a spring election.

The Liberal ad might be effective for people who believe the simplistic explanation that corporate tax cuts are a bad thing. I don’t know. I do know that I argued in favour of the 4.5 per cent tax cuts the federal government has made since 2006 being the main reason why the Canadian economy has rebounded more quickly than the rest of the G7.

I’m well aware of the Conservative deficit and the deficit spending that has little to nothing to do with the economic recovery, the burden of which will only create further problems on the balance sheet later. I’m also aware that dropping the corporate tax rate by another one and a half percentage point in 2012 will reduce the immediate revenue to the federal treasury by an estimated $6 billion. So the Liberals certainly aren’t lying on that point.

But where the Liberals, and the NDP and Bloc and Greens for that matter, seem to fall short in their reasoning is that the corporate tax cuts won’t create any economic stimulus. On the contrary, corporate tax cuts are most likely the strongest kind of economic stimulus, as it gives companies an opportunity to keep employees, make investments, hire new workers, or just simply decide not to move to a more favourable tax jurisdiction.

Which means that as far as the Liberal attack ad goes, it’s not much of an attack at all. Hammering on the Conservatives for cutting taxes is like being mad at a dog for barking. It’s what sound fiscally conservative policy should be.

If the Liberals wanted to mount a less self-defeating attack, removing “$6 billion tax cut” in big letters from their ads would be a good place to start. The second thing would be to question the spending practices of the Conservative government, and it would be no more difficult than quoting the Fraser Institute’s Niels Veldhuis.

As I’ve mentioned numerous times before, the so-called stimulus that was spent during the recession will have a compounded debt of $110 billion by the time the Conservatives expect to balance the ledgers in 2015. The federal debt at this juncture will be $626 billion, or fully $63 billion more than the Liberal government drove it to in 1997 when Canada’s debt hit a record high.

The problem is that although the Conservative government has taken a fiscally sound plan in cutting corporate taxes to 15 per cent, it continues to outspend all previous governments in growth and overall expenditures. In fact, in the five years that Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister, spending has increased from $209 billion under the Martin government to $278 billion for fiscal 2010-11, an increase of 25 per cent.

According to the Conservatives’ own estimates, when the budget will finally be balanced 2015-16 spending will be 25 per cent greater than it is now. It isn’t sustainable, even if revenues do recover to the point where we can begin to run modest surpluses again.

The problem is that the Liberals can’t exactly attack this plan, since they’re busy making large spending promises of their own. While they would cancel the 1.5 per cent corporate tax cut in 2012, they would implement a program aimed at expanding Employment Insurance, at a minimum cost of $1 billion every year. That’s not an alternative. That’s a worse scenario.

There are numerous methods and ways to balance the budget more quickly than the Conservative plan and without causing any panic. Among those are eliminating liberal spending programs like regional economic development agencies, corporate subsidies and handouts, so-called environmental subsidies and “loans” like the one handed to aerospace giant Pratt & Whitney Canada.

Privatize inefficient public companies, including the CBC, and end taxpayer support for the ones in competition with the private sector. Freeze hiring for the public sector and wages for two years. Reduce the Equalization program, which sees $8.5 billion sent to Quebec annually. Force them to develop their own revenue stream by tendering drilling rights in shale oil like British Columbia. Eliminate the vote subsidy. Claw back the departmental increases in spending to immigration and scrap the appeals process for denied refugees.

None of these choices should be considered too difficult when carrying a half-trillion-dollar public debt. When the government returns to surpluses sufficient to pay down the debt, then personal incomes tax cuts should follow. There’s a clear way forward. Now we just require the courage to walk in that direction.

There’s a saying that’s perfect for Michael Ignatieff’s Liberal Party. Stupidity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

The Liberal leader is embarking on yet another Pan-Canadian tour to bring “a simple message to 20 Conservative, NDP and Bloc Québécois-held ridings that don’t yet have a Liberal MP: After 5 years under Stephen Harper’s rule, Canadian families, and Canada, are worse off.”

The problem with the tour from the outset is that it isn’t even true.

Canada has rebounded from the past economic recession faster than anybody else in the G7, and according to the OECD is recovering somewhat faster than most other advanced economies. If Canadians are worse off in certain ways than they were in 2005, it’s difficult to blame the Conservatives. I don’t recall Stephen Harper forcing people to take on burdens of debt, mortgages and car payments they couldn’t afford in an uncertain economy.

Certainly, the Conservative Party could have run a tighter ship from the outset. This government has outspent all previous governments, including the previous Liberal ones, in practically every category imaginable. They have refused to make unpopular, but necessary, spending cuts. And our children stand to inherit at least $100 billion of new debt just to get through the recession.

But it isn’t as though the Liberals would have had it any other way. Their sole point of attack against the Conservatives could be on economic grounds, but they don’t have a leg to stand on that front either.

Michael Ignatieff is busy announcing a new universal program that would cost the taxpayers a minimum of $1 billion in new debt every year. And he says he’ll pay for it the easy way: by cutting the next scheduled corporate tax cut. The very tax cuts that have probably contributed to Canada’s quickest recovery from the recession.

The very idea that cancelling tax cuts while increasing spending is the easiest way to pay for a new program is wrongheaded. The new Family Care Plan would include a six-month benefit for people to take time off work to care for ill family members. Which makes this essentially an expansion of the Employment Insurance program.

The belief it would only cost $1 billion is rather naive. As the baby boomers gray more every year, entering their vulnerable late sixties and early seventies, the chances of year-over-year increases to the program cost are guaranteed. What Canada saves in the $6 billion corporate tax cut would be lost in program spending and economic growth as companies hire more workers with the tax savings.

As for Ignatieff’s latest Canadian tour, it’s a real head-scratcher. Recently arrived from the beaches of yet another winter vacation (I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Canadian politician who travels more than the Liberal leader), he wants to go on the road to bring the message that Canadians are worse off in 2011 than 2005.

You know, when expatiate Indian Mohandas Gandhi returned from South Africa to travel across India in 1915 in order to re-experience the country he had left behind for 27 years, he did so one time. He didn’t continue touring the country over and over and over again.

Ignatieff has done the university tour. The college tour. The high school tour. The town hall tour. The Liberal Express tour. It may be time to give it a rest. This compulsive need to go somewhere all the time suggests a missed opportunity as a member of a rock band.

Michael Ignatieff’s constant sniping at the Conservative government has resulted in many sound bites, few of which have any substance. Take the recent comment he made on health care as a perfect example. Canadians would rather see their taxes go toward health care than the construction of prisons or the 65 new F-35 stealth fighters for the military. And that may even be true, but Mr.Ignatieff offers no real solutions to the health care problem.

He agrees with those in the field who say the current system is not sustainable and outlined several specific areas where he says a Liberal government would focus its efforts to strengthen it.

“Sustainable on the present track? No, I think we’re going to have to take action together,” Ignatieff said. “Four years of this Conservative government, we’ve really done nothing substantial on health care.”

Preventing people from using the health-care system in the first place would be a main component of a Liberal government’s plan to alleviate the growing strain on it, Ignatieff said.

“More health, less health care -I just think that’s crucial,” Ignatieff said. “You’ve got to pull some demand out.”

Health prevention and promotion programs, and improving the health of aboriginal people would be part of that initiative. Aboriginal health is an area where “the federal government can and must act,” Ignatieff said, adding that some of the specific problems in that area are “a real shocker.”

What we have here are the makings of an honest discussion on health care: the unsustainable expenditures, the wait times, the doctor shortages, the strain. But what we don’t have is an honest solution being offered by the Liberals.

Improving health care for aboriginals sounds great. If you’re an aboriginal. What does that mean to me, the individual taxpayer who is sick and tired of a health care system that is more costly and more trouble than its worth? I’m sure we’d all like all of our citizens, including aboriginals, to have access to good health care, but singling out that voter demographic is transparent pandering. As it was when he said the same thing about aboriginal education, aboriginal employment, and aboriginal housing.

So how would a Liberal government act to create universal and accessible care that removes the excessive and frivolous use of it? Would he allow the wealthy to pay their own way, so that it would take the strain off of it and free up the supply for the poor? No. That would be too logical:

“I’m a very firm believer that we don’t want user fees,” he told Postmedia News. “We want universal, accessible, free-at-the-point-of-service health care, paid out of general revenue. That’s just bottom line. Otherwise we get two-tiered.”

Really? Does the good Liberal leader really believe this unfounded assertion?

The fact is that European countries like Denmark, Germany, Portugal, and Sweden all have some sort of basic or nominal fee-for-service system that disincentivizes abuse. And Portugal has a socialist government.

Here is the reality of the situation:

The user fee is not a contentious topic in Swedish politics. No one argues for hefty increases in the out-of-pocket payment, and most politicians seem to be satisfied with the present level. More importantly, user fees have not, as many Canadians fear, turned health care into a virtual two-tier system by reducing the public part of the funding. A bottom-line argument in their favour, one that is seldom mentioned, is that they reduce medically less motivated consumption in favour of priority treatments. Without fees, the idea goes, a “luxury” demand would challenge the capacity to satisfy the “true” needs of less articulate citizens. Though they provoke some objections from egalitarian critics, user fees in the Swedish tradition are in fact regarded as an instrument to ensure better health care for weak groups.

It’s rather sad that Michael Ignatieff is using partisan politics to avoid an honest debate about the problems afflicting our Universal health care system. Even worse that he has nothing new to offer to that debate.

A Cannonball Press report, August 26, 2020:

New York (CBP): Russian TU-95 Bear bombers yesterday were intercepted and identified over three northern cities, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, by F-16 fighters of the US Air National Guard responding under the American Aerospace Defense Command [more here].

A Pentagon statement said the interceptions were a routine indentification of Russian aircraft approaching US airspace that posed no threat to American southern sovereignty.

In response to questions at her daily news conference Pentagon spokesperson Amelia Earhart said that the interceptions were performed by F-16s instead of F-35s since the primary role of the stealthy 300 Joint Strike Fighters now with the US Air Force was initial attack on ground targets against adversaries with heavy and effective air defences.

Ms Earhart responded, upon further questioning, that it would be some time before sufficient of the problem-plagued F-35s [more here and here] could replace F-16s and F-15s in the role of continental air defense.

In the country formerly known as Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Alberta issued a statement saying that if only Canada had bought F-35s–and only F-35s–the Russians would have been deterred from creating such an annoyance for his American allies.

When asked why the Alberta’s 24 AF-18s based at Cold Lake had not been used to intercept and identify Russian Bears, Mr Harper replied that Alberta’s sovereignty was “non-negotiable“.

While F-35s might have deterred the Russians, the prime minister added, his AF-18 Hornets were perfectly capable of dealing with any real threat.  As would be the 24 Super Hornets Alberta has recently contracted to buy from Boeing.

Mr Harper also noted that Alberta was very interested in Gazprom’s offer to increase its stake in the oil sands to 68%.

Earlier in Toronto, Ontario Prime Minister Dalton McGuinty in a statement said his government was pleased that the United States was capable of dealing with issues that might affect its own airspace.

Quebec President Gilles Duceppe, replying to a question in the National Assembly, said his country’s 12 QF-18s, based at Bagotville, had not been scrambled since “One does not want to break eggs when there is no need for an omelette.”

President Duceppe went on to reiterate his government’s intent to replace the QF-18s with Joint Strike Fighters if an agreement, now under negotiation, could be reached to assemble the aircraft in his country.

Professor Michael Ignatieff of the University of California at Berkeley, in a Tweet to the Cannonball Press, said:

bearish antecedents time real canadians debate if better off as Americans Canucks need my help

Much more here.

Update: From the current government:

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, a former CF-18 fighter pilot, just twitted (or is it tweeted!) this, laughing off a question about why Canada is buying 65 Joint Strike Fighters. Here is what he writes:

“NDP MP Jack Harris asks why Canada is buying 65 F-35s while “similar” country Norway is only buying 48. It’s a good question. Canada is 26 times area, 7 times population and 3 times GDP. Jack’s math would demand between 144 and 1248 F-35s for Canada.

I guess we’re being pretty prudent with only 65, eh?

Ya gotta laugh.”

Not quite, Mr Hawn. Norway has, like Canada, selected the F-35; but, also like Canada, no contract has been signed yet. And there are tough negotiations going on with Lockheed Martin–one wishes our ministers would speak as cogently as this Norwegian one.  It should also be pointed out that Norway had a competition for its new fighter and that the planned purchase was approved by its parliament.  Both unlike Canada.

Mark (“Cannonball“)
Ottawa

Fred Litwin writes at The Propagandist:

New Threats to Freedom

…I have a whole host of friends from whom I now rarely see. I used to go dinner parties and dinners but invites have long since dried up. You see I might say something in support of Israel, or I might say something about Iraq or Afghanistan. Some of these friends used to love to debate for hours on end in University, but no more. They like their dinner parties to be ‘pure’ – no real discussion and no real debate.

…The loony left really believe that Afghans object to the coalition fighting the Taliban, which is just not true. Unfortunately, lately in Canada (and elsewhere) there is also a chorus, from the right, who also object to the war in Afghanistan. Their reasons are many – oh, the terms of engagement aren’t quite right, or they object to the mention of sharia law in the Afghan constitution, or they believe that the war is unwinnable. Whatever. The last thing we need is a coalition of the loony left and the isolationist right [more on those odd bedpersons from Terry Glavin]…

It’s embarrassing to hear our politicians, day after day, embarrass themselves no end – government Ministers who cannot explain or defend government policy…

…this mediocrity affects politicians of all stripes. Michael Ignatieff is a very smart man, but you wouldn’t know it from his leadership of the Liberal party [for example]…

Two years ago, I went to question period in the House. I used to think that the earpiece you see everybody wearing is for translation. And, indeed it does provide translation.

But, even bilingual people need that earpiece. It’s major function is to allow you to hear what people are saying over the din of yelling and heckling.

And, as I sat there listening, it became apparent that the opposition mostly asks stupid political questions (“why should we believe you now when you lied in the past?”) and the government, the few times it is actually asked a real question, just turns it into a political answer (we’re doing more than you ever did in power). It was horribly embarrassing, and I will never go back…

Whole piece well worth the read, covers much wider territory.

Mark
Ottawa

We are not Australia…and he thinks that’s a Good Thing:

…
Ignatieff dismissed calls that Canada should have followed Australia’s policy on refugees and turned the Tamil refugee boat away.

“This is Canada, not Australia,” Ignatieff said. “That means Canada has principles, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our international obligations.”

So I guess Australia does not have principles and does not follow its international obligations. What a stupid insult.  The Mickster (a mighty “public intellectual“!) really should think before he bloviates. As for the Charter, indeed Australia does not have a specific equivalent–which may be a really Good Thing. But the country is not without legal protections for individual rights and so on; see here, Democratic rights and freedoms.

And would Mickey I. have the guts to say “This is Canada, not China…”?

Mickey I. keeps on dragon upsucking

The fellow really is rather selective in his broad denunciation of states.  Earlier from Adrian:

Canada’s Self-Sabotage Continues With Tamils

Plus from me:

What you really need to know about Tamils on MV Sun Sea/Beyond Uppestdate video

Mark
Ottawa

But what’s the government’s position?  The Minister of National Defence appears to have opened the door a fair way; now if only the Liberals are serious and come through it.  I am of course assuming the MND spoke with the prime minister’s authorization; apparently Mr MacKay spoke without it once before, see last para of first quote:

Canada could stay in Afghanistan: MacKay

Defence Minister Peter MacKay strongly suggested today that the Harper government is open to extending the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond July, 2011, if agreement can be reached with the opposition.

“I know that Ignatieff and Rae have made comments recently about training, and extending the mission,” MacKay said while on a tour of CFB Meaford. “That’s all very interesting.”

The minister repeatedly stressed, however, that the current Parliamentary motion governing the mission in Afghanistan requires that it end in July of next year, with all forces withdrawn by December of 2011.

“There’s not a lot of flex as to what we can do, within the context of the parliamentary motion…. We’ll respect the letter of the motion.”

The motion, passed by the House of Commons in March of 2008, calls for a complete pullout by December of 2011 [only from Kandahar, see below] and leaves no room for further extensions.

However, in the past year there has been growing pressure from Canada’s allies, including the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for an extension in some capacity. The Afghan government is also pressing Canada to remain [more here].

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae returned from an Afghan visit earlier this summer and pointedly remarked that the Liberals would be open to an extension limited to training Afghan security forces [more from Adrian here].

Proponents of this option suggest such a move could be designed to limit Canadian troops to operating “inside the wire,” that is within the confines of fortified bases, which greatly reduces the risk of attack [see 2) here]…

In terms of any extension as a pure training mission, he said, “we’re examining all the options.”

In the past, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper or senior Canadian military officeres have been queried about an extension, they have flatly ruled it out [so has foreign minister Cannon--in late June MND MacKay was rather winging it: "Peter might be open to the idea [a non-combat training role], but this doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada is open to the idea.“]. Polls have consistently shown Canadians evenly divided on the Afghan mission [and we all know a responsible government decides key forign policy, national security and defence issues by poll]…

Milnews.ca:

…
I bet my loonie on government not changing its mind.

The truth of the 2008 Commons’ motion. The government, sadly, still continues to be so economical about the truth of it as to be mendacious. The motion does not require that the CF leave Afstan; it only refers to ending the Kandahar mission:

…this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:
…

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011…

Update: Further flash, an e-mail just in from one of Taliban Jack’s boys, Brad Lavigne (I’m on his address list for some reason, maybe his people think bloggers are, er, cool):

My Fellow New Democrat,

For two years, Stephen Harper has repeatedly promised Canadians that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011.

Canadians were counting on it. They thought they could take Stephen Harper at his word. They were wrong.

Today we learned that Stephen Harper wants a backroom deal with Ignatieff’s Liberals to keep Canadian soldiers in the military mission past 2011.

The majority of Canadians have spoken. Parliament has spoken. We want the combat mission to end in 2011. Now I want you to help me get the word out about this backroom deal.

Click here to spread the word on Facebook.

Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff – do the right thing. Keep your promise to Canadians on Afghanistan.

Brad Lavigne,
National Director
Canada’s New Democrats

Mark
Ottawa

Mickey I. and Mr Harper take note (and the Globe and Mail’s China worshippers):

U.S. takes a tougher tone with China

Curiously, a major beef rather reminds one of another maritime passage (the Americans sure are consistent, eh?):

…
Faced with a Chinese government increasingly intent on testing U.S. strength and capabilities, the United States unveiled a new policy that rejected China’s claims to sovereignty over the whole South China Sea…

The decision to confront China on the South China Sea dates back several months, after administration officials noticed that the sea — an international waterway through which more than 50 percent of the world’s merchant fleet tonnage passes each year — had crept into the standard diplomatic pitter-patter about China’s “core interests.”..

Somewhat related:

So now the British own the Arctic? [more here]

Earlier:

Mickey I. upsucking to the deadly Dragon

The end of the world as we know it, China section (plus Mickey I.)

Dragon update, or, die gelbe Gefahr

Update: This growling has nothing to do with any sovereignty claims to the Northwest Passage, however much some may spin it.

Mark
Ottawa