The Liberal Factor

2007-04-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

The Conservative Transparency A La Ron Cannan

(After watching this I vomited a little)

2007-01-30T09:07:00.000-08:00

Funniest Conservative Ad EVER!

2006-11-30T20:52:00.000-08:00

Dion Snubs Brison and His Delegates

Today, appearantly, Scott Brison bit the bullet and realized he wasn't going to win. His new strategy? Hosting an event with all of his delegates and inviting the top four contenders to come and help get his delegates sorted out for second ballot support.

Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff showed up, Gerard Kennedy had Justin Trudeau go in his place, while Stephane Dion didn't attempt any showing of any kind. The article describes Stehane Dion's absence and of any representative, and adds Scott Brison's delegates response of feeling neglected by Dion.

Stephane Dion didn't turn up and did not send a stand-in.

With no one assured of victory and any of the top four candidates having a realistic shot at victory, the omission seemed odd.

The slight did not go unnoticed by Brison stalwarts, some of whom intrepreted Dion's absence as a sign that the fourth-place contender simply doesn't have the organization necessary to launch a come-from-behind victory.

This coupled with reports of Dion supporters having poor enthusiasm at Dion events at the convention, builds to support such a theory of lack of organization or other resources.

2006-11-28T23:32:00.000-08:00

Gerard Kennedy On The Rick Mercer Report

Rick Mercer, you sly dog you. Taking out a married man, what balls! If you are wondering what I'm talking about click here and scroll down to "Rick's Date With Gerard Kennedy." In this clip Rick Mercer and Gerard talk politics and go out to dinner. Of note here is the attention Mercer puts on Kennedy. Where with other politicians they edit it to make lite of politics, in this interview it is clear Mercer is interested in Gerard.

One might not remember a blurred butt of Gerard, but I tell you this they will remember his attack on the Conservatives, on the environment and their leadership.

2006-11-28T09:46:00.000-08:00

The Liberal Leadership's Best YouTube Ad

2006-11-27T08:39:00.000-08:00

Kennedy's Leadership On Opposing Quebecois As A Nation Lands BIG Endorsement

Gerard Kennedy has done what I have been aching for. He has stood up for Liberals and Canadians who every Federal Political Party, and every other Leadership candidate have ignored. Gerard opposes the Quebecois motion. In reality, he opposes nothing, he is for, however, a Canada that is a diverse country, joined by differences, united by one nation.

The Quebecois are a nation however, in the social sense, but that word is too ill defined. We must always be specifying what tense we are using, it can only lead to confusion and the advantage would be to seperatists.

Top Liberals are recognizing this and are seeing Kennedy for who he is, a true leader.

Tom Axworthy, head of the Liberal Party's Renewal Committee has just officially endorsed Kennedy, you can read the article here.

''I have just been shocked by what I've learned, and therefore the candidate who spoke most convincingly and generally and enthusiastically about revitalizing the party as an institution from top to bottom was Kennedy and that's why I went for him,'' said Axworthy, a Queen's University political science professor.

''Liberals they decide upon winnability and they decide upon policy issues and so on. My big concern is the future long-term viability of the Liberal party and he's the candidate in my view who has the best position when it comes to that.''

2006-11-21T09:40:00.000-08:00

Funniest Clip Yet

2006-11-17T11:14:00.000-08:00

How The Ignatieff Campaign Is Ruining YouTube

Well just within the last 24 hours the Ignatieff Campaign has officially commercialized YouTube. For those of you who don't know, YouTube is a website that allows people to post and share videos. YouTube's purpose was to allow individuals to express themselves and share video's they find interesting.

At the beginning of this Leadership there was but a handful of YouTube video clips. There was the Apprentice style mockumentary, the Amazing Race version of the Liberal Raace, and a few others. All of these put up by individuals. As the race progressed the Kennedy campaign noticably took lead and posted multiple Gerard Kennedy clips taken from television appearances.

Then seeing these Kennedy clips clouding the Liberal Blogosphere the Dion campaign finally followed suit a month later. But as this competition to post videos began, all were still posted by individuals.

Some clips were really well thought out and funny, like these:
Apprentice
Outtakes
NDP Orange

You can tell a lot of work went into them.

But as of currently, since Newspapers started to take heed of these finer made productions, lesser video makers have become active.

Most notably, the Ignatieff campaign, which is ruining this tradition of individual expression into a corporate advertising machine. Clouding individuals' contributions with boring programming.

One only has to go to YouTube, type in "Liberal Leadership," to see clips purposely made to be put on YouTube by the Ignatieff campaign. They are made up of just Ignatieff sitting there, talking.

The Dion campaign might be possibly doing this as well in a central effort but the lack in any substance in their video's demonstrating Dion's vision makes me think otherwise.

Also, YouTube has become the arena of bad clips. People trying to smash other candidates with the worst propaganda yet to be on television. One such series involves repeating in several clips an interview with Ignatieff's first wife.

I enjoyed watching the clips on YouTube about the Liberal Leadership race when there was just 50 of them. Now at 138, there is just plainly, a lot of crap.

2006-11-15T01:06:00.000-08:00

BOB RAE PRESS

Here is an article from the Toronto Sun, to serve as a reminder. You can read it here.

The real skinny on Bob Rae

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Today, because way too many people seem to be forgetting what those years in Ontario were like ...
---
Toronto Sun, Sept. 7, 1990: "Ontario has its first NDP government today after voters resoundingly rejected Premier David Peterson and his vision of the future. A pale and shaken Peterson, who lost his own seat, ... said he was stepping down as Liberal leader. Premier-elect Bob Rae's New Democrats won a majority government with 74 of the 130 seats."
---
Sun, April 30, 1991: "Ontario's first NDP budget broke the piggy bank yesterday. We're saddled with the highest provincial deficit in Canadian history at $9.7 billion ...
"Treasurer Floyd Laughren said ... 'We had a choice to make -- to fight the deficit or fight the recession. We are proud to be fighting the recession' ...
"'It's a tax timebomb,' said Brien Gray, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 'It's economically and socially irresponsible.'"
---
Sun, May 3, 1991: "Treasurer Floyd Laughren concedes he may have to increase taxes by $5 billion over the next three years ... Laughren told the Legislature he couldn't 'quarrel' with opposition estimates the government needs to boost revenues to meet its financial forecasts."
---
Sun, May 10, 1991: "The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is angry that Bob Rae's government is deciding business policy 'without any consultation whatsoever.'
"In a speech yesterday to the Empire Club of Canada, chamber president Tom Corcoran warned NDP policies could force Ontario businesses to close -- or leave."
---
Sun, June 11, 1991: "The real estate recovery is slowing down in Ontario. And the Toronto Home Builders' Association -- which today will unveil that May new home sales are off by about 10% -- is blaming the 'fiscally irresponsible' NDP government. THBA president David Keenan warns 'Bob Rae and his Moscow Central' are killing off any gains in consumer confidence. 'Since the budget, our members have sales and traffic off by about 8-10%,' said Keenan."
---
Sun, July 25, 1991: "Voter support for the NDP has reached new depths, a poll suggests. Only 19% of Ontario voters would cast ballots for the NDP if a provincial election were held today, a survey by Insight Canada Research ... shows."
---
Sun, Sept. 7, 1991: "Premier Bob Rae has slammed the brakes on government-run auto insurance, scrapping a key NDP election promise because of the recession.
"Rae said he abandoned plans for public insurance because it could have put 5,600 people out of work permanently and would have cost $1.4 billion to start."
---
Sun, Oct. 4, 1991: "NDP government economic policy threatens to drive out a third of Ontario's small businesses, employing 500,000 workers, a business group warned yesterday.
"'Ontario is in danger of becoming the rustbelt of the North,' said John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business."
---
Sun, June 20, 1992: "Premier Bob Rae got his wrists slapped by his own party last night when members voted overwhelmingly in favour of more government accountability ...
"'He must realize that he needs this party,' said NDP veteran Mel Swart, who endorsed the resolution."
---
Sun, May 20, 1993: "It's the dirtiest and biggest tax blow in the province's history. Almost no one will escape the long arm of NDP Finance Minister Floyd Laughren's $2 billion tax grab -- not even gardeners buying dirt and sand.
"And his deficit-fighting budget has drawn outrage from all sides ... Union leaders charged the government is fighting the deficit on the backs of working people while letting corporations and the wealthy off the hook ... business complained the government just doesn't understand the private sector.
"Laughren said his goal was to get the government's financial house in order in this budget and that's what he's done by reducing his deficit to $9.2 billion this year. That's still $1.1 billion higher than he projected only a year ago."
---
Sun, June 30, 1993: "Have you sat down yet to figure out how much poorer you'll be when the NDP's massive $2-billion tax hit kicks in tomorrow? Paul Pagnuelo, vice-president of the Ontario Taxpayers' Coalition has, and he's spitting nails. In fact, he's so upset, he warns all employers should put this cautionary note on pay envelopes issued after July 1 ... 'WARNING: Contents may cause you to explode.'"
---
Sun, July 8, 1993: "Ontario's 950,000 public sector workers now officially face three-year wage freezes and unpaid days off as Premier Bob Rae rammed through his despised social contract legislation last night ... A huge outburst erupted ... when the final count was announced, forcing Queen's Park security to haul out several angry protesters ... Rae refused to be interviewed after the vote and ducked out a back door."
---
Sun, July 23, 1993: "The Ontario Union of Public Service Employees will file a bad faith bargaining charge against Premier Bob Rae's NDP government over layoff notices ...
"'If you want a negotiated settlement, you don't issue 2,000 layoff notices in the middle of bargaining,' (OPSEU negotiator Andy) Todd said. 'They appear to be saying, 'so much for bargaining'.'"
---
Sun, July 30, 1993: "Premier Bob Rae says he makes no apologies for unpopular policies like his social contract. And Rae yesterday warned tax-weary Ontarians that tough measures are the only way to tackle the province's economic problems and hinted there's more to come over the next two years."
---
Sun, Oct. 6, 1994: "A mob of furious public sector union members shoved past security guards and tried to crash a New Democratic Party fundraising dinner in (Windsor) last night ... 'There is no peace in the house of labour, Bob Rae,' shouted CUPE president Sid Ryan. 'It's a sad indictment of this government ..."

2006-11-14T15:04:00.000-08:00

Justin Trudeau Doesn't Think Ignatieff Is Right

2006-11-13T11:34:00.000-08:00

Stephane Dion Is Not As For The Environment As People Think

The Calgary Sun today has put out an article stating Stephane Dion is for Nuclear Energy.

If that doesn't strike you as one of the most surprising revelations in this leadership race, I would be surprised. For those of you who don't know, Nuclear energy contributes larger risks to the environment and to humanity.

I have found an issue from the Sierra Club that speaks of the disadvantages associated with Nuclear Power Generation. You can view it here. Here is a point by point review of the central themes discussed:

Cost:

The huge costs of nuclear start with the capital costs of construction, but remain a hugely expensive energy option in operation and maintenance. CANDU reactors have proved to be very unreliable, with seven shut down in Ontario in recent years. All CANDU reactors have proven to have their reliability drop off sharply after the first ten years of operation.

On top of all this, Canadian taxpayers keep subsidizing AECL. From 1953-2000, AECL received over $16 billion in subsidies (figure is in year 2000 dollars). AECL receives about $200 million a year in a direct subsidy. Imagine if we had invested in energy efficiency and conservation with those dollars!

And

If Canadian society insisted that our climate change actions must be judged by the cost per tonne of avoided carbon emissions, nuclear would rank last, with energy conservation a clear winner. The worst part of nuclear as a climate change response is that it diverts funds from better options.

Waste:

No one claims to know how to “dispose” of nuclear waste, although some claim to know how to best manage wastes for the long term. High-level nuclear wastes (the spent reactor fuel rods) are initially stored in swimming pool like facilities next to nuclear reactors. They are so hot that if the water were to drain away, they could melt through the cement floor of the building. Over time, the spent fuel cools but is still highly radioactive. In fact, it remains so radioactive that it must be contained from the biosphere for 250,000 years. As a technical matter, engineers think the waste can be placed in lots of concrete and held in huge underground caverns in the Canadian Shield. This is called Deep Geological Storage. The notion that we, in 2005, can count on anything 250,000 years from now is absurd.

One of the tragic lessons of Hurricane Katrina was that even relatively
inexpensive repairs to levees around New Orleans were dismissed as unimportant. I find it hard to believe that generations from now, the constant costs of maintenance for underground nuclear waste can be reliably counted upon—especially if nothing has gone wrong for the first 40-50 years. The threat of high level waste being mismanaged or (worse) targeted by terrorists, means it should be moved into long-term storage in a condition that puts it out of reach of the nuclear industry for re-processing for more reactors. There is a strong sense that no nuclear waste management option should be chosen while society is still creating more nuclear waste. The first step to long-term management of nuclear waste is a commitment to shut down reactors and stop producing
the waste.

Risks:

Federal law protects the industry from the real costs of a nuclear accident. Regulation of nuclear reactors is not sufficient to guard against accidents, although, clearly the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident is much less (statistically) than the risks of climate change impacts. The nuclear industry routinely releases radioactive nuclides. The debate over whether there is any safe dose of ionizing radiation is largely over. Increasingly the medical research concludes there is no such thing as a safe level. Clusters of cancers are reported near nuclear reactors, while the industry touts nuclear energy as “safe.”

The Advisory Council on Environmental Standards advised that the allowable levels of radioactive pollutants from reactors should be reduced for health reasons to the European Union’s standard of 100 becquerels per litre for drinking water. This was rejected by the government of Ontario, whose standard is
7000 becquerels per litre!

Now consider that Stephane Dion has not provided an argument at all for Nuclear Energy, in fact in review he has constantly argued for sources of clean renewable energy such as wind, hydro, etc.

It is simple, Nuclear Energy should not be considered. It does not benefit the environment, it prolongs dependency on costly and potentially devasting methods of generating energy.

The Sierra Club recognizes the danger of Nuclear Energy, why doesn't Stephane Dion?

2006-11-10T09:22:00.000-08:00

Gerard Kennedy Has The Boldest Economic Policy

From Today's Globe And Mail

Would allow bank mergers, Kennedy says

CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA -- Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy called yesterday for Canada to allow its banks to merge, as he carved out a set of business-friendly policies that he said would energize a complacent Canadian economy.

Although bank mergers are not usually considered a big vote winner with the Liberal rank and file, Mr. Kennedy said Canada has to shed old practices that handcuff the economy.
That includes deregulating the "protected" telecommunications industry to reduce costs for telephone and other telecom services, and action on an issue that has been controversial with Canadians: allowing big chartered banks to merge with each other and perhaps with insurance companies.

Mr. Kennedy said current restrictions have not led to more choice for consumers, but they have made Canadian banks less competitive. "We need to allow banks to decide if they're going to become larger," he told business students at Ryerson University in Toronto.

He said in an interview that Canada must also look at allowing increased market access for foreign banks "to address what I'm convinced is a deteriorating amount of choice for consumers. We're not providing that [choice] -- for businesses, especially small and medium businesses, in terms of access to capital.

"I would not stand in the way of mergers that could take place that met the test of public interest. I'm prepared to make that part of what we do going forward, and perhaps even cross-pillar engagement of insurance companies and banks."

The Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin flirted with the idea, but backed away for fear of a public backlash against big banks getting bigger. Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty shelved the idea this year.

"There has to be a new Liberalism," he said yesterday. "It can't be just protecting the status quo. Anything we do has to be tied into our global competitiveness and our ability to promote our social programs."

In his speech yesterday, Mr. Kennedy outlined his "enterprise" platform, which combines business-friendly measures such as tax credits for investment in start-up companies with measures to increase access to professional jobs for immigrants and to bring more women into the work force.

2006-11-03T11:03:00.000-08:00

How Is It Good News To Hear A Reporter Asking Liberals Not To count Out Your Candidate?

If you have read any Stephane Dion Blog or visited the official Dion website you'll see this article. It basically is a reporter saying not to rule out Stephane Dion out. So I am stuck asking, "Are People Ruling Out Dion?" This was news to me; I knew he was in forth but is he doing that poorly where the whole Dion campaign mobilizes around such an article asking not to consider Dion.

If you do not think it's such a big deal, the Stephane Dion bloggers disagree. They seem elated that someone is asking people not to turn their backs on Dion. You can see the hope the article gave the Dion supporters by visiting their blogs: Paper Dynamite, impolitical, HarperBizarro, and New Liberal Movement.

It's not only the Dion blogs that are advertising the fact that Dion shouldn't be ignored, it's on the Dion website and it's in his update email, indeed making up the entire email.

I think it says a lot about a campaign when they centralize their fight against people 'ruling' them out. I'm not going to state the obvious of what it exactly says, I'll let you read between the lines.

2006-11-02T14:30:00.000-08:00

Michael Ignatieff Is Too Early-20th-Century For My Liking

In the early 1900s most world leaders talked using words like honour, hope, glory, love, and other emotive words in their speeches. That type of talk represented the atmosphere of the time. That Britain had an honour, that it would fight for her majesty's glory in the hope of the greater victory. Those words feel out of use by leaders when that type of leadership led to two world wars. My case is proven with the decline of one of the greatest speakers the world has ever known, Winston Churchil. He remained a great speaker, but no longer fit in with the more realist and more clear definitive oratory speeches to come.

I noticed Michael Ignatieff a few months ago trying to resurrect this old way of speaking. At a debate I noticed how often he would lean on an argument based on Canada's honour. Indeed he explains why Canada must remain in Afghanistan because of our promise to the US and NATO. It seems effectiveness and right do not enter into Michael's equation when honour is involved. It seems that is one of the root causes of both world wars; where right is sidelined to honour and glory.

I thought no one else really noticed this but a recent article vindicates me quite well. This article discusses some of the speech mechanisms Ignatieff uses. Of particular interest is this paragraph:

Consider Mr. Ignatieff's concluding remarks at last month's Liberal leadership debate in Vancouver, during which Mr. Ignatieff, speaking with a poetic force and passion, used the word "hope" 16 times in the space of two minutes. Liberals are the "party of hope," he rhythmically intoned; "I want to lead the party of hope . . . hope for aboriginal Canadians who want to live in justice . . . hope for working parents who want daycare . . . hope for new Canadians who want an immigration system that works faster," and hope for eight or nine other named groups and regions.

This journalist, Andrew Stark also contributes to my own theory by explaining a possible reason why this type of arcane talk disappeared.

However well this kind of rhetoric may work in, say, a sermon -- or possibly a focus group -- it doesn't translate into politics. The problem can be illustrated by way of an analogy. There once was a regional U.S. airline called People Express whose flight attendants would announce to passengers as they landed, "People Express is proud to announce the arrival of Flight XXX." The airline went bankrupt, possibly because passengers were discomfited by the thought that bringing in a flight safely would be a source of pride to an airline. Similarly, we are made uncomfortable by a politician who promises simply to bring us hope. Hope implies the possibility of being disappointed. We want him to commit to bringing results.

Words like hope, glory, and love are all well and good, but when they exist in the world of politics they offer nothing substantive, nothing concrete. What people want is something they can understand, results.

2006-11-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

John Kerry Didn't Belittle Anyone

Above is a video clip of John Kerry's remarks. He said that at University you study hard so you won't end up stuck in Iraq. I don't see a problem with this statement. The problem rests on the perceivers values. If you think an education is better then not having one then you'll see Kerry's response as negative. But if you see education as another of Life's alternatives, and it is but just one avenue to go down then you won't take anything John Kerry said as negative.

I see joining the military as a legitimate choice to education, and admit that most university graduates don't end up in the military, that is just a fact. Therefore staying in University pretty much means you won't go to Iraq. I do not see any problem with John Kerry's statement.

I do see a problem in the general sentiment of protecting the troops feelings, and its growth in Canada. During the last election I saw nothing wrong with the Liberal ad against troops on our street corners. I have a reservist friend who felt that ad was wrong because he wondered why people wouldn't want troops on their street corners. I answered, it's not because of them personally, it's because they represent the government, they represent the governments military. We have RCMP to enforce the laws with their own laws, the military enforces other laws, much stricter laws.

Soldiers are meant to be similar if not identical to each other. They are trained to lose all free choice. On a street corner an enforcer of Canadian or any agent needs free choice.

We must not let worry about troops moral dictate policy. Policy dictates troop movement and applications. Troops have to be tough. If troops join the army and fight for Canada based on the country's sentiment towards a mission they are not hero's, they are machines. A person should join the army and fight because they believe following the orders of the Canadian military is right.

2006-10-25T12:31:00.000-07:00

"Bob Rae Is Dumb."

Of all the political rebukes I've heard, this one is the most entertaining. Ralph Klein is reported to have called Bob Rae "dumb." The article states:

Alberta's shoot-from-the-lip Premier Ralph Klein says federal Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae is a "dumb politician."

Klein, never one to mince words during his 14-year term, told the Sun yesterday that "education bears no relationship to intelligence" and that for all his education, the former Ontario premier is "dumb."

Ralph even goes further to differentiate his judgement. Ralph does not mean that his calling Rae dumb is anyway related to political differences, but he literally thinks Bob Rae is dumb.

He said the former NDP leader "just added to the accumulated debt in that province and drove up the deficit" after taking over the premier's office from the outgoing David Peterson Liberals.

"God knows what he did. He's the only person that I know of that had a day named after him: Rae Days," Klein said, referring to the unpaid holidays provincial bureaucrats were required to take to cut costs.

The outgoing dean of Canadian premiers didn't explain why he harbours such animosity for Rae, but conceded he has disliked him since Rae hosted a premier's conference in Toronto.

Calling the gathering "the worst meeting I have ever attended," Klein recalls that Rae chastised him for his tardy arrival.

"Of course, I was up late ... Bob Rae made a point of pointing out that I was late for breakfast or that I missed breakfast."

He indicated it isn't just a Conservative-NDP thing.

Klein, 63, who is stepping down at year's end, said he had a good relationship with former Saskatchewan NDP premier Roy Romanow, but never with Rae.

"I had a lot of time for Roy, notwithstanding our political differences. Bob Rae, I had no time for whatsoever," Klein said bluntly.

The article also mentions Klein does not have much clout to judge intelligence because he was afterall a highschool dropout. But as Klein himself stipulates, education can exist solely on paper.

2006-10-24T14:40:00.000-07:00

Bob Rae's Experience

I have given Bob Rae a rough time, but let it be known that some of his policies are more congruent to my own view then some of the other candidates' excluding Gerard Kennedy of course. Nonetheless I am having a problem with some of the selling points the Rae campaign is using. Recently they have been stressing his experience, now I'm not from Ontario, but I do read newspapers, and here is one Ontarioian's opinion about Rae from the Toronto Star:

Bob Rae wants to run on his experience? It is the worst kind of spin to try and turn a one-term disaster as provincial premier into the sort of "experience" that qualifies one to be prime minister. Rae has had success in recent years, but always outside politics. As a politician, he was a thorough disaster. He cut places in medical school and we now have a shortage of doctors. He dropped nurses from the health-care system, posing a threat to future patient care. He hired more public servants, yet subsequently told them to take unpaid "Rae days" off. From Ontario, I say this — some experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Bastedo, Toronto

What I'm getting at is, Bob Rae, and your campaign, don't try to sell his experience,.....it's not good.

Consider Bob Rae's 'experience' to Gerard Kennedy's. As his website states:

In 1986, Kennedy was recruited to Toronto to establish T he Daily Bread Food Bank, which he served as executive director until 1996. There Gerard mobilized church groups, social service organizations, corporate CEOs, and the public in order to run the organization without a dime of government money. Every month, he was responsible for the collection and distribution of food to more than 150,000 people - $30 million worth of food annually. Gerard also participated in local initiatives to develop food banks in Quebec City, Halifax, Ottawa, St. John's and abroad, including Ireland, France, Poland, Israel and the Ukraine.

Gerard Kennedy most recently served as the Minister of Education in Ontario and as a member of the Planning and Priorities Board of Cabinet. With responsibility for two million students, 4,800 schools and a $17 billion annual budget, he led a turnaround in publicly-funded education in the province over the past two and a half years, following a decade of conflict, cutbacks and turmoil.

First elected as a Member of Provincial Parliament in a 1996 by-election to replace former NDP Premier Bob Rae, Kennedy took the riding of York South for the Liberal Party for the first time in its 70 year history. He was re-elected in 1999 and 2003 (by a three-to-one margin over his nearest competitor) in the modified riding of Parkdale-High Park following redistribution.

In the 1996 Ontario Liberal leadership race, Mr. Kennedy came second to now Premier Dalton McGuinty. He has served the Ontario Liberal Party in a variety of capacities:

Chair of its reform commission, 1997
Head of the membership renewal project, 1999

Co-chair of key committees of policy, communications and organization for election readiness, 2003
Kennedy developed the Excellence for All education platform that has been the first priority for the McGuinty government
He established the Liberal Education Advisor Program (LEAP) to engage party members in current and future directions in education.

2006-10-23T20:30:00.000-07:00

A Matter of Question

I had seen a few months ago that Michael Ignatieff had missed the vote on the Kelowna Accord, and in itself was not as great of an indignation as is happening now.

Michael Ignatieff says if he is elected Prime Minister, he will renew a Liberal commitment to Canada's aboriginal people.

During a meeting with the Prince Albert Grand Council, Ignatieff released his aboriginal strategy.

He says government investments in health, education and entrepreneurship are key to ensuring that aboriginal people enjoy equality of opportunity.

Ignatieff says he will revive the five billion dollar Kelowna Accord.

The Conservatives refused to support the accord, and instead offered a number of significantly less expensive measures in their spring budget.

The article can be read here.
Now I wasn't going to harp on the fact that Ignatieff missed a vote on the Kelowna Accord and as such was not necessary for it, but then he takes seemingly a 180 degree position on it, and says he would actually revive it. But wasn't he partly responsible for it to be in the condition that it needed to be revived?

The Conservative website even furthers the issue by stating Michael didn't miss one vote on Kelowna, but two! You can read it here.

If Michael is going to lead by example, how can he revive an accord he contributed to its defeat?

2006-10-23T09:35:00.000-07:00

Funny The Difference 13 Days Makes For The Candidates

And this was just from the Toronto debate, imagine how hypocritical these candidates would appear if that footage was included as well. I'm not saying certain candidates weren't baited, or certain candidates weren't posing legitimate statements, what I am posing is that the end conclusion, is different then what they had said a mere 13 days prior to the Toronto debate.

I wonder what could have happened to alter the tone of this race? Was it the questioning of delegates by certain campaigns? Please comment because I really find this interesting.

2006-10-19T11:32:00.000-07:00

Jeez, Wasn't I Just Thinking This?

From today's National Post, here is an article about the leadership candidates. More importantly, why are people ignoring the obvious?

"It's the pundits who are provincial"

National Post, Thursday 19 Oct 2006

Page: A17 Section: Issues & Ideas Byline: Adam Radwanski

Little, it seems, will disqualify you from the federal Liberal leadership. You can stay out of the country for 30 years, support the Iraq war, have little grip on domestic policy and say anything that pops into your head -- and, like Michael Ignatieff, remain front-runner.

You can run one of the most unpopular provincial governments in Canadian history, spend most of your adult life in the NDP, surround yourself with the cronies of a former prime minister and make a determined effort not to put forward policies -- and, like Bob Rae, be painted as the candidate with "momentum."

You can speak shaky English, position yourself as the green candidate despite a middling record as environment minister and have all the charisma of a Coke machine -- and, like Stephane Dion, be cast as the scrappy underdog. Just don't, under any circumstances, speak imperfect French and fail to build a Quebec organization: the sure sign of an also-ran who doesn't have what it takes.

That, at least, is the consensus of most Ottawa pundits. But the way they've written off Gerard Kennedy says more about them than him. Truth is, the casual dismissal of the former Ontario education minister in Ottawa circles -- and the ensuing lack of coverage of his campaign -- has little to do with his lack of support in Quebec, particularly when none of the candidates has any real traction with the general public there. What it's about is a paternalistic contempt for provincial politicians held by people who've spent too long in the capital -- a perspective summarized neatly by The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson at the outset of the race. Kennedy, Simpson suggested, lacked the substance to make it in "the nation's capital -- the big leagues of national politics, if you'll pardon the arrogance." Evidently, the arrogance was pardoned by colleagues.

When Kennedy finished third in delegate selection meetings, columnists such as the Globe's John Ibbitson and the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert made the assessment that the best he could hope for was to be kingmaker -- as opposed to Dion, who'd finished fourth but still had a shot. That Ottawa is the "big leagues," and provincial politics the minors, may be a natural conceit for those toiling in the capital. If Liberals across the country follow their lead, though, they could be doing themselves a disservice. Of course federal politics should attract the best and brightest, which is why guys like Kennedy try to make the move. But to brush off his accomplishments at the provincial level is to dismiss the sorts of qualities of which the federal Liberals are desperately in need.

This is a party struggling to acquire a sense of purpose -- to prove it can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That's not something it's likely to get from Ignatieff, who's been more apt to wade into esoteric constitutional debates. It can hardly be expected from Rae, who's effectively promising a less proactive brand of government than Jean Chretien offered. Dion may be a better hope, but his post-Clarity Act record of actually making things happen is spotty. Kennedy, meanwhile, comes from a level of government responsible for the services (health, education, social assistance) that actually affect the everyday lives of Canadians. He's honed his skill in one of the most difficult ministries at that level, restoring calm to schools after a period of chaos that began under Rae. And even outside his portfolio, he was widely acknowledged as the provincial Cabinet's most influential voice on social policy.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose Kennedy. He has a reputation for being a micromanager and a loner. If you're not on the centre-left of the party, some of his opinions -- including that Canada should get out of Afghanistan if NATO doesn't change its mandate -- are worrisome. But next to this field, can he really be dismissed as a lightweight? Only if you've spent too much time in Ottawa.

adamradwanski@gmail.com

2006-10-17T19:24:00.000-07:00

Gerard Amazed In The Debate

2006-10-17T08:52:00.000-07:00

Stephane Dion Doesn't Attack Harper

This is a clip of Stephane Dion, who instead of taking the opportunity to blast Harper on childcare , changes the subject to fulfill his more individualistic and selfish means. I put forth Dion did attack Harper quite aggressively in previous sections but the manner he does so in this clip shows a sort of arrogance or boredom with attacking Harper. I must say Stephane, not very becoming of a potential Leader.

2006-10-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

What Did Michael Mean?

Here is a good blog that posted this article. I read both and I think Ignatieff needs to really clarify what he said. What he said was either right or it was wrong. Either he said Israel committed a war crime or it did not. The article brings up a good point, Ignatieff cannot say Israel committed a war crime, but didn't.

Michael has to explain what he meant. Did he mean Israel committed a war crime or didn't he?

For anyone wanting to explain what Michael meant please read this article, included in full here:

Mr. Ignatieff's sorry version of even-handedness
CLIFFORD ORWIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Michael Ignatieff? What is it with the guy? He's so intelligent, so articulate, so capable of writing books that impress even me, a hard sell -- and so prone to making an ass of himself. This is nobody's recipe for success as prime minister.

Mr. Ignatieff's latest gaffe was the last straw, a lollapalooza following a series of mere doozies. Speaking on a Quebec radio show, he addressed the question of the Israeli air raid in Qana, Lebanon, on July 30 during the war with Hezbollah, in the aftermath of which 28 civilian deaths occurred. (Note my careful phrasing; we'll return to it.) "What happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

Clear that it was a war crime, or clear that he should have said it? Well, actually, neither. When contacted by a reporter, an aide said that, while Mr. Ignatieff would not retract his use of the term "war crime," that use had been misunderstood.

So rather than retract his statement, Mr. Ignatieff retracted our understanding of it. What he had meant, according to aide Leslie Church, was that "this was a tragedy of war, that this was a deplorable act of war, that this was a terrible consequence of war." He would never have been so irresponsible as to declare a finding in international law on a talk show.
Well, that's a relief. Ms. Church is Mr. Ignatieff's spokeswoman, so she must know. Mr. Ignatieff was speaking in French, so perhaps crime de guerre or however he put it is best rendered in English as "really sad event." Mr. Ignatieff's French is awfully good, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
The thing is that to imply that Israel was guilty of a war crime -- indeed, that it was clearly guilty of one -- is to declare a finding in international law. It is a grave charge demanding equally weighty evidence. If Mr. Ignatieff possesses such evidence, he should provide it. Oops, I forgot: He said but didn't mean that Israel was guilty of a war crime.
There was clearly a war crime committed at Qana -- by Hezbollah. To use civilians as shields, as Hezbollah did at Qana as throughout Lebanon, is a war crime. Not only did it attack Israel using missile launchers deliberately sited in civilian areas (and sometimes inside civilian dwellings), but it had constructed civilian buildings (and even mosques) atop its buried military infrastructure so that Israel could not attack it without exacting a civilian toll.
I
srael had every right to target those missile launchers, to target military infrastructure, to target dual-use infrastructure. It remained obliged, under these circumstances, to minimize civilian losses as much as is possible. That it did so, as a matter of general policy, is confirmed by what was, in fact, a very low toll in the conflict. So many days of bombing, and only a thousand civilian casualties (many of whom were almost certainly fighters whom Hezbollah refused to declare as such, thus suppressing the number of its losses while inflating civilian ones).
As to the Qana incident, much remains uncertain. We know that Hezbollah was firing missiles from nearby. We know that many hours passed between the air raid on the adjacent launchers and the collapse of the building. What happened during those hours? Why were the residents not moved? And what of the Israelis' claim that they had assumed the building was deserted? We don't possess sure answers to any of these questions, and neither does Mr. Ignatieff.
Mr. Ignatieff hasn't always been so hard on Israel over civilian casualties in Lebanon. While the war still raged, he said he wasn't losing any sleep over civilian deaths. That sounded both foolish and callous. But maybe he didn't mean it, as he doesn't mean other important things he says.
But he did say it, and so felt called on to unsay it, by making his recent equally injudicious remark. Having earlier alienated Muslims, one erstwhile Liberal constituency, he has now atoned by offending Jews, another.
Late yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff issued a statement reaffirming his lifelong support for Israel and its right to defend itself, and describing Qana as a "terrible human tragedy." He did not clarify or allude to his recent remark about the war crime.
Is Mr. Ignatieff condemned to lurch from one wrong to another, hoping that somehow the two will make a right? Is this his sorry version of even-handedness? The usual likenings of him to George Bush are partisan, malicious and unfair. But, to quote the late Ann Richards's great line, Mr. Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Will this prove Mr. Ignatieff's epitaph as well?
Clifford Orwin is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and director of the Munk Centre's program in political philosophy and international affairs.

2006-10-11T21:09:00.000-07:00

Michael Ignatieff In The News

A clip of Michael Ignatieff on CTV News, no publicity is bad publicity, right?

2006-10-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

The Defence of Ignatieff By His Bloggers is Reminiscent of Republicans Defending Bush

On looking at the late replies by known Ignatieff supporters, notably Cerberus, TDH, and Red Tory, I see they have all taken a page from the Republican handbook. The republicans as we all know in the state vigorsously have defended George W. Bush's contant mistakes by justification that he says what he means, and thats what they like about him, even if what he says amounts to gross negligence.

But I expect these bloggers to take offence to this claim, but in honesty I take offence to these bloggers. How can any reasonable human being take the position: "Well, uh...what he said was wrong...and I disagree with him....but I respect him more...for ....uh...like being honest....that's why he's the best." I cannot believe anybody fully aware of their mental processes could make such a conclusion, yet the three above bloggers make such a declaration.

Cerberus puts his Republican defence like so, and just think about how this suits Bush as well as Ignatieff:

Like I have said before, Ignatieff will speak the truth as he sees it. His cards are on the table. There is no politician's mealy mouthed, equivocating, edge-less, not-sure-where-he-stands politician in him.

TDH immitates a Republican die hard defending Bush with this statement:

I have always sang the praises of Michael Ignatieff as a candidate who isn't scripted, and doesn't always advance the safest views and/or approaches within the political realm. Thus, I cannot all off a sudden come down too hard on him when I read this:

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

But let me pose that TDH while repeating the closest explanation to that of a republican defending Bush, he also utters the most respectable statement:

With that said, however, my humble opinion tends to classify this characterization as inaccurate.

Red Tory posts the most blindly partisan post ever written. I dare say he has read if not written the book on how to explain away gross errors of a Leader. Tell me just how much this sounds like a Republican defending Bush:

Openly admitting one’s mistakes and missteps should be a valued quality, but instead he’s being excoriated in the media as having committed another “rookie mistake” or hapless gaffe by not reacting in the usual autonomic way that most other politicians do in terms of pandering and shamefully ingratiating themselves to various interest groups that will best serve their short-term objectives. Well, excuse me, but this is just another reason that I really like Michael Ignatieff.

2006-10-11T11:59:00.000-07:00

Michael Ignatieff, And 30% of the Party supports him?

I just read this story and I was surprised. Michael Ignatieff committing another huge gaffe.

In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show...Michael Ignatieff, the front-runner in the race for the federal Liberal leadership, has accused Israel of committing "a war crime" during its conflict with Hezbollah last summer.

Now this is major, as alleging Israel committed a war crime is pretty big. In fact Michael is the first to stand up and denounce what Israel did as a war crime. This shows boldness and greatness that Michael has the intelligence to really speak for the World Court and accuse a whole country of a crime. I don't know why Michael only has 30% of the delegates, he should have 100%.

Now for those of you who can't read sarcasm, the above was an example. Ignatieff's actions are but just a part of why Ignatieff would not make a good leader.

In the news also perhaps in response to Ignatieff's gaffe is this, it is a lovely article about Ignatieff, I suggest you read it.

A Nice exert is right here:

Most people come to this country because they want a fresh start, or they want to escape tyranny or persecution. They come willing to take whatever job is available, to build a life in Canada. To start from scratch in a country that offers more opportunity than the one they are in.

Ignatieff is not an immigrant, of course. He is a bona fide Canadians - even if in his writings he has referred to himself, pronounally speaking, as an American.

But imagine the conversation around Ignatieff's breakfast table, a year or so ago. "Dear, I am thinking of moving back to Canada."

"But you have a great job here in the U.S."

"Yes, but I think my opportunities will be better in Canada. I do remember the country, somewhat, and I want to be a prime minister or president of something. I can't do that here in the States, because we have a silly rule about being born here. I can't do it in England, because Tony Blair's successor is already standing with his briefcase at the door of 10 Downing. So it's either Canada or Italy, and I know slightly less about Italy."

So back to Canada he came and - and here is where the Conservative campaign people and PR experts are convulsed with delight - the Liberals immediately welcome him as the new Liberal star.

The Liberals have a way of doing this. Remember John Turner? Or Paul Martin? C'mon - sure you do. Well, these shining stars burned out on entry into the Prime Ministerial atmosphere. Ignatieff will surely do the same. And he is an easy target for the slings and arrows of Conservative critics.

As someone who lives somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum, I am alternately amused and appalled at the developments in the leadership race.

They all come with very apparent flaws. Bob Rae was less than successful as Ontario Premier, and the Conservatives have been quoted as saying their anti-Rae rhetoric is already written: "He'll do to Canada what he did to Ontario."

Stéphane Dion - it has not been widely reported - holds dual Canadian and French citizenship.

Gerard Kennedy is... thoroughly unknown outside the GTA.

Ken Dryden has apparently been shut out. Ironic, that.

All are vulnerable to attack by their opponents, but none are in the target-on-my-back league with Ignatieff, who made the choice to live Somewhere Else, until he decided to be PM. To my mind, that puts him alongside Conrad Black, who gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord, but now apparently wants it back.

I'm not sure of all the qualities necessary to be a good Prime Minister. But choosing to live in Canada might be somehow fundamental.

If the Liberals opt for Ignatieff, they deserve everything the Conservatives throw at them.

2006-10-09T16:30:00.000-07:00

Well Alberta Isn't That Important Anyways, Right Michael?

When I first read this article I thought it was a mock-umentary or something along those lines, but alas no, it is one of Ignatieff's great campaign maneuvers.

What maneuver am I referring to? Well that "Message [is] to Albertans from the campaign desk of the Liberal leadership front-runner: Get over it." That "it" Michael is motivating them to get over, is the National Energy Program initiated under Pierre Elliot Trudeau that is argued to be responsible for financial hardship and central government interference into the province.

Now to be fair in the article Ignatieff does actually state the west is important, it is his tact that is lacking and which I am having qualms about. A leader should not tell a province or region, "Tough Luck, deal with it, and get over it"; the Leader and Liberal Party needs to re-incorporate western interests which are sorely lacking in the Party.

BC and Alberta now have more people then Quebec, yet Ignatieff is offering constitutional concessions to Quebec while offering sheer rudeness to Alberta. In this perspective I think Michael Ignatieff has shown is disrespect for Alberta, the west and Canada.

2006-10-06T18:24:00.000-07:00

SAY IT ISN'T TRUE DION

People may call this post partisan or bias and it may seem that way, but I am totally shocked by Stephane Dion missing the vote on Kyoto. Dion was my second choice, he was a close second. I can't believe how close I came to backing him.

It has been said Dion has one strength, and that's the environment, well if that's true Stephane Dion is a giant hypocrite. On the Conservaative's website, right here, it describes a vote on Kyoto with Dion missing. Kyoto was pledged by Dion as a great environmental strategy, Dion believed in it so much he named his dog after it. Then he goes and misses the vote? Dion I'm glad I'm not backing you.

The republicans in the US are often criticized for voting for Bush because he always does what he says, even if it's wrong. Well I criticized them too for that, but there is a redeeming quality in Bush, he's not a hypocrite or a sell-out.

Jason Cherniak even says the Kyoto accord is Dion's, right here:

We also talked about Kyoto. M. Dion believes that his Kyoto plan would have reduced green house gas emissions substantially. It was based on funding different projects - whether municipal, provincial or business - on the basis of which would do the most good for the environment. He regrets that his $4 billion fund will likely be cut by Harper tomorrow and he still believes that Kyoto can work. Dion also mentioned that he had a new regulation prepared that would have come out in February. Surprise, surprise, Harper has not followed up.

Well guess what Jason, it seems Dion didn't follow up.

Go here, read what Mr.Dion poses; I use "poses" quite purposely, because he has demonstrated his poser skills.

I'll include the whole article because I think the Dion campaign will quickly remove this as evidence of Dion's hypocrisy:

The world is now facing a global environmental threat worse than any we have previously seen. Climate change is no academic issue. This is not about some future generation, it is about our children’s lives and our lives. It is about increasingly angry weather and much more dramatic storms - much longer heat waves. It is about the threat of droughts to already over-stretched farmers. It is about coming together as a world to deeply cut the climate pollution that humans are putting into the air.

That is why I believe so strongly that we need to show international leadership on dealing with climate change, and take the necessary actions here at home to do the right thing for us all. That is why as Minister of the Environment, I was proud last December to Chair for two weeks the Montreal conference on climate change negotiations, despite the unfortunate reality that it took place during a difficult federal election campaign. We achieved great things, strengthening Kyoto and how it works as well as kick-starting negotiations to broaden the treaty.

Just as important was the climate change plan for our country that I released in April 2005. Project Green recognized what we all know: the next economic crisis will revolve around energy. Canada’s climate change plan recognized this by being both a powerful environmental plan, while also being a forward-looking energy plan. We know that we have to help our industries remain highly competitive in the global marketplace, and an increasingly integral part of the equation is their cost of energy. We have to make the right investments now as a nation to ensure that we all have access to secure, efficient and reasonably priced energy sources in the future, that are environmentally-friendly.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is moving in the opposite direction: removing Canada from the Kyoto process, absolving itself of any international responsibility to live up to its international treaty obligations, and replacing some of the most important investments in Project Green with tax cuts that will not help us make progress on reducing green house gas emissions. I believe that this is an abdication of duty by the Prime Minister, who is obliged to prepare this country for a challenging future, and act responsibly on the international stage.

Make no mistake, Canadians support Kyoto and they know it means binding targets not voluntary promises. They know it means countries keeping their word to each other. They know that it is only the first step, but a critical step, towards fighting climate pollution and stabilizing our atmosphere.

The countries that make these changes now, the obligations Kyoto calls for, changes to energy efficiency and creation of more green energy, will be far more competitive in the future. Countries which try to duck the United Nations united effort will not prosper in a world of galloping energy costs.

Or Dion's sound-byte from The Calgary Grit:

Kyoto is “more than a target”, it’s “a global approach to a global problem”

2006-10-03T15:27:00.000-07:00

RUMOR: Stephane Dion Is To Drop Out Of Leadership Race

Surveying a few blogs, one in particular has really surprised me. This blog pointed me to this, scroll to the second comment. Now I'm not saying this rumor is true. I'm just saying it is very interesting.

I just got an email from Team Dion, and it's an email from Stephane himself, and this is what it says:

Le français suit l'anglais

October 3, 2006

A great weekend for Liberals across the country

Thank you!

Thank you to all Liberals for making this weekend such an extraordinary success. Thank you to all the volunteers and campaign workers of all the candidates and of the Liberal Party, who conducted themselves so honourably. And thank you to my fellow candidates for giving Liberals such high quality candidates to choose from!

I look forward to working with all Liberals, in the weeks and months ahead, as we further strengthen and unify our great party, the Liberal Party of Canada.
It's going to be a great convention in Montreal!

Stéphane Dion

To me this sounds like a candidate that might possibly pull out. Again I'm not saying he will, but doesn't the letter seem too general about his continuing?

2006-09-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

WHY I ENDORSE GERARD KENNEDY

In selecting Gerard Kennedy, I read every speech and article available before hand of all the candidates. I chose Gerard not because all the other candidates are lacking, but because intrinsically Gerard Kennedy is the best candidate to be leader of the Liberal Party.

First Gerard Kennedy has the ideas that are genuinely Liberal and will redefine and renew the Liberal Party. Social issues such as education and female equality are all major considerations for Gerard. His ideas for the economy are far reaching and introduce a new Liberal value of enterprise. It is connecting a result-based style of governing that differentiates Gerard from all others. If a strategy is not working, it has to be re-evaluated. Gerard has illustrated this in reaction to the worsening problems in Afghanistan.

Kennedy has proposed that unless NATO changes it's mandate, to be more effective, Canada will pull out of Afghanistan. This policy is bold and innovative. Where others deal in complacency Gerard is constantly striving for the best results. NASA's motto is aptly suited to Gerard's style of governing: "Good Enough is the enemy of Better;" this relates that people are complacent with average outcomes, because those are easy. Better involves hard work and change to find the method best suited. That's why Afghanistan in the current situation must be changed. These numbers of Canadian casualties are not acceptable. There is a better way, and that is Gerard Kennedy.

A major factor underemphasized in this Leadership race is where the candidates are from. Gerard Kennedy is the most western candidate, being from the Pas Manitoba. As Leader he would be the first Liberal Leader west of Ontario. As CBC reported last night, with BC and Alberta having a higher population combined then Quebec, thus they will get more seats in the near future; the West will play more of an important role in the years to come. The Liberal Party must change with the times, it must elect Gerard Kennedy as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

2006-09-26T10:03:00.000-07:00

Who Would Stephane Dion Go To?

In a recent article in the Montreal Gazette, Philip Authier speculates where Dion would go if he was going to support another candidate. When asked directly about similarities with possible candidates to support, Stephane Dion responded, "I'd say they are all excellent seconds...I'm doing my campaign. I am concentrating on the things I have to do. It's too soon to evaluate this."

Everyone is trying to find out who will be the next candidate to drop out. In comparing other candidates speeches before they drop out, this statement by Dion is by far the closest to indicate dropping out relatively soon. The phrase "too soon to evaluate this," leads one to consider the Dion isn't thinking of supporting anyone at the moment but will be soon.

In the article, Philip states "Dion would only say Ignatieff seems more interested in environmental issues - one of Dion's three campaign pillars - while Rae seems interested in intergovernmental affairs." My addition is that IF Dion ever drops out, he would go to either Michael Ignatieff or Gerard Kennedy. The question is how much of an emphasis does Dion put on environment in relation to his other pillar, social justice?

2006-09-25T19:52:00.000-07:00

A PREJUDICED POLL

Today I was phoned by a polling service about the Liberal Leadership Race. The poll had questions such as "Which Candidate Do You Want As Leader?"

However, through the cold electronic voice, which happens to be female, it lists the choices of candidates. The machine-like voice utters "Scott Brison, Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff, and Bob Rae." That's it, out of 8 candidates the poll only gives you four options.

I want to know who is responsible for this poll? Is it the Polling service? Or was it one of the campaigns? I think it is odd that this happened so soon after the investigation into Dion's, Brison's, and Dryden's use of confidential membership information began. Are they related?

Also did some campaign give out my information? And if so which one?

So many questions.

2006-09-24T01:05:00.000-07:00

A DIFFERENT, CARING CANDIDATE

I was surprised when I read Kennedy's website this morning. It wished me a happy new year. I was first checking how long I slept then I read further. Kennedy and his wife were wishing everyone a happy Rosh Hushanah. Wow.

In the middle of a leadership campaign Kennedy has his priorities straight. The leadership, the liberal party, the elections, what it's all about is the people. Gerard knows this or he doesn't have to, it could be ingrained or inherent in him. To be so caring I think it's the later. Not only that but he truly made it personal by including his wife, or she included him :).

This type of action, of merely saying happy new year, this shows or exemplifies whats needed of a leader and a PM; that is the insight that no one ethnic grup, race, or any individual body makes up Canada. It's not just christians, as Conservatives would want, but many religions all playing important parts in our indentity.

Gerard Kennedy will always have my support, not just in some race, but he has shown me what I want in any leader, and that's thoughtfulness.

2006-09-22T19:04:00.000-07:00

KENNEDY, THE CONSERVATIVE-KILLER (NOT LITERALLY)

So I still don't understand everything about Bob Rae, but anyway... the leadership race has been feeling like it's been going on forever and really I had lost focus on what this is all about, then I get this email from the Kennedy campaign, I get all campaign emails for your reference, and this email, through it's information on Kennedy reminded me it's about picking the best leader to beat the conservatives. The article can be found here. The article illustrates that Kennedy is the best to beat Harper.

Kennedy is from the West, forgetting Hedy Fry, and I see that you have, he is the only other candidate from the west. If elected he'd be the first Leader outside of the Ontario/Quebec sphere. This is huge to me, and I know to my more conservative riding.

I know I could use it to bash Conservatives over the head with it. "My candidate is more western then yours!"

Well here's the article:

Kennedy wants to reinvent Grits; Leadership hopeful says party needs a shakeup

Ellwood Shreve
Local News - Friday, September 22, 2006 @ 09:00

The federal Liberal Party of Canada needs to renew itself and Gerard Kennedy believes he's far enough removed from the old party to do it.

The Liberal leadership hopeful met with local supporters in Chatham Thursday to give his vision of a renewed national party.

Kennedy, a former Ontario cabinet minister, spoke about adopting a different style of government with a focus on enterprise.

He said enterprise is the opposite of complacency, which he believes the former Liberal government fell into after governing for 13 years.

"We've kind of taken Canada for granted," Kennedy said.

Showing enterprise "means having the best place to start and grow a business," he said.

That entails challenging the private sector, not-for-profit sector and civil service "to get the results that we're looking for," he added.

Kennedy is concerned some Liberals are advocating for the old ways. "That's why I'm here," Kennedy said.

"The Liberal party must change quickly in order to be competitive with Mr. (Stephen) Harper," he said. "It needs somebody slightly from the outside who doesn't carry the baggage of being part of the old recent Liberal government.

"And somebody with a track record of doing things in a Liberal way," he added.

Kennedy believes it's time the Liberals began to focus on rural and northern Canadians, noting the party seems to have got caught up in mainly urban areas.

Mary Ellen Crow, of Dover, not only asked Kennedy what he'll do for agriculture, but demanded he put it writing "that the Liberals are going to do something for the farmers."

Kennedy said he's working on agriculture proposal where the government "puts our dollars up front in a way that can be predictable" for those who make an investment in farming.

He supports both food security and food nutrition policies which are done in a "way that are beneficial to farmers."

Kennedy received public support from current Liberal politician Pat Hoy, MPP for Chatham-Kent Essex, and Jerry Pickard, retired MP for Chatham-Kent Essex.

Hoy praised Kennedy for his work to protect rural schools as former Ontario education minister.

"I know he'll work hard at whatever level of government he is in," Hoy said.

Pickard likes Kennedy's view of including both urban and rural Canadians.

He's confident Kennedy "can come up with a plan that's workable for all of Canada."

2006-09-21T10:21:00.000-07:00

I DON'T GET BOB RAE

I look at the blogs this morning, at The Northern Liberal and Liberal Outsider and I find Bob Rae contributed to the NDP during the last election.

I don't get it. Why would Bob Rae do it. I read the comments section of some blogs and I thought maybe he was just giving to a friend, but then a blog has the Globe article, this one, and in it, Ms.Mathyssen, a NDP candidate Rae contributed to admitted Rae wanted the NDP to get more seats, and in her case at the expense of the Liberals.

Can Someone explain Bob Rae to me?

2006-09-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

GREAT WORDS, GREAT MAN: GERARD KENNEDY

CLICK HERE FOR GERARD KENNEDY'S GREAT CLOSING REMARKS AT THE LEADERSHIP DEBATE AT UBC IN VANCOUVER

When Gerard Kennedy came to my riding, after hearing him speak I knew he was the right candidate for the Liberal Party, the right candidate for Canada. This was not because I had only met him, I met him last. I privately talked with all the candidates, it was only Gerard who answered my questions unprovoked and in public.

I realize everyone has their own choice of the Liberal Party they want. I want a Liberal Party that is Liberal, that brings government to action in order to grant Canadians the equality and institutions they require.

At UBC, during the debates, Gerard Kennedy embodied the very perception I have of him; he is the caring, personal, and open politician the Liberal Party needs. He is warm where other candidates are strictly business. Gerard Kennedy will bring the Liberal Party and the Canadian Government back to relating to the people and not maintaining a separate sphere of business.

CLICK HERE FOR GERARD KENNEDY'S GREAT CLOSING REMARKS AT THE LEADERSHIP DEBATE AT UBC IN VANCOUVER

2006-09-03T15:59:00.000-07:00

TORONTO STAR: IGNATIEFF IS "RIGHT"

On Rex Murphy's "Cross Country Checkup" today, the topic was "What's your view of Canada's mission in Afghanistan?" One guest on the show was political columnist for the Toronto Star, James Travers.

When asked about the divided Liberal Party's stance towards Afghanistan, Travers admitted that Ignatieff if elected Leader of the Liberal Party would bring the Party to the right.

I wonder what the Ignatieff campaign thinks about their candidate or how do they defend the image of their candidate when non-Liberals see Ignatieff as being 'Right'? If non-Liberal political observers see Ignatieff as right, is it a wonder if the Canadian voting public does as well? And what will that result in, when for the last few years the NDP have been gaining ground from more right leaning Liberal policies?

For those of you who would like to heat Rex Murphy's broadcast and Travers statement go to:
http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/archives.html

2006-08-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

MORALITY: The Greatest Determinate

I can't help but look at the various views within the Liberal party. The lack of cohesion in policy, the attacks on each other because of their views, the 10 leadership camps that exist currently are just some examples. I was distressed at first, but it occurred to me however that the Liberal party should be factioned off as long as it remains strongly united. United and factioned seems contrary, but actually it is inherent in the Liberal party's existence.

Liberal Ideology, at least as it should be, promotes free expression and speech. All cultures are accepted and tolerated. Children are raised differently and are all equal. Religion is given no dominant position, which is arguably the most important part of Liberal Ideology.

Religion is the most influential feature as it is an operation of morality; only as a subset of morality is religion important. Morality is principles and customs on which we conduct our daily life. To steal, to work hard, to goof off, to love, all these minor decisions are decided upon an individuals morality. When these decisions are built and intertwined it is seen they are the substratum or foundation of our more important thought processes. Our political stance is gradually built upon parts of our individual moral codes.

Having an ideology where a common religion dominates, such as conservatism; you arrive at a stronger party because all the individuals have built their political platforms on more or less similar moral codes.

Therefore, I theorize because of, or at least partly due to the Liberal Party's ideology rejecting a prominance of religion, we lack the similar moral base that the conservatives do.

So all the differences we have, all of them make us Liberal.

2006-08-26T13:41:00.000-07:00

COMPARING VIEWS OF SOCIETY

To choose a Leadership Candidate to vote for, knowing their relative positions is necessary. This is the second post comparing the various Candidates platforms; in particular this posting will give each Candidates perspective on society's role and other social values of emphasis.

This post compares Ignatieff, Kennedy, Dion, Rae, and Brison.

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF

We need to recast our immigration policies as a crucial element of a national productivity strategy. The federal government should increase its investment in programs that re-train immigrants, that top up their credentials, that apprentice them in Canadian companies so that they can gain Canadian experience. If they can’t get recognition of their credentials in one province, the federal government should assist them to move to provinces that will recognize their skills.
Innovative federal policy has helped to deepen our national experience. The Canada Council, the CBC, the research councils in the social sciences and humanities have all helped to deepen and extend the networks of knowledge and connection that tie us together as Canadians.
An essential deepening of our common experience has been the promotion of bilingualism: increasing the numbers of English speaking children who grew up in French immersion, as well as the number of francophones who learn English in order to advance in the global economy.
But the federal government can do more to promote a national experience: by offering bursaries, internships and tax credits to help young Canadians to study and work in other provinces and to serve overseas in humanitarian and development work.
To build a country, we must create citizens, and to create citizens, we must create shared national experience. We need to make it easier for Canadians to get about their country and begin to feel a love for it in their bones.
My Canada is held together by a spine of citizenship, common rights, responsibilities and common knowledge so that we truly feel we are one people. This is not just an important priority of political leadership at the federal level. It is, in my view, the only priority.
This is a different view of Canada from the one offered by Stephen Harper. He stands for a decentralized, re-provincialized Canada, with growing differentials between the regions and provinces, with growing differences between rich and poor regions and rich and poor individuals. It is a sauve qui peut Canada. His is also an idea of politics which sees government as the problem, when it is often the solution. When Canadians are presented with the choice between the slow provincialization of our country and a Liberal vision that seeks to use government to sustain the equality of our citizenship, I know how they will chose.
(From a speech of his found at michaelignatieff.com)

GERARD KENNEDY

Creating an Enterprising Culture
There are a number of values that we embrace already as Liberals: individual freedom . equality of opportunity for all . social justice.inclusion.
It is time Liberals embrace a new core value: enterprise.
It's something I learned with a mentor Phil Byrne, a businessman who taught me how to be effective running the country's first food bank in Edmonton as a 22 year old. Phil taught me that enterprise is about taking good ideas and turning them into an even better reality.
He taught me that enterprise is about unshackling the power of the individual to make a difference.
He showed me that enterprise is about promoting an innovative, risk-taking climate.
It starts with building an enterprising culture in Canada. While we're not there now, by 2012 Canada should be the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
We must foster Canadian enterprise. While individuals and companies take risks and make businesses grow and thrive, government must be a catalyst to starting and growing businesses, not a hindrance. We must be vigilant that Canada's taxes and business climate make Canada the destination of choice for foreign direct investment. We are competing against the rest of the world for capital and talent. We have to do better if we want to win.
Canada can be more.
The Liberal value of enterprise is about delivering measurable results not only in business, but in government and the not-for-profit sectors.
Enterprise in government is about setting clear targets and delivering measurable results. In order for us to earn the right to govern we must be accountable for the services we deliver and for managing the public's hard-earned tax dollars.
I've seen what enterprise in government can do. In Ontario new, innovative approaches combined with a modest investment in education has seen a 15% jump in reading writing and math achievement in just two years.
In order to build an enterprising culture, Canada must develop an education advantage from early childhood to colleges and universities to skills training.
In order to build an enterprising culture, we must ensure that all Canadians are contributing to the economy to their full potential.
When it comes to immigrant success, Canada can be more.
I will work with the provinces to set out specific success guarantees for English or French as a Second Language Training, Skill and Accreditation Recognition as well as other services to help integrate new Canadians.
We must help bring a new spirit of enterprise to our agriculture and natural resource sectors - those parts of the economy that Canada was founded on - and help deliver a new generation of prosperity for them. In order to do this, we must fight for fairness on the international stage and we must develop a real food strategy for this country.
Canada's cities are drivers of enterprise, sustainable development and innovation. John Godfrey realised this and in conjunction with the provinces, his government started building a real Cities Agenda for this country. Canada cannot be an international country without strong international cities.
As someone who grew up in a small town, I am committed to bringing a new enterprise culture to Northern, rural and Maritime towns. I commit to a national rural strategy that respects that there can't be a one size fits all solution to delivering real results to our communities.
http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/page_e.aspx?id=10
A government dedicated to pragmatic compassion
While Canada needs to build an enterprising culture, in order for Canada to be more, to be the first international country, we must also provide support and opportunities for all Canadians - we must create a government focused on practical compassion.

Practical compassion means being driven by results for people and thinking creatively about new solutions for old problems.

As a country we must finally tackle the reality of extreme poverty head on and spearhead a poverty turnaround in this country. Getting people quickly back on their feet, maintaining dignity and helping them avoid the insidious trap of extreme poverty.

We must confront the challenges facing aboriginal Canadians and work with aboriginal leadership - as equals - to address the historic injustices and current realities facing Aboriginal Canadians.

The Kelowna Accord was a good start - but it was only that, a start. As Liberals we know that we must make improving quality of life for Aboriginal Canadians a priority. Until we get this right, Canada can not be considered a role model to the world.

We need a strategy for senior care because while everyone talks about an aging population, we are not getting ready for it. Families want to be involved in their aging parents care. And yet our social safety net was designed at a time when my generation was being cared for by our parents, not trying to provide care for them.

http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/page_e.aspx?id=45

KENNEDY PLEDGES TO ELIMINATE IMMIGRANT SUCCESS GAP

"By 2016, we will eliminate the Immigrant Success Gap - the difference between the income of immigrant and non-immigrant Canadians of similar education and work experience - for all immigrants who have been in the country for 10 years," Kennedy pledged.

"We have a once in a generation opportunity to help determine the kind of leadership we have and the kind of future we want for our country," Kennedy declared. "The race for the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is your opportunity to get engaged, have your voice heard, and make a difference."

Kennedy outlined a seven-point plan to make it easier for immigrants to succeed in Canada. It includes:
• Greater recognition of skilled labour within Canada's Point System
• Increased focus on family reunification
• Improved access to language training
• Strike a Federal/Provincial/Municipal/Business Committee to set annual immigration targets
• Engage new Canadians in reaching our international goals in peace-making, peace-keeping, the provision of humanitarian aid, research and education, and arts and culture.

"We must support those who strive to innovate, build new businesses and open new markets," he said. "Enterprise will be a new Liberal value."

http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1

STEPHANE DION

http://stephanedion.ca/?q=en/Issues-Social-Lead

Now, with eight successive surpluses, Canada has had the capacity to improve its social programs and help Canadians across the country experience equality of opportunity. We invested to strengthen our health system in partnership with the provinces. We invested in the excellence of the education of our people so that everyone has the opportunity to make the most of their lives. We had a new partnership with all of the provinces to create a national childcare system to ensure access to high-quality affordable spaces. We achieved a national agreement with our partners in every province and territory to join with the broad aboriginal leadership in a national effort to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast.
The key opportunity we earned because of our government’s strong financial management of the country was to make sure that we are able to invest in improving the lives of all Canadians, the elderly, our children, families, newcomers, and aboriginal Canadians. This is how we continue to build the fair and prosperous Canada we want.
If you give me the opportunity to be the prime Minister of this country, as a Liberal I will improve our social programs and the social safety net, because I believe that is the key to ensuring that we live in a just and fair society.

http://stephanedion.ca/?q=en/node/74

And if I were asked to choose the two values the most likely to inspire an effective fight against poverty, I would still choose freedom and solidarity: individual freedom in its different political and economic expressions and the genuine solidarity of all citizens toward one another.
Just as we all have our own idea of the best way to fight poverty, we have our own views on the roles that should be assigned to the federal government and the governments of the constituent entities. But in both cases, upon careful reflection, we seek the best possible combination of freedom and solidarity, both of citizens and of governments.
At this prestigious conference in which I have the honor of participating today, I would like to emphasize that when it comes to fighting poverty within a federal system, there is not a priori one single division of roles among the two orders of government that would be valid in all contexts, for all policies. The appropriate roles of the two orders of government will vary according to what is intended. But the important thing is that the quest for the best division of roles and optimal cooperation between governments be inspired by the principles of freedom and solidarity.
When all the governments in a federation, both the federal government and those of the constituent entities, strive to help one another, in the spirit of respect for the freedom of action of each, they give themselves the best capability of helping citizens, including the most disadvantaged. A federation inspired by such a spirit provides perhaps the most effective political system there is.
In Canada, the fight against poverty has profoundly marked our federalism. Canada is a decentralized federation whose Constitution assigns the constituent entities, known as provinces, numerous legislative jurisdictions of their own. The provincial governments also collect a substantial share of public revenues and thus enjoy great freedom to innovate, to develop solutions tailored to the specific context of their populations. But the federal government also has an essential role, which is to strengthen the solidarity of all Canadians. Our past successes and our future achievements in the fight against poverty have required and will continue to require this combination of freedom and solidarity by all members of the federation.
I have chosen five examples which show, each in their own way, how Canada's federal government and the governments of the provinces were able to combine the creativity of each and the solidarity of all to give themselves powerful tools to combat poverty.
1. The public health system
My first example is one of which Canadians are especially proud: our public health system. In Canada, basic health care is publicly funded. It would be unacceptable to us if our less fortunate citizens did not have access to the same health services as other citizens. Actually, the government that invented this public health system was a provincial government, in Saskatchewan. But the government that contributed the most to extending this Saskatchewan innovation throughout Canada is the federal government.
Our provincial governments make their own health policies. The federal government helps them, notably through funding that comes with only one condition: respect for the moral principles of our public health system, which are: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility.
Canada, like so many other countries, is facing escalating health costs linked to new technologies and an aging population. We are looking hard for solutions to this problem, and we will find them, as always, inspired by the values of freedom and solidarity.
2. Unemployment insurance
The introduction of unemployment insurance in Canada offers an example in which the constituent entities agreed, out of solidarity with the country as a whole, to cede one of their constitutional jurisdictions to the federal government. This occurred during one of the most difficult periods in our social history, the Great Depression of the 1930s....

3. Education
If unemployment insurance in Canada is an example of centralization that has been beneficial to the country as a whole, Canadian education policies represent the opposite case, where maintaining responsibilities at the provincial level has yielded good results...

4. The fight against poverty among seniors and children
The fight against poverty among seniors is one of Canada's greatest social policy successes. Poverty has been greatly reduced among Canada's seniors. In 1965, 41% of senior households lived under the low-income threshold as calculated by Statistics Canada. In 1999, that percentage had dropped to 1.8%....

5. Federal assistance to the less wealthy provinces
One of the key roles for a federal government is to oversee the distribution of the collective wealth among the constituent entities. That is what we believe in Canada, at least. We even made it into a constitutional principle in 1982. We want our provincial governments to be able to provide Canadians, wherever they live, with services of comparable quality....

BOB RAE

Today marks National Aboriginal Day and it is a day to reflect both on the culture, history and significance of Canada’s first peoples as well as on the progress and partnership involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

The Aboriginal people of Canada, their traditions and history, are profoundly rooted in this land. They represent Canada’s oldest and first cultural legacy, and they represent a range of diversity and richness across the country. Today is the day to celebrate that – be it in song and dance, history and art, and respect for the land.

But we must also recognize progress to date between Aboriginal peoples and the national government – or rather progress postponed. Last fall, under the leadership of a Liberal government, First Ministers met in Kelowna and worked in cooperation with Aboriginal leaders to arrive at a landmark agreement to renew housing, health, child care, early learning and essential social services for Aboriginal peoples. This agreement involved the active participation of First Nations, Aboriginal communities, Inuit and Métis. Despite the crying need to take action on housing, health and living conditions and in spite of the remarkable consensus around the next steps to get us there, the Conservative government has shown remarkable indifference to the achievement and opportunity contained in this accord.

The Kelowna Accord is a model both for cooperation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis and also for how Canadian governments can work together to ensure opportunity for Aboriginal.

Challenges and opportunities lie ahead of us, such as helping to ensure Aboriginal Canadians can participate fully in the work force, through early learning and education and skills training, as well as ensuring Aboriginal governments have the tools and resources to reach their community objectives. I believe that government has an obligation as well as an opportunity to achieve these goals and I want to work with Aboriginal Canadians and our partners to build that future. The time is now.

http://www.bobrae.ca/en/ontheissues.php

SCOTT BRISON

A PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY

Scott Brison is a firm believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wants to lead a Canada where there are limitless opportunities and no glass ceilings regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion or the colour of skin.

He is an advocate of bilingualism and would work with Quebecers to build a more modern federation.

He feels that as a trusted ally of the United States and a respected multiculturalist, Canada can build on the Pearsonian legacy to develop a foreign policy based on our values of human rights, equality and diversity. This would include changing and strengthening the United Nations to avoid future calamities such as Rwanda and Darfur, working with multilateral organizations to promote fair labour practices in developing economies and playing a key role in building a more stable, democratic and peaceful Middle East.

Scott is in favour of immigration aimed at reuniting families and bringing needed skills to Canada. He will also work with professional associations and provinces to help streamline the recognition of foreign credentials so that Canada becomes the entry point in North America for highly skilled immigrants.

He wants to protect the existing role of a strong federal government that respects the jurisdiction of strong provinces. He would respect the Canada Health Act and provide stable and adequate funding to provinces for quality health care and improved access to post-secondary education.

He strongly backs the child care and early learning initiative reached with all ten provinces by the previous Liberal government to give our children the best possible start in life.

He will implement an International Youth Internship Program that would send selected high school graduates to work with non-government organizations on aid development.

Scott wants to ensure that Canadians living in small towns and rural areas have the same access as major urban dwellers to quality services such as health care and child care as well as to high-speed internet.

He would work towards ensuring a fair economic return to farmers and fight at the international level to retain our system of supply management.

He wants to build on the Kelowna Accord with our First Nations, Métis and Inuit and work with our Aboriginal partners to improve their socio-economic conditions with the goal of closing the gap with the rest of Canada.

http://www.scottbrison.ca/vision_e.php#soc

2006-08-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

The Liberal Factor is supporting Gerard Kennedy as the next Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This blog has decided to support Gerard Kennedy in his bid for Leadership of the Liberal Party. This was arrived upon consensus after a short period of conversation. The main and general conclusion is, Gerard will win the next election and be the best Prime Minister. Few of the candidates, in fact none have offered anything new, that is new and positive. Michael Ignatieff has offered a new stance in relation to the Iraq war but that is not favoured by any of the Liberal Factor writers. Kennedy's value of Enterprise is new and innovative and has the connotation of Liberal tradition partnered with rejuvination; the risk of enterprise is exactly what the Liberal Party needs.

Gerard Kennedy's overall Ideology, by far the most social progressive and in a nut shell Liberal, puts him head and shoulders above any competitors. Canada as an International Country is far superior then the secluded Canada of Dion. Kennedy's Canada is a beacon to other countries, alleviating the credentials crisis concerning immigrants who are well trained and can't find opportunity, is but one aspect.

In winning against the Conservatives, Kennedy will prove the task handily. With a proven track record, clear of blemishes, Kennedy will win Quebec and begin a Liberal presence in Alberta. Gerard will be the first Liberal Leader from the west and the western values he brings will reconnect the Liberal Party with its roots and reconnect Canada.

The Liberal Factor unanimously supports Gerard Kennedy as the next Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

We will continue to give as unbiased reports of each Candidates' views in respect to the major issues concerning Liberals.

All prejudice will be avoided, however to be clear there will be Gerard Kennedy endorsements for the philosophical and logical conclusions reached in deciding that Gerard Kennedy is the best candidate to be the next Leader.

2006-08-25T10:20:00.000-07:00

Liberals Distracted Leaving Conservatives To Be Cocks.....Of The Walk

Look at all the Liberal blogs, and you either see leadership propaganda, leadership negatives, or defensive maneuvers in response to racist-bordering comments emphasized by our own leadership candidates (cough, Brison, Bennett, cough, cough). What is missing is the determination and creativity of the Liberal Bloggers and the Red Machine blasting those Conservative zealots.

Today they have a huge target on their back, and it's being left unattacked.

The Conservatives, a Party of John A. MacDonald the father of the Canadian Confederation and thus the father of Canadian Identity, have disregarded their Conservative Heritage and have disregarded their very own Canadian Identity and are actually proposing to not just allow foreign takeovers but actually motivate them.

The take over of HBC will not be forgotten. The Hudson's Bay Company was the oldest in Canada and now is American. It is one thing to allow such transactions to take place as consequences of NAFTA, but to actually try to increase such takeovers is asinine.

In today's Globe and Mail

"...the government documents, obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin, also argue that Canada should consider further reducing foreign investment restrictions, even in sensitive sectors with special barriers: telecommunications, broadcasting, airlines, publishing and banking....

But economist Armine Yalnizyan, also the director of research at the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, said there are legitimate social reasons why there are restrictions on foreigners controlling sensitive sectors, even though foreign investment does spur economic growth. "All citizens need access to basic services,"....

As might be expected, U.S. companies dominate the buyers' list, accounting for 62 per cent in 2003, compared with 51 per cent in 1990. Britain and Germany were the second and third most important foreign owners of Canadian assets in 2003, accounting for 11 per cent and 6.3 per cent respectively."

This is an immense threat to the Conservative's Party own values, and is an even bigger threat to the Canadian Identity we all share.

This is just the Neo-Conservatives attempt under Harper to Americanize Canada. The Conservative Party should be ashamed certain members of its Party are proposing such a thing.

2006-08-23T17:14:00.000-07:00

McCarthy and Salem have nothing on Brison and Bennett

Brison and Bennett may have Liberal membership cards...

This is very hard for me to accept. I like Scott Brison, I've met him a few times, partied with him and I know he is a really great guy. I can't believe he'd subject himself to the lowest denominator of spastic outroar befit to a Jerry Springer audience member. Carolyn Bennett, ... I didn't expect anything more, as she's grasping straws, Hedy Frye would have been up there as well if she didn't have a comfy sack of dough to sit on in her bunker.

But Scott Brison? Why? He let me down.

I am referring to the situation involving Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberals' deputy foreign affairs critic making "statements that Canada should negotiate directly with Lebanon's Hezbollah, which is on Canada's list of terrorist organizations," (From today's Globe and Mail). Immediatly after Borys's statements it was flurried around that he wanted Hezbollah dropped from Canada's list of Terrorist organizations.

The rational for Brison and Bennett to pick up on this is because its Leadership season, well I hope that's the reason; already its a bad reason so if thats not it, Brison and Bennett should really look at their actions. Because Borys had chosen a candidate to support and if you guessed it wasn't Brison or Bennett you'd be right; Brison and Bennett took milliseconds to look at the facts and opened their spit streaming mouths in an attempt to blow the situation out of proportion. Guess what? they did.

Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett are two prominent Liberals, infact they think they're so prominent that they want to lead the Party. In the midst of this situation just hitting the blogs, the frontline of the media, Brison and Bennett are already asking for Borys's resignation as foreign affairs critic. This is amazing! Brison and Bennett evidently get all their information through divine intervention because how else would they have known the facts. Well maybe it's because they didn't, and because they didn't want to know.

Brison and Bennett began as judge, jury, and executioner even before they talked to Borys, a fellow Liberal! Their own Party Member, they tied him to a stake, doused him with gasoline, and tossed a match. Their behaviour is far more disgusting then Borys's, but wait what did Borys do? Did he have an explanation?

The Globe and mail stated: "Mr. Wrzesnewskyj (pronounced Rez-NEV-skee) has denied he wants Hezbollah dropped from Canada's list of terrorist groups but argued that does not mean Canada should not communicate with it." Wow, so Brison and Bennett in their addresses to get Borys axed were completely off base.

What evidence then did Brison and Bennett go on? Well The Ottawa Citizen reported that "Borys Wrzesnewskyj said: 'Yes, I would be'," to the question "if he was in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list." Now any person who knows the english language must be puzzled by his response, why would he say "I would be"? Unless the question was posed differently then the media let on. The Ottawa Citizen went on to say: "He likened the situation in the Middle East to Northern Ireland, where 'if there wasn't the possibility for London to negotiate with the IRA, you'd still have bombings.'" This explanation is full and completes the picture; clearly Borys does not at this second want Hezbollah taken off the list, and going by his statement there is at least some rational behind it.

All Brison and Bennett had to do was ask Borys. Well I shouldn't say 'had.' I should say that Brison and Bennett shouldn't have resorted to being mouth pieces to their own campaigns and instead should have acted not just as Liberals but as decent human beings and talked to the accused before issuing their verdicts.

I can't believe Scott Brison did it.

2006-08-22T08:10:00.000-07:00

ENVIRONMENT: COMPARE THE LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES' VIEWS

SCOTT BRISON'S ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Scott Brison wants to build on the Liberal commitment to the Kyoto Accord to help forge a cleaner greener Canada, and a cleaner greener world. He feels Canada should become an environmental leader through the preservation and stewardship of the environment. He wants to turn the reality that Canadians are big energy consumers into a positive strategic advantage by making Canada a global centre of excellence for environmental industries. He will offer industries a vastly improved tax credit system to encourage investment in clean and efficient technologies and attract environmental companies from around the world. He wants to make Canada a world leader in the area of environmental clean-ups and he would partner the private sector with CIDA to add expertise on environmental remediation to the tool-box we now offer to help uplift the developing world. He feels there should be legislation to set mandatory pollution reduction levels for motor vehicles. He would work with industry to encourage the production of more alternative-fuel vehicles and encourage drivers to purchase low sulphur or ethanol blended fuels by reducing the federal excise tax on those products. He will work with provinces to improve standards for clean air and water.

GERARD KENNEDY'S ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

KENNEDY PROPOSES GST BREAK FOR HYBRID CAR PURCHASERS
News Release June 16, 2006
Releases energy and the environment plan, calls on Canadians to join discussion

TORONTO - Canada will be a clean energy superpower by 2020 under my proposed energy and environment plan, said Liberal Leadership Candidate, Gerard Kennedy today while releasing a discussion paper on the topic, as part of an ongoing series of papers intended to solicit broad input from Canadians. "Energy and the environment are becoming the most crucial issues facing Canadians," said Kennedy. "How we produce and consume energy and what we do to protect and preserve the environment, will determine the sustainability of our economy and lifestyle."

Kennedy's Energy and Environment plan highlights Canada's abundant energy resources including oil and natural gas, the world's largest production of hydroelectricity and untapped potential in alternative energy such as wind, small/low impact hydro, biomass and geothermal power but cautions that current federal energy policies are insufficient and Canada's protection of the environment is too slow and too cautious. "We have the know-how and means to be the cleanest country on the planet but in order for Canada to emerge as a clean energy superpower, we must adopt policies that bring industry, consumers and government together, said Kennedy. "A carbon tax would only serve to divide Canada along regional lines and would be counter to driving national consensus on a national issue." Kennedy's plan is a national framework to get provinces working together toward the same environmental goals and targets and is based on supply and demand of energy, rewarding conservation and ensuring consistent tracking of results.

Developed with his campaign team and input from across the country, the specific strategies and targets outlined in the paper include: A GST exemption of up to $5000, for hybrid, hydrogen and fuel cell and ultra clean bio-diesel vehicles. A progressive gas-guzzler tax on all vehicles that have worse than average fuel consumption, 50 per cent of government fleet purchases to be hybrids or alternative fuelled vehicles by 2010 and 100 per cent by 2015, One per cent improvement in energy consumption per capita in five years and three per cent over the next 10 years, Drive innovation by using the tax code to encourage investment in environmental technologies that will result from higher risk, longer term R&D. Adopt highest possible efficiency in home and commercial heating and cooling by providing incentives for ground-source heat pumps, Create programs and greater incentives for conservation including home retrofit programs and pilot programs to monitor energy consumption and energy cost by the minute. Introduce a mandatory market-based system that allows companies to register and trade emission credits. ·Set national objectives for alternative fuels and sources of energy including: 5 per cent renewable fuels by 2010 and 10 per cent by 2015 5000 MW of wind energy by 2010, and 10,000 MW by 2015 500 MW of new biomass, geothermal and solar energy by 2010, and 3000 MW by 2015.

"We can lead Canadians on the international scene where, until recently, we were respected and admired for our fine environmental record," said Former Minister of the Environment Charles Caccia, " But, we need a leader with a strong commitment to the environment and to environmentally sustainable development; a leader who will not only talk but also walk the talk; a leader who sees beyond the horizon of the next election; We have such a leader in Gerard Kennedy." The plan calls for the decentralization of the decision-making process in order to seek the input of those who are most actively involved in energy production and environmental protection. "We must adopt energy and environment policies that reflect the challenges our producers face from the oil fields off Newfoundland's coast to the oil sands in Alberta," said Kennedy. "We must also actively consider strategies to engage First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that Canada as a clean energy super power will bring."

Why energy and the environment matter to me – and to all of us
Many of us come from the generation that grew up with environmentalism as the central issue facing the future. I was young when the first environmental stories emerged – about pollution, abuse of pesticides, waste and the squandering of resources. I was a youth when the first energy crisis stuck us in the 1970s – and a young adult in Alberta in the 1980s when the huge policy miscalculation, the National Energy Program, harmed the province at that time. I have most recently served as a cabinet minister in an Ontario Liberal government that has made great strides in environmental protection – but we still have a long way to go.

Energy and the environment are becoming the most crucial issues Canadians face. How we produce and consume energy and what we do to protect and preserve the environment, will determine the sustainability of our economy and our lifestyle.

Unlike the Conservatives, who choose to lay blame, chop programs and then throw up their hands in defeat of the issue…
We need to be enterprising. We need to be creative. We need to act.

Our current path is unsustainable – our energy policies are insufficient and our protection of the environment is too slow and too cautious.
As the population grows, energy and resources are being consumed at an ever-increasing rate. The science is undeniable: without change, our air and water, our forests and food, our cities and our homes will face remarkable challenges within a generation.
Sustainable development is a principle by which all government programs should be measured against. As we address the link between energy and the environment, we can also explore how to alter our lifestyles by:
Consuming less
Being smarter and more efficient in our consumption and purchasing choices
Adopting some new thinking about alternative fuels and power
Helping emerging economies to grow in a more sustainable manner.

Canada as a Clean Energy Superpower
Canada can be a “Clean Energy Superpower” by 2020 – less than 15 years from now. We are already an energy superpower. We have the know-how and means to be the cleanest on the planet.
We have one of the most dynamic economies on earth and some of the most abundant energy resources including oil and natural gas, the world’s largest production of hydroelectricity and enormous untapped potential in alternative energy such as wind, small/low impact hydro, biomass and geothermal.

Canada is already an energy superpower, and we will become even more of an energy superpower over the next 20 years. In order to become the clean energy superpower, we must:
conserve energy, and become much more efficient in the way we use it
reduce the amount of carbon we produce relative to the energy we consume; this can be done by switching as much as possible to renewable fuels, as well as using technology to reduce carbon output from fossil fuels
develop carbon sequestration technology so that carbon is not released into the atmosphere when it is produced
offset the carbon we do produce through “carbon sinks” such as reforestation
export our technology and expertise so that our economy is further developed while we pursue environmental sustainability

By consolidating our assets, co-coordinating our energy policies, achieving energy efficiencies, promoting energy conservation, supporting public transit and trains, reshaping the automotive industry and using landfill gases for district heating we can focus on achieving the goal: clean, green power.

Conservatives would abandon Kyoto, cancel incentives and programs to reduce C02 omissions and leave protecting the environment largely to the marketplace. While markets are important and have an important role in solving our energy and environmental challenges, it is only by combining markets with federal, provincial, business and NGO leadership that we will become a clean energy superpower.

Our ability to compete internationally and influence other nations will be measured on our ability to uphold our commitments to the environment.

It is critical that we move forward now.

A National Strategy for Our Environment
The global economy is changing and energy and environment issues are gaining momentum and importance. As an advanced nation, we have a duty and responsibility to develop a plan that maximizes the value of our resources, minimizes the impact of their extraction and utilization and also protects our environment.

We have to decentralize the decision-making process and seek the input of those who are most actively involved in energy production and environmental protection. We must adopt energy and environment policies that reflect the challenges our producers face from the oil fields off Newfoundland’s coast to the energy sector in Alberta.

We need environmental policies that reflect the concerns about smog, water pollution and toxic waste identified by our environmental experts. We need a forum for technology providers that are working to develop new and enterprising innovations and we must consult with aboriginal peoples to protect their ecosystem, while allowing them to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that Canada, as a clean energy super power, will bring.

An Inclusive Framework – How we’ll get there
There is a role for a national framework – a strategy to get the provinces working, in their own way, toward the same common environmental goals and targets.

The framework of the strategy has three pillars –
it will be based on supply and demand of energy
it will encourage and reward conservation and the production and use of clean energy
and it will be measured relentlessly: Is it working? Is it cost-effective? Is the environment getting better and the economy getting stronger?

We will recognize sound environmental stewardship – as a driver for creativity, innovation, product development and ultimately profitability and we will encourage enterprise -- innovators and risk takers should be rewarded for their leadership and for driving innovation.

Elements of the plan include:
1. Setting national objectives for alternative fuels and sources of energy including:
· 5 per cent renewable fuels by 2010 and 10 per cent by 2015 (for example, ethanol, bio-diesel)
· 5000 MW of wind energy by 2010, and 10,000 MW by 2015
· 500 MW of new biomass, geothermal and solar energy by 2010, and 3000 MW by 2015
2. Providing reasonable production incentives to produce renewable energy. For example, we will drive innovation by using the tax code to encourage investment in environmental technologies that will result from higher risk, longer term R&D.
3. Optimizing our national transmission and distribution system (including pipelines and the electricity grids) by:
· Creating national systems that are safe, efficient and secure
· Encouraging investment and development by committing to streamlined and transparent processes (ex. removing duplicative federal and provincial work) and reasonable permitting timelines

4. Encouraging, through federal policies and assistance, provincial utilities to embrace renewable projects and integrate them into their transmission and distribution grids, and to explore energy storage solutions that will make intermittent clean sources of energy more useful in our energy networks

5. Setting national objectives on conservation:

· One per cent improvement in energy consumption per capita in five years and three per cent over the next 10 years. Our energy consumption per capita has been rising over the past 30 years, despite the availability of new technologies. We need to turn this around, and start investing in and using the most efficient equipment and processes available.
· Raising our standards by 25 per cent for energy consumption in new home construction and new appliances by 2015 (through building codes, equipment and appliance standards).

6. Committing government support to smart energy alternatives including:
Hybrid vehicles
Hydrogen and fuel cells vehicles and power plants
Modern, high-efficiency and ultra clean bio-diesel vehicles

7. Introducing a GST exemption of up to $5000, for smart energy vehicles and a progressive gas-guzzler tax on all vehicles that have worse than average fuel consumption.

Canadian cars are typically on the road for more than 12 years. We need to encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, which will have an important impact on the environment for years to come.

8. Ensuring that 50 per cent of the government’s fleet purchases are hybrids or alternative fuelled vehicles by 2010 and 100 percent by 2015.

9. Creating programs and greater incentives for conservation including home retrofit programs, pilot programs to monitor energy consumption and energy cost by the minute. At the same time, speed up the approval process for new energy-savings products and systems.
10. Encouraging the highest possible efficiency in home and commercial heating and cooling by providing incentives for ground-source heat pumps. The province of Manitoba has made important strides in this area, and that good work should be replicated nationally.
11. Instilling reachable goals. All new, large energy development projects should have an “environmentally neutral footprint” (for example, if greenhouse gases and local pollutants will be increased, there must be an offset for the project to move forward). Further, we should introduce a mandatory market-based system that allows companies to register and trade emission credits.

KEN DRYDEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE CLIMATE CHANGE

It is time to acknowledge the reality of climate change and get on with the job of taking it on. The well-reported extent of environmental degradation, collapsing ecosystems, loss of species and the melting of our Polar ice cap has dwarfed any claim that we could make of having achieved a state of sustainable development. The science and consequences of global-warming are sufficiently certain that delay is no longer an option. We must immediately commit the resources to addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. Furthermore, I believe that the protection of our health, natural resources and the environment should be grounded first and foremost in science. It is the starting point for meaningfully confronting our challenges in these areas. And while taking on climate change presents big challenges, it also presents big opportunities to develop expertise and leading technologies that we can demonstrate work in Canada and then export to the rest of the world. Canada can take early mover advantage of these opportunities to build new and competitive industries.

STEPHANE DION'S ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

Canada's Project Green
Speaking notes for the Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P. Minister of the Environment
Vancouver Board of Trade, Vancouver, BC, September 19, 2005
In communicating with Canadians about Project Green, Paul Martin’s vision to strengthen Canada’s position in the new Industrial Revolution - that of the sustainable economy - it is particularly fitting for me to be returning to British Columbia, to address the Vancouver Board of Trade.
Vancouver is a focal point for sustainability, as you host the World Urban Forum and the Olympics, a huge opportunity to showcase renewables and the hydrogen highway.
British Columbia: the province where we see one of our fastest growing economies and highest levels of environmental awareness; home of the Suzuki Foundation and of Xantrex Technology, a world leader in advanced bio-electronics; and the land that gave Canada the three great Davids: David Suzuki, David Anderson, a champion of the environment who cares about the economy, and David Emerson, a champion of the economy who cares about the environment.
I should also mention the other members of the Cabinet from BC: Senator Austin and Ministers Dosanjh, Owen, and Chan; all bring a green conscience to decision making.
Here, in British Columbia, in the shadow of your mountains, of your Douglas Fir and Red Cedar, the environment-economy debate seems to take on a larger scale: the incredible potential of your ocean resources and the no less incredible potential for disaster if they are harvested carelessly; the amazing diversity and richness of the Okanagan Valley and the amazing fragility of its superb, semi-desert ecosystem; the unrivalled development of your forest industry and the ferocity of the pine beetle infestation that your warmer winters cannot slow; the huge volume of raw sewage dumped by Victoria into the ocean every day and the huge cost that will be required to clean it up; the tough challenges posed by your blossoming relations with the world’s new economic giants, India and China, well illustrated by this weekend’s visit of the President of China to Ballard Power Systems, and by Westport Innovations’ increasing involvement in China.
Yes, everything seems to take on a larger magnitude in British Columbia, like your determination in pursuing, at the same time, economic growth and environmental sustainability. Obviously, you share our Prime Minister’s vision: Project Green for a sustainable, competitive economy, a prosperous Canada.
We all want to achieve this goal. But as a country, where do we rank in the global sustainable economy compared to other nations? What are we doing to build on our achievements? These are the two questions that I will address with you.
1. Ranking Canada’s sustainability
Canadians have every reason to be puzzled when faced with the release of comparative studies that periodically assess our environmental performance. Some rank us at a very high level, others at a very poor one. So, are we good or are we bad?
I believe that these studies, however contradictory they may seem, provide useful basis for comparison, as long as they are well interpreted. The same can be said of the reports produced by the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, which offer useful information to improve our environmental policies.
Table 1 shows Canada’s ranking against thirty OECD countries plus Russia, using eight recent international indicators. Indeed, our ranking varies from second to twenty-eighth.
The explanation of this discrepancy is that Canada ranks well in most measurements when we look at the state of the environment (such as water quality), but rather poorly in measurements of environmental pressures (such as water consumption per person). So, an overall comparison of these indicators shows that Canada’s ranking depends significantly on how much relative weight is given to “state of the environment” versus “environmental pressures” measurements.
This distinction explains the significant variation between Canada’s ranking in the first six indices (on the left side) and the last two of Table 1. The last two indices are heavily weighted towards per capita measurements of environmental pressures, so Canada ranks lower on the comparative scale. The first six focus more on the state of the environment, so Canada ranks higher.
“State of the environment” rankings measure the condition of air, water, land and life forms. Compared to situations elsewhere in the world, most assessments indicate that Canada’s environment is in very good condition. Rankings based on “environmental pressures” measure the effects of human activities that can be harmful to the environment, or to humans through the environment. For example, polluting emissions and certain types of land use are environmental pressures. From this perspective, we are rarely among the best performers.
Table 2 gives a clear picture of our ups and downs in determining how Canada ranks in both global and OECD contexts. Our air quality is relatively good but our air emissions performance puts us in the mid-range of OECD countries. Our water’s quality is among the best in the world, but our water withdrawals per person are one of the largest. Regarding the issue of climate change, we are among the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. Our waste management is below the average in the OECD.
To summarize, the state of our environment is good but we are imposing significant pressures on it. The fact is that Canada has a small population in a vast and well endowed country (in terms of natural resources, such as freshwater) compared to situations in other countries. However, on a per-person basis, Canada’s environmental pressures are among the greatest, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. And this is of course explained by the fact that since we have so many natural resources, we have not been as efficient in their use as other industrialized countries that do not enjoy the same richness of natural capital that we do.
I would argue that in this new industrial revolution in which we find ourselves, it is imperative that we improve our performance regarding environmental pressures, in order to enhance our quality of life and our economic competitiveness. We need to become a more efficient economy, a greener society.
And I am sure that the Vancouver Board of trade shares this view. You know full well that the future of our forest industry, our fisheries and our agriculture depend more than ever on their careful, sustainable utilization; that the vitality of our tourist industry is closely linked to the state of our parks, marine areas and wildlife; that air quality and water quality strongly influence the attractiveness of our cities, the health of our population, the cost of our health care system, the quality of life of our citizens and the productivity of our workers. You know that the issues related to adapting to climate change and limiting greenhouse gas emissions will be significant forces shaping global and national economies for the foreseeable future.
For our quality of life and our economic competitiveness, as well as our natural environment, we need to increase our resource productivity to become more efficient in the use of natural resources, especially energy.
Indeed, in the global economy, resource productivity will become increasingly important as global resource demands and energy costs increase rapidly with an anticipated 50 percent population growth and 400 percent economic growth by 2055. For business and industry around the globe, higher energy prices are requiring them to examine the costs and efficiency of their energy use more than ever. Business and industry must now strive for world class performance in their energy efficiency just as they do in terms of productivity, skills, and research and development.
In a word, we need an economy that does more with less. More productivity, less waste: we need to make sure that our economic strategy and our environmental policy will point in the same direction. We need Project Green.
2. Project Green: Increasing our environmental performance
Over the last year, Prime Minister Martin has given unprecedented momentum to Canada’s environmental policy. The Speech from the Throne included thirteen commitments on clean air and water, energy, climate change and the preservation of our natural capital, which became the basis for Project Green. Last February, our Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale gave Canada its greenest budget since Confederation. In April, the government of Canada released a comprehensive plan for honouring our Kyoto commitments. Our environmental agenda is going ahead on all fronts.
On clean air, we are moving ahead with our Ten Year Clean Air Agenda laid out in 2000, in order to minimize pollution, reduce transportation sector emissions, lower emissions from major industrial sources, improve pollutant reporting by industry, advance clean air science, and engage the public in finding solutions to clean air issues.
Taken together, Canada and the United States already have the strictest vehicle engine and fuel regulations in the world for air pollutants. And the Government has an agenda to further reduce harmful emissions from vehicles, engines and fuels and to improve air quality. Reducing sulphur in fuel for rail locomotives, marine vessels, and off-road construction and mining equipment is an important element of that plan. I know that this is an important environmental and health issue for you here in British Columbia.
One of the key elements of our Clean Air Agenda is a strict regulatory action plan. These regulations will reduce smog forming emissions from new vehicles by 90 percent by 2010 compared with levels in 2000.
Earlier this year, I introduced for public comment, draft regulations that will reduce sulphur in diesel fuel by about 99 percent from present levels by the year 2010 for off-road equipment and by 2012 for rail and marine use. The resulting health benefits to Canadians will include fewer deaths, hospital admissions and days when people experience symptoms of asthma. I expect the final regulatory package to be in place in October.
Our transportation regulatory plan will also ensure that starting in 2007, bus standards will require a reduction of 85 percent from current allowable levels of emissions of NOX and 95 percent for particulate matter levels.
Many of the sources of air pollution and smog fall within provincial jurisdiction. The Federal Government is working very closely with the provinces and territories to implement Canada-wide standards for particulate matter and ozone, the two main precursors to smog. The federal, provincial and territorial governments are also finalizing Canada-wide standards to substantially reduce mercury emissions from the coal-fired electric power generation sector by 2010. The goal is to capture over 60 percent of the mercury released by coal combustion.
In August 2004, together with my counterpart at the US Environmental Protection Agency, I made a commitment to consider negotiating a particulate matter annex to the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement to bring about reductions in both countries. We have completed the background science and are moving forward to make a decision on when negotiations on an annex could begin.
Air quality is a significant concern for the six million residents of the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound transboundary region. So I am pleased to point out that a second joint study under the Canada/United States Air Quality Pilot Project, addressing air quality in this region, was released on July 29.
This study documents the international airshed strategy and initiatives that my Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will implement in collaboration with the Province of British Columbia, the State of Washington and many regional and local government agencies to reduce the effects of air pollution on human health and ecosystems in this region.
We are also working with the U.S. Government to address air emissions from marine vessels and port activities – another concern for the region’s residents.
Finally, we are collaborating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop marine emission reduction strategies that will address emissions not only in the Georgia Basin – Puget Sound area, but also in other marine areas in our countries.
This year’s budget will help us tremendously. It allocates $50 million over two years in support of the Border Air Quality Strategy for the Canada-US Air Quality Initiative, $90 million over five years to accelerate health risk assessments and research on the effects of potentially harmful substances. Our Climate Change Plan, which I will speak about later, will also help improve the quality of our air.
Another very significant budget measure for clean air is the transfer to municipalities of $5 billion of gas tax revenue. This transfer, added to the $800 million from Bill C-48, will support environmentally-sustainable infrastructure projects such as public transit, and will help to purify the air of our cities. It will also help to fund water and wastewater treatment, community energy systems and the handling of solid waste. Added to the additional $300 million the budget invested in the Green Municipal Funds, this New Deal for Cities and Communities is itself a green plan that will improve our quality of life and make our cities and communities more attractive, competitive and prosperous.
Our agenda for water is also substantial, with the five year Water Management Strategy to improve water and wastewater services for First Nation reserve communities; the $28 million that the last Budget devoted to the first phase of the government’s Oceans Action Plan; the $85 million strategy to combat the proliferation of invasive alien species that eat between $13 billion and $34 billion per year out of our economy; and the Canada-wide management strategy for municipal wastewater effluents that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have agreed to develop by December 2006.
Last December, Environment Canada published two instruments for the management of risks relating to discharges of municipal wastewater, namely guidelines for ammonia and the preparation of pollution prevention plans for chlorine.
With respect to air and water quality results, we do have some good news. For example, in the chemical sector, annual releases of toxic substances have been reduced by two-thirds since 1992, down to 1,100 tonnes from 3,400 tonnes. Building on our success, we will have classified 23,000 readily available chemical products by September 2006. Canada will be the first country to be able to avail itself of such a systematic analysis to improve its regulatory regime.
As well, emissions of mercury, lead, cadmium and dioxins and furans have each dropped between 65 to 75 percent from 1990 to 2003.
As for better protecting our natural assets, I will mention especially the $269 million that the last budget allocated in additional, much-needed funds to our National Parks. This is good news for the preservation of our natural environment, and good news for our economy. Our National Parks are not only a magnificent part of Canada’s heritage, they also contribute $1.2 billion to Canada’s GDP - the equivalent of 38,000 full time jobs - and are an essential source of revenue for our tourist industry for many of our communities and for Canada’s aboriginal people.
Further to this additional funding for parks, I was pleased to announce this year's extension of the ongoing Habitat Stewardship Program and today I am just as pleased to make another announcement: Parks Canada has completed various projects totalling $1.6 million, including new visitors facilities at Combers Beach and new exhibits at Wickaninnish Interpretative Centre, both in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada.
The Government of Canada also recognizes that the forests and ecosystems in your province, one of the most beautiful natural assets of our country, also require serious action. The mountain pine beetle epidemic is taking its toll and there are serious long-term ecological and economic consequences if no action is taken. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada announced an additional $100 million in funding as a further step to the program announced in 2002 to fight this plague. We are currently working with the Province of BC on our next steps – the development of a comprehensive strategy that will provide a long term solution to this crisis.
This government takes the protection of our marine ecosystems very seriously and could not accept that over 500,000 birds are killed by oil deposited into the marine environment in Canadian waters each year. It is for this reason that the government recently passed Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Act, which came into force this past June, substantially enhances our ability to deal with this problem by extending our enforcement regime to the outward edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Through the Oceans Action Plan, we have announced measures to establish marine protected areas on all three coasts including, of course, here in BC. We will continue to work with provincial governments to expand this network of marine protected areas to protect key elements of the marine ecosystem.
But nature conservation is not just about marine protected areas. We must protect and conserve our wildlife, too. With that in mind, last June the Government brought into force the Species at Risk Act. Since the Act came into force, close to 100 species of plants and animals have been added the list of species protected by the Act. It is not good news that we have more species at risk of extinction in Canada. But the Government is determined to do its part in protecting and working with the provinces to recover them before they disappear.
A “conservation first” approach will be used to guide any decisions involving the moratorium on offshore exploration and drilling. We have asked our American neighbours and friends to adopt the same “conservation first” approach and not drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But we all know that prevention is invariably a wiser course that the react and prevent approach. With that in mind, the Mexican Minister of the Environment, the US Secretary of the Interior and I recently signed a landmark collaborative agreement to conserve and protect the migratory birds the three countries share. Last month I met with Secretary Norton in Washington to discuss how to expand this concept to the hemispheric level and we agreed to raise the issue with Ministers of the Environment of the Americas at their next meeting.
Regarding federal contaminated sites, we have a solid Action Plan whose goal is to complete, within 15 years, the assessment, remediation and risk management of all of the estimated 6000 federal contaminated sites. When we reach this goal, we will have changed liabilities into assets. In doing so, remediation will create new economic opportunities for affected communities, new jobs in the environmental industry, and new innovative technologies.
In Budget 2004, the federal government took important steps to ensure our own house is in order by committing $3.5 billion to cleaning up federally-owned contaminated sites. For this fiscal year, 2005-2006, the federal government has committed an additional $138.7 million to deal with the 97 highest risk sites identified under the Action Plan.
Although the 97 priority sites identified for 2005-06 are located in all regions of the country, 38 of them are located right here in British Columbia and an additional 30 across the three territories in the North. And indeed, our overall Strategy for the North, as well as our investments on the occasion of the International Polar Year, will sharply focus on the sustainable development of our three Territories and the preservation of the North’s fragile ecosystem, which is so affected by the negative impacts of climate change.
Speaking of climate change, the Government of Canada is currently implementing a number of major initiatives to get Canada’s Climate Change Plan up and running on the ground. Over the course of the summer, a clear description of the proposed Large Final Emitters system was published. Draft regulations setting out the key elements of this system are planned for release before the end of this year. On September 3, the proposed addition of the six greenhouse gases to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was published in the Canada Gazette Part 1. This is an important and necessary step in the development of regulations that will cover large industries that are being required to meet the 45 megatonne reduction target set out in Canada’s Climate Change Plan.
In August, we released a proposed set of rules for an offset credit system. This system will award credits to large and small industries, technology companies, municipalities, farmers, foresters, and individual Canadians who achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions. The system will also create a market allowing these individuals, industries and organizations to sell their credits, which is an efficient way to get the maximum emissions reductions at the lowest cost. Cross-country consultations on this proposed set of rules are taking place this fall.
We are working hard to ensure that the Climate Fund will start operations beginning next year. Acting as a sort of investment bank, it will purchase reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from tangible projects. For Canadians, opportunities will be available in all sectors of the economy.
Examples of who could benefit from this fund include: forestry companies that engage in state-of-the-art forest management practices; farmers who adopt low-till practices; property developers who include district heating and renewable energy elements in their plans for new sub-divisions; businesses that develop innovative ways to reduce emissions through recycling and energy efficiency; companies and municipalities that invest in their communities to encourage alternative transportation modes; municipalities that capture landfill gas and use it to generate electricity; or courier companies that retrofit their fleets.
I am convinced that this market-based approach will be critical to integrating climate change considerations into the day-to-day decisions of Canada’s citizens and businesses, and unleashing the power of innovation for the good of our environment and our economy.
Our businesses will benefit from this opportunity to develop their expertise in the fields of environmental technologies and services and to deploy them around the world. B.C. businesses especially will be well placed to seize the opportunity created by our Climate Change Plan to win new market shares in emerging economies and economies in transition, such as China. The reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that Canada will make abroad will help us to honour our Kyoto commitment.
Consultations have also begun with the provinces and territories to identify strategic new technologies (such as fuel cell buses) and infrastructure projects for cost sharing through the Partnership Fund. I was just talking about this yesterday with my B.C. counterpart, Barry Penner. The first projects under the Fund are expected to be announced before the end of 2005.
If we add to all this our initiative for renewable energies, our targeted programs and fiscal incentives for environmental technologies and the transportation sector, our home retrofit incentives, our purchasing strategy for a greener government, our outreach strategies to involve Canadians, one can see how much our Climate Change Plan is, at the same time, a business strategy for Canada that will generate beneficial investments across the economy.
But since Canada is responsible for only two percent of the human-made greenhouse gas emissions, its effectiveness in reducing emissions will depend on the effectiveness of the international regime. This is precisely why, as the Government of Canada moves forward on implementing our Climate Change Plan, it is also preparing to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, November 28-December 9, 2005. Our goal will be twofold: improving the functioning of the current Kyoto mechanisms, and convincing the nations of the world of the need to find new ways to increase international cooperation on this issue over the coming years.
Convincing the world nations to increase international cooperation is an ambitious task, considering the opposing views about the form this cooperation should take. Inspired by the leadership of our Prime Minister, we are sparing no effort in preparing this important Conference with conviction and determination. Canada will need a strong B.C. presence in Montreal, so please show up in force. Bienvenue à Montréal!
As you see, our agendas for air, water, nature, contaminated sites and climate change will provide enormous benefits, especially when measured against the considerable costs of inaction. But these sound policies will only yield their full potential if they are linked by an improved decision making process, a framework for competitiveness and environmental sustainability.
To this end, the Prime Minister announced in the last Throne Speech that, from now on, “the Government will work with its partners to build sustainable development systematically into decision making.” The Prime Minister created the Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on Sustainability and the Environment and appointed as its Chair the astute BC businessman, David Emerson. Our Liberal Caucus mirrored this initiative with the Liberal Caucus Economic and Sustainability Policy Committee.
For some time, we have been working with the provinces and territories to renew and improve how we deal with shared environmental priorities. Our work is now solidifying in the form of an agreement that will strengthen our collective and respective capacities to address our shared environmental challenges.
Our government will also consolidate the federal environmental assessment process in order to make it more timely, responsive and effective. Finally, for a better consultation process with the industry and the ENGOs, we are putting in place Sector Sustainability Tables, beginning with the areas of chemicals, forestry, mining and energy. This measure will create more cohesion and certainty in the way we carry out environmental management in Canada.
Conclusion
Yes, British Columbia and our country as a whole need Project Green, this broad environmental vision that links Canada’s economic competitiveness and prosperity to a sustainable future. The policies and programs under Project Green address environmental challenges for the 21st century.
Project Green: a far-reaching set of measures to improve our energy efficiency and our waste management practices, improve the environmental performance of our industrial sectors, conserve our biodiversity, protect our water, clean up contaminated sites, ensure cleaner and healthier air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Through Project Green, which we will continue to deploy and expand in the coming years, Canada can set an international example by developing effective, model solutions for the long-term health of the planet.
We need to become a world leader in environmental technologies, in energy efficiency, in resource productivity and in conservation. We have been a champion of all the previous Industrial Revolutions, from the invention of the steam engine to the knowledge economy. We will not miss the new industrial revolution, the one of the sustainable economy. All of us - governments, industry, NGOs, citizens - need to work harder for a greener Canada. We owe this to ourselves, our children and the generations to come.

IGNATIEFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

Address to the Canadian Club of Calgary (May 12, 2006)

Michael Ignatieff
Address to the Canadian Club of Calgary
May 12th, 2006

It’s good to be back in Alberta.

I taught creative writing at the Banff School of Fine Arts for three years in the 1990’s. I
wrote a book in the library there. I love that institution, and I loved the Alberta that I explored with my kids.

The Banff School shows what a great national institution you can create when the federal
and provincial governments work together, when leaders like Peter Lougheed understand the central importance of investing in our best and brightest creators.

I loved Banff also because I heard – and spoke – French everywhere: on the paths through the Rocky Mountains and in the rehearsal halls of the Centre. Alberta attracts many Quebecers every year, but, we must not forget the Franco-Albertans who established roots here centuries ago. We must always remember that the first languages spoken in Alberta were Aboriginal, and then, French.

Yes, the West has a proud French tradition and always will.

My connections to Alberta go back to my favorite uncle. His name was Dima. He was 6
foot 6 and he homesteaded in the Peace River country in the early 30’s, then took his degree in soil science at the U of A and finally, as the Second World War approached, signed on with a great outfit—the Calgary Highlanders. He fought with them side by side from Salerno to Berlin. He taught me that Albertans were tough and resourceful. They were—and are -- good people to be with in a foxhole.

As you know, I’m a candidate for the leadership of the party that does its best to keep
elections competitive in this province. I’m sure Albertans are going to tire of single party rule. They want a choice, and I want to salute those hardy souls, the Alberta Liberals who
courageously present Albertans with that choice.

I do believe we can be competitive in this province. Stranger things have happened.

If Stephen Harper can be competitive in Quebec, why can’t Michael Ignatieff be
competitive in Alberta?

When parties have a monopoly, they get arrogant. They get lazy. They stop listening. The fact that Conservatives have a monopoly in this province is a challenge for Liberals. But I also believe it’s an opportunity.

Look at what Anne McLellan did for the province. If you’re the sole Liberal, you have to
deliver, and she delivered: incentives for the gas sector, assistance for multicultural communities, funding for the arts and museums. Anne proved that Liberals can work twice as hard for Alberta.

My party does need to work twice as hard in Alberta. We don’t deserve to call ourselves
a national institution unless we win back seats in this province.

We can’t win unless we listen up.

Our party needs to understand the mistakes we’ve made in the past.

Too often we have appeared to work against Alberta’s energy sector, when we need to
work with it as a partner.

Too often we’ve appeared to want to punish Alberta for its success, when we need to
work together to make Alberta—and Canada—more successful still.

Too often, we’ve appeared to be hostile to the qualities that Albertans love:
entrepreneurship, freedom to take risks, and the freedom that comes from taking responsibility for yourself and your family.

The Liberalism I believe in values freedom balanced with responsibility wants to invest in
risk-taking and seeks to reward entrepreneurship.

I spent 16 years as a free-lance writer, broadcaster and war correspondent. I know what it
is like to gamble, to take risks, to live without a safety net and to reap the rewards that come when you bet the store on a good idea.

Today I want to set out my ideas for Alberta’s place in the federation.

When I taught out at UBC in Vancouver, I learned you can’t think of running Canada
from Ottawa—or Toronto, for that matter.

The goal of federal policy should be a strong federation.

A strong federation means a clear division of labour between orders of government;
provinces doing their jobs, Ottawa doing its job: defense, foreign affairs, the promotion of a national economic space, and the preservation of what I have called a spine of equal citizenship from coast to coast to coast.

The essential purpose of federal authority is to work with the provinces to guarantee that
all Canadians have equal rights, equal responsibilities, equal opportunities, and roughly equal services. Without that spine of citizenship, and the sense of belonging that goes with it, Canada wouldn’t be Canada: it would just be a string of provinces strung out along the 49th parallel.

Health care belongs to that spine of citizenship. Albertans, like all Canadians, believe that
Canadian citizenship implies equal access to quality health care paid for out of general taxation. Yet each province is bound to experiment about how to best balance the imperatives of equal access and cost control. The federal government can’t enforce equality with a big stick, certainly not against Alberta. The right role for the federal government is to be a clearing house of best practice helping provinces to share information on how to deliver quality care while containing costs, helping provinces to improve connectivity between their health information systems, so that we get better at measuring what actually works, helping provinces to ensure genuine portability of benefits for all Canadians.

Equality of citizenship is a value that Albertans believe in, whether it means Canada
pensions for our seniors, child benefit for families with children, the panoply of policies that seek to equalize opportunity for all Canadians. Albertans also want to keep faith with the constitutional commitment to equalization between Canada’s regions. The problem is: nobody agrees what we are equalizing: what should count in measuring the fiscal capacity of the provinces. And nobody wants to penalize provinces—whether in Atlantic Canada or in Alberta— for their success in securing revenues from non-renewable resources. So we need a conversation—patient, detailed and honest —about how to re-invent our fiscal relationship — that is transparent and makes sense—to Canadians.

These are the elements of a strong federation: a spine of common citizenship, a federal
government that focuses on what is truly national and provinces that focus on what is truly
provincial.

A strong federation means a strong Alberta, an Alberta that leads Canada where we want
it to go.

One obvious place for working together is in the environment.

Albertans, like all Canadians, share a deep concern for the environment, and are uneasily
aware that we haven’t done all that we could.

We don’t need to have Chicken Little policies. We shouldn’t make public policy by going
around shouting "The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!”

Still, the facts about global climate change are increasingly clear, and what is also clear is
that Albertans, like Canadians, are seeking leadership to make the necessary choices.

These are not choices which require us—as the Conservatives appear to think—to
sacrifice our economy on the altar of environmental political correctness. The choice is to seize the economic opportunities that emerge when we display environmental leadership.

Albertans don’t just want to have the world’s most profitable oil and natural gas
industries. You want a sector that protects our climate by reducing carbon emissions, that protects our air quality, that preserves precious fresh water and creates jobs right here in Alberta and across the country.

You know that sustainability is the key to maintaining energy leadership. Proven reserves
won’t last forever. Sustaining Alberta’s wealth depends on building environmental and resource sustainability into your growth.

Albertans are already leading in environmental research. The Canada School of
Sustainable Energy is an initiative of three Alberta universities.

One of Canada’s national treasures—David Schindler—has developed his world-leading
environmental thinking at the U of A.

The Pembina Institute has done pioneering work on the challenges that Alberta faces in
making wise use of water. Their reports show that the tar sands consume more water than
Calgary’s population every year. The balance between industry, farming and domestic use is becoming harder to maintain.

Moreover, few provinces face greater potential challenges from global warming. Anyone
with a historical memory does not want southern Alberta to become a dust bowl again.

The environmental challenge is one that Albertans and Canadians must work together to
solve.

Let’s set ourselves the goal of becoming world leaders, using smart federal policy,
imaginative science from our best universities, good public policy at the provincial level and leadership from our energy sector to become the smartest and most sustainable energy giant in the world. Working together, Alberta can become the international hub of expertise and application in clean energy systems.

The federal government has used fiscal incentives to stimulate the development and
exploration phase of the Alberta energy boom. The next challenge is to work with the energy sector and the Alberta government to align our fiscal incentives so that we promote CO2 sequestration, so that we offer incentives to less wasteful use of water in the tar sands, and we encourage technological innovation and new market opportunities. Let’s work with the industry to set escalating targets for reducing CO2 emissions.

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

Let’s use all the tools of government—fiscal incentives, grants, at the provincial and federal level to encourage renewable energy generation, zero-emission vehicles, and clean coal. This is another area where Alberta is a leader.

If Alberta and Canada can work together with industry to get clean coal to market
quickly, this will give us a large competitive advantage in China, where coal is bound to remain the key to meeting China’s energy needs in this century.

While we’re at it, why can’t Alberta and Canada work together to get biofuels to market
more rapidly? Biofuels holds huge promise: let’s seize these opportunities together so that the farm sector of our economy can contribute to environmental sustainability.

Reducing CO2 emissions in our energy sector;
Efficient economizing of industrial, farming and domestic use of water;
Rapid commercialization and expansion of the biofuels markets;
Rapid development of clean coal technology;

Here are four projects where if we combine smart regulation, the right fiscal incentives
and co-operation between the private and public sectors Alberta—and Canada—can lead the
world.

A huge opportunity must not be missed: to move our energy industry up the value chain
where environmental sustainability and new market opportunity meet.

Environmental policy works best when we’re all in it together: this is where the federal
government can help provinces get us all on the same environmental page, so that no province is singled out, all Canadians work together so that we achieve common goals: an economy that wastes less energy, that gets more kilometers per litre of gasoline, more efficient electricity use, more diverse array of energy sources.

Of course, Alberta doesn’t need the Feds in order to show leadership. Just recently,
Alberta and BC signed an agreement, reducing barriers to mobility of workers, investment and goods between the two provinces. This is interprovincial collaboration at its best—indeed the federation working as it should. But the federal government can help, by investing in infrastructure like the Trans Canada Highway and the Pacific Gateway enhancement of the Ports in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Already Calgary accounts for a substantial volume of the imports and exports flowing through the BC ports, and the federal government should invest in the national infrastructure to make this flow-through more efficient.

I’ve spent some time outside my country—and that seems to me to be an advantage, not a
liability. What I see from the outside is that we are a tremendous success and that we are enviably placed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are really capable of global leadership, if we have leaders who set global targets, who ask not: is this at Canada standard, but is this at world standard?

The targets I’m setting us are to be world leaders in sustainable energy development. We
must understand that we are stewards of the world commons, the climate and our biosphere, and global leadership means understanding this responsibility, and refusing false polarities that say we must either serve green goals or sacrifice our standard of living. Leadership means finding balanced solutions that move us steadily out of the raw export of energy to high value energy products that set the world standard for environmental sustainability

But it’s not enough to set targets for world class leadership. It’s also vital for us to put our
quarrels behind us. The world’s question about Canada is why we waste so much time in federal- provincial disputes, why regions fight each other, why mutual suspicion and paranoia so often frustrate our capacity for global leadership. Let’s put this behind us. Let’s work together. Alberta is quite simply one of the most exciting and dynamic places in the federation. Now is the time for Alberta to lead Canada to the forefront of environmental success. Private and public, federal, provincial and municipal: let’s work together to be world leaders.