The Illusion Of Choice

I know that I am but one of millions who long for the day the Harper regime is electorally deposed. That day cannot come soon enough. Yet, along with countless others, I am also aware that merely electing a Liberal or NDP government may only mean a change in style, not substance, given the many positions they hold in common with Dear Leader.

The anti-terror measures of Bill C-51 is one very worrisome case in point.

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom makes the following observations:

Both New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal chieftain Justin Trudeau danced warily around the substance of Bill C-51.

They had nothing to say about measures that would criminalize speech the government deemed pro-terrorist.

They had no views on proposals that would give 17 security agencies access to any information in any government department on any Canadian.

They said nothing about a section of the bill that would permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to engage in illegal and unconstitutional dirty tricks.

Indeed, the only criticism of Bill C-51 levelled by the Liberals and New Democrats to date is that it doesn’t provide parliamentary oversight of security agencies that have been given these new powers.

Which is another way of saying to Harper: We don’t mind if you erode civil liberties, as long as you let a few of us in on what you’re up to.

Wary of being labelled 'soft on terrorism,' the leaders of the two parties vying to replace Harper are revealing once more that the quest for power takes primacy over what is best for Canadians. No questions about why such measure are needed. No queries about what the inadequacy of existing laws might be. Only silent consent with a soupçon of carping at the periphery.

Contrast that cowardice with the brave and consistent integrity of Green Party leader Elizabeth May:

She said Monday in the Commons that it would turn CSIS into a “secret police force.”

She also asked if the bill’s remarkably broad definition of crimes against the security of Canada included anti-pipeline protests (and got no answer).

And so the charade goes on.

But where are the rest of us on this issue? Despite a very compelling warning by Edward Snowden as well as objections by The Canadian Civil Liberties Union and others, far too many of us seem content to shrug our shoulders and dismiss concerns with a simple, "I'm not a terrorist, so why should I worry?" an attitude fraught with pitfalls.

But I guess there is at least one undeniable inference to be drawn from all of this: Human beings are remarkably consistent in their ability to ignore the lessons of history.

Canada's Searing Moment of Clarity

I hope you didn't miss it. The events of the past month in that distant corner of the world, the mid-east, shone a light of fierce brilliance on our own Canada that exposed an ugly side of our country for all to see who would not look the other way.

What was laid bare was the extent to which neo-liberalism has captured our politics. What we were shown was how the governing Conservatives lead and, worse yet, how the supposedly progressive alternatives meekly fell into line. We witnessed the Liberals and New Democrats fecklessly abandon the very principles they once proudly upheld in decades past, the better time.

While Trudeau and Mulcair weren't sure exactly what the people of Gaza had done to warrant the wholesale ransacking of their fetid little territory by the powerful Israeli military juggernaut, they simply fell back on the old sop about Israel's "right to defend itself."

Yet, as Israel pretended to defend itself from some hapless Hamas rockets by taking down Gaza’s water and sewage system and, finally, its electricity plant, not a peep of protest, no call for restraint crossed the lips of wee Justin or the curiously retiring Tommy Boy. As Israel barraged schools and hospitals, as it put women and children in their hundreds to the sword, our leaders - those who seek to lead Canada in our name, yours and mine - turned their backs.

What do those hundreds of corpses have to do with Hamas or its alleged rockets? How does that river of blood help defend Israel? How does the collapse of a besieged territory's water, sewage and electrical system make Israel more secure? What was the military necessity for laying waste to civilian Gaza? What legitimate casus belli existed and, if there was such a thing, why did Netanyahu tie the war to seeking revenge against Hamas for three murders in the West Bank, not Gaza, that Israeli authorities knew Hamas did not commit?

Trudeau and Mulcair can rely on the fact that few of their supporters have even a passing acquaintance with the laws of war that were so grievously trampled underfoot by Israel in its blitzkrieg on Gaza. We don't understand notions of proportionality or military necessity or the duty to avoid attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. Our political leaders count on the fact that they can mutter "right to defend itself" and avoid all the awkward details of fact and laws.

If you're a Liberal or New Democrat, you've been conned (in every possible sense of that word) by your party of choice and its leader. You've been had, you've been done over. This time it was foreign policy, a murderous butchery that will soon be a distant memory. What will it be next time? What principles will be on the block tomorrow or next year or far beyond that? When you shift to neo-liberalism, principles must yield to the will of the corporatist state.

What about the subversion of democratic freedom by our corporate media cartel that now serves the political classes instead of we the people? What about a balancing of the ever-conflicting interests of labour and capital? What about a direct frontal assault on growing inequality of income, of wealth, and of opportunity? What about the plague that will curse our children and grandchildren - the environment and climate change? What will a pair of avowed fossil fuelers like Trudeau and Mulcair do for Canada and the world to decarbonize our economy and our society? Nothing, they're petro-pols, wake up!

If opposition leaders can't stand up for what is right, can't uphold principles and our traditions from the better time, you can be damn sure they'll have even less courage if they ever get the reins of power. You can be sure they will carry on Harper's work of incrementally transforming Canada into an increasingly illiberal democracy. Support these characters if you must but at least free yourself from any delusion of the peril that poses to our country and to our children.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Bye Bye, Zach

I have a busy day ahead, so for the time being I shall offer a brief update on the fortunes of young Zach Paikin, about whom I wrote earlier. It appears that Zach has bid farewell to the Liberal Party over what he perceives as Trudeau's interference in the nomination process. You can read all about it here.

Perhaps the young man will now gravitate to the party of his true ideological calling, the Conservative Party of Canada?

Yond Zach Paikin Has A Lean And Hungry Look

Zack Paikin, the son of TVO Agenda host Steve Paikin, has announced that he will seek the Liberal nomination for the Ontario riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas. While I am heartened whenever I see young people who are politically engaged, the 22-year-old Paikin is an extraordinarily conservative, overly confident and some would say arrogant Liberal; he is not someone who would garner my support.

The following is representative of what I deem to be his callow, blinkered and rather distasteful views. In an Ipolitics article in October 2012, he

argued that the Canadian criminal justice system was in need of reform because former Livent CEO Garth Drabinsky has been denied full parole after serving a year and change of a five-year fraud sentence — but was granted day parole while serving the rest of his time.

He also noted that Drabinsky is a long-time family friend. Arguments for freeing him from the shackles of a halfway house today include the fact that Ragtime, one of the mega-musicals Garth produced prior to his criminal ordeals, made Zach cry. (An unfortunate typo — “literally balling my eyes out” — was later corrected.)

While young Zach may indeed have a political career awaiting him in the future, in my view he needs considerable seasoning before making that leap.

The Search For Authenticity

In their bewilderment over the staunch following that Toronto mayor Rob Ford continues to enjoy amongst 'Ford Nation,' some pundits have advanced the idea that it is his 'authenticity' that accounts for his traction, no matter what drugs he ingests, no matter how many criminal elements he consorts with, no matter how many lies he tells to the public. His deep flaws, some suggest, appeal to the 'everyman.'

At best, I suspect this is only a partial answer. Nonetheless, it has gotten me thinking about leadership styles; serendipitously, the other day I caught the latest Justin Trudeau ad on TV in which he seeks to distinguish himself from the Harper regime without really uttering anything of substance:



While I realize that the ad is directed to a demographic much younger than mine and may in fact 'hit the mark' with that audience, I was struck by a few aspects of the production:

1. It offers an obvious contrast to the button-down, anally-retentive demeanour of our current Prime Minister. Although his suit colour is fairly subdued, Trudeau's open shirt suggests a relaxed manner that only one possessed of a vivid imagination could transpose on Stephan Harper (the latter's blue cardigan campaign costume notwithstanding).

2. Trudeau's cadences are balanced, offering another contrast to the inflectionless Harper.

3. The Liberal leader maintains strong eye contact with the camera, suggesting an openness and authenticity that voters may find appealing.

4. He utters platitudes that no one could disagree with.

However, even though it is a very polished production, the ad does nothing for me; as a veteran observer of political matters, I find the entire effort completely contrived, for all of the above reasons.

We leave in an age of shallow thinking, disengagement and phony 'reality shows.' Given the widespread disengagement from the electoral process of young people, this ad may indeed strike a responsive chord among its intended audience.

How do others feel about the ad?

A Needed Voice

For those interested in a broader public policy discussion than has been permitted by our political 'leaders' thus far, the NDP nomination of journalist Linda McQuaig yesterday in Toronto Centre, Bob Rae's old riding, is an auspicious beginning. No stranger to progressives, McQuaig has exposed the iniquities of gross income inequality in her writing for many years, trenchantly challenging the increasingly obdurate notion that nothing can be done about the ever-widening gap between those who have and those who do not.

While it is still anyone's guess as to when Stephen Harper will call the byelection for the riding, without question we can expect a vigorous debate on the important issues, especially given that another journalist, Chrystia Freeland, received the Liberal Party nod. While the leaders of their respective parties have hewed to either a very close-mouthed or conventional approach to the economic questions that plague our country, given what I know about Ms. McQuaig, the byelection campaign will see these issues front and centre, and I strongly doubt that McQuiag will be happy to utter the conservative platitudes that Thomas Mulcair has recently been given to uttering.

Are we entering a new era of exciting and dynamic politics? Having one knowledgeable, passionate and outspoken candidate will not likely change the political landscape, but at the very least, it is a hopeful beginning.

A Word From The West

We are still in Alberta, having just returned to Edmonton from a trip to Banff and Lake Louise conducted by our son. I suspect that even if we weren't here, I would have some sympathy for the West's reaction to the latest utterance from Justin Trudeau.

Although I generally don't like to use cliches, some would say that this is what happens when you send a boy to do a man's job. The alternative interpretation, of course, would be to say this is what happens when a party of no discernible principles elects as their leader the person whom polls suggest will lead them back to the promised land of politics.

Sadly, the good of the country does not appear to enter into the Liberal Party's calculations.

On FIPA, Justin Trudeau, and Chauncey Gardner

Last night while checking my Twitter feed, I noticed several people expressing their deep disappointment over the fact that Justin Trudeau led his Liberal Party to vote with the Harper regime against an NDP motion to inform China that it will not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). While much has been written about the pact, the chief objections seem to revolve around the following:

- it will severely circumscribe our ability to regulate our environment, since any such measures that lead to loss of corporate profit would result in compensation demands from the aggrieved businesses;

- lawsuits will take place in secret tribunals outside of Canada;

- the negotiations have been conducted in secret, completely devoid of transparency;

- as opposed to NAFTA, which can be cancelled with six months' notice, FIPA will have a lifespan of 31 years

- China will be able to circumscribe local preferences on suppliers and employment.

To be fair to Trudeau, the Liberals are on record as saying they oppose some of the provisions of the deal, but were not prepared to side with the NDP motion to definitively declare the deal dead, banking instead on the possibility of changing some of the treaty's terms.

Nonetheless, the reaction of disappointment toward Trudeau's vote got me thinking about his dearth of policy pronouncements and the fact that in the run-up to the leadership convention, so many were projecting their own hopes and interpretation onto the blank canvas that he touts as a strength, since he claims to want to talk to Canadians about their concerns and priorities. Indeed, all we know about where he stands comes from his announcements about concerns for the middle class, youth unemployment, and similar platitudes.

Which got me thinking about a book I read several years ago, later made into an outstanding film featuring the peerless Peter Sellers in his last performance. Entitled Being There, it told the tale of a simple man, Chauncey Gardener, a gardener who is forced out into the world upon the death of his employer. In some ways a savant, he knows nothing except the world of gardening, but is mistaken for a well-educated, affluent upper class man, and ultimately his 'counsel' is sought by the high and mighty of society, who infer deep meaning, never intended by the speaker, from his literal and simplistic observations.

Clearly, Justin Trudeau is no savant. But then, the movie was not so much about Chauncey than it was a sendup of the credulity and shallowness of the people around him, searching for meaning and wisdom where there was none.

Perhaps these two clips best demonstrate my point:

So Typically Classless

But then, why would anyone expect anything different from the Harper regime?

H/t Sol Chrom

Pondering Pandering Political Parties

I am long past the age where I expect very much from politicians of any stripe. While it is easy to target (and I frequently do!) the Harper-led Conservative Party as the party of the corporate agenda, it is also sadly true that both the Liberal Party and the NDP have as their greatest priority the acquisition of power, frequently at the expense of principle. For example, putative messiah of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, is shockingly shallow when it comes to policy pronouncements, the better, I assume, to form them closer to the next election according to perceived public preferences, the reflection of which could lead to victory at the polls. The NDP, with their frequent references to 'the middle class' and their middle-of-the-road policy orientations under Thomas Mulcair are no better.

There is an excellent piece by Glenn Wheeler in this morning's Star that reminds us of these political realities. Entitled Liberal party and the labour movement need each other; the author, a lawyer for the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of the Liberal Party’s National Policy and Election Platform Committee, reflects on the fact that while the union he works for is trying to discourage the public from flying Porter Air due to the fuel-handlers' strike, the Liberal Party is pushing discount rates it has negotiated with the carrier for the upcoming Liberal Leadership gathering in Toronto.

This situation, he suggests, is emblematic of the abandonment/downgrading of union concerns by the aforementioned parties at a time when labour is under unprecedented attack both by the Harper regime federally, and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who are championing 'right-to-work' legislation that would essentially be the death knell of the union movement.

Because I am experiencing some Internet problems right now, I will end with a strong recommendation that you read the full article to see why Wheeler believes that strong unionism and a healthy political climate are complementary, not contradictory objectives. One can only hope that in their race/lust for power, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair bear that fact in mind.

Egomania, Not Trudeaumania: Updated

Checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came upon a link to a story appearing in Sun News, an organization for which I usually refuse to spare the time of day, given its rather robust roster of strident, often hysterical voices desperately seeking to emulate the tone of Fox News. Nonetheless, I can recommend something that strikes me as balanced and fairly reasonable, terms I never thought I would use to describe anything emanating from the lair of people like Brian Lilley and Ezra Levant.

Writing on the subject of a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, a subject upon which I have previously posted in its more benign form, a co-operative pact for the next election, Warren Kinsella reminds us that a year ago, Justin Trudeau seemed open to the possibility of working more closely with the NDP. However, that has now all changed:

A year later, Trudeau doesn't talk like that anymore. He and his team dismiss any talk of cooperation between Liberals and New Democrats. The only Liberal leadership candidate who favours one-time cooperation is Liberal MP Joyce Murray, and she is routinely dismissed as a defeatist crackpot for her trouble.

Ditto for the NDP:

The same thing happened to Nathan Cullen when he ran for the NDP leadership - he favoured bringing together the progressive majority, too. The front-runner, Thomas Mulcair, didn't. End of Cullen's idea.

Kinsella goes on to predict the consequence of this intransigence - another Harper victory in 2015, after which, he wonders, whether ego and nostalgia will be trumped by more practical politics and cooperation/merger will proceed.

Perhaps Kinsella's piece is neither innovative nor particularly insightful; it is, however, another reminder of just how much the leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP are willing to gamble on Canada's future going into the 2015 election, all for the sake of their lust for power and dominance.

H/t #canpoli

UPDATE: Here is a link to a thoughtful piece by James Heath on the need for cooperation among progressives.

Some Questions Leadership Aspirants Need To Answer

I have recently written some posts bemoaning the paucity of policy undergirding the campaigns of those who would become the next leader of the Liberal Party, both on the provincial (Ontario) and federal level. Substituting for substance are tired bromides and platitudes that, in an earlier, less cynical age might have been sufficient to inspire, but now fill the seasoned observer with ennui and suspicion.

I was pleased to see Martin Regg Cohn addressing the issue in this morning's Toronto Star. Lamenting the lack of substance in the provincial leadership race, his piece lists six questions he says aspirants need to answer:

1. With unemployment hovering at 8.3 per cent, what’s your concrete plan to not just create but keep well-paying jobs?

2. Should motorists pay for driving on congested roadways? (road tolls, congestion fees, etc.)

3. Can you make future pensions a present-day priority?

4. Do you have the political stamina to tackle welfare reform?

5. As a rookie premier, will you stay green?

6. How do you persuade people to back you, while you’re cutting back on what you give them?

While these are all excellent questions, I hope Mr. Cohn remembers that it is the responsibility of journalists not only to ask these questions, but also to ensure the politicos don't simply fob off non-answers in response.

Michael Ignatief's Problems

The Globe and Mail's online edition (the only one I will henceforth have access to, given my termination of our subscription) today has an article by Bruce Anderson entitled 'Michael Ignatief faces daunting enthusiasm gap' offering a variety of reasons that the Liberal leader has failed to 'catch fire' with perspective voters. In my humble view, none of them fully explains his failure as leader.

As I have written before, I am convinced that Ignatief's failure to convey any semblance of integrity, given his repeated practice of ensuring an insufficient number of Liberals in the House of Commons when key votes occur, votes with the potential of bringing down the Harper Government, are at the core of the Liberal Party's problems. I am of the view that, even worse than contending with a government whose views and policies may run counter to one's core values, is contending with a political party that ultimately stands for nothing but the acquisition of power for its own sake.

Even though the electorate may at times be befuddled, apathetic, even misguided, I am certain that they can spot insincerity and hypocrisy very adeptly, qualities that the Liberal leader has displayed in abundance since his ascension to the leadership.

Liberal Party Fecklessness - Part 3

I really have to move on from writing these posts that sadly show the Liberal Party of Canada to be the party of nothing but its own self-interest; however, just about every time I read about the party led by Michael Ignatief, more confirmation of my thesis stares me in the face.

The latest affront to those of us still naive enough to hope the organization will somehow find its spine comes in a report from the Oct 25th edition of The Hill Times entitled Grits helping Tories set 'dangerous precedent' on calling committee witnesses, say MPs. The piece makes reference to the Harper Government's decision earlier this year to refuse to allow staffers to appear before Parliamentary committees, despite the fact that only MPs and Senators can legally decline such invitations.

Taking exception to Tory intransigence, NDP MP Bill Siksay raised a motion to the Ethics committee asking the House to respond to the believed breach of privilege in an investigation. Of course, the predictable happened. While Bloc and NDP MPs voted for the motion and the Conservatives against, the Liberals abstained and the motion died.

It would seem that the 'big tent' metaphor Michael Ignatief uses to describe the Liberal Party is filled with nothing but empty air. Or, to paraphrase Macbeth, one of my favourite plays, it is 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

Michael Ignatief's Fecklessness - Part 2

In yesterday's post I wrote about the lack of principle that is manifest in Michael Ignatief's leadership of the Liberal Party. Time and time again, he has chosen to take the expedient route by consistently failing to back bills whose principles he has claimed to support, ever-fearful that a real stance against the Harper Government might trigger an election.

On Wednesday night, he ensured that a sufficient number of his MPs, including himself, were absent for the vote on Bill C-300, a private member's bill that would have imposed sanctions on mining companies violating human rights and environmental laws in countries whose resources they are extracting. The vote result: 140 against to 134 in favour.

Just prior to the vote Mr. Ignatief, as reported in the Globe's Ottawa Notebook, once again proving his unfitness to lead a once-great party, had the hypocrisy to claim he supported the objectives of the bill in a memo he sent out:

Liberals recognize the importance of the mining, gas and oil industry to Canada. We believe that a commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – at home and abroad – makes good business sense and is a Canadian advantage. We are sending a strong message of the government that they cannot continue to ignore CSR for Canadian companies.

Perhaps one of the most odious aspects of his behaviour is that he seems to think that none of the electorate that would like to support the Liberals will notice or care about his lack of integrity. That may be true for some, but it essentially ensures that I and others like me who insist on a modicum of morality in the political arena will not be supporting him in the next election.

Just Another Example of the Fecklessness of Michael Ignatief's Leadership

It was hardly surprising to read in The Globe and Mail's online edition that Michael Ignatief is ambivalent over Bill C-300, introduced by Scarborough Liberal John McKay, which would impose sanctions on Canadian mining companies that are found guilty, as a result of investigations initiated by Ottawa, of violating environmental or human rights in the countries they do business in.

Frightened by the predictable Conservative rhetoric that if such a bill were passed, mining jobs would be lost, the Liberal Leader has said that “there are problems in the bill,” code, I suspect, for fears that the next poll might show decreased support if he supports it.

Strange how he doesn't even consider that taking a principled stand for a change might actually earn him some respect and support instead of the widespread scorn so many express over the opportunistic stances he has regularly taken since assuming leadership of the party, a leadership that seems to be defined by little else but a bald and avid thirst for power.

Bob Rae's Political Judgement

Having lived in Ontario during Bob Rae's tenure as Premier, I do not regard him with any degree of esteem (a polite understatement). The latest confirmation of the correctness of my opinion came recently when a friend sent me the following email:

Subject: Bill # C-428 THANKS TO RUBY DHALLA AND BOB RAE

It will receive second reading at the next sitting of parliament...

Please read the bill and make your own decision..if you disagree with the bill, please send this to every Canadian of voting age in your address book..

Hopefully by letting your member of parliament know your feelings on the bill, it will be defeated.

If you agree with the bill, you don't need to do anything..


Bill C-428 An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirements)


Bill C-428 will allow recent immigrants to apply for OAS (the CPP) in 3 years instead of the existing 10.

This bill had first reading in the house on June 18, 2009. It was seconded by Bob Rae!! MP Ms. Ruby Dhalla who introduced the bill represents the riding of Brampton whose population is mainly East Indian. Right now you have to have lived in Canada for 10 years in order to qualify for Old Age Security (CPP). She wants the time reduced to 3 years. Thousands could come to Canada when they are 62 years old, never having worked or contributed to this country's tax system etc, and qualify for full Old Age Security (CPP) benefits. 10 years minimum is reasonable. 3 is not!

Look this up - Google C-428 and you will see this bill has only one purpose, to featherbed a select group of people for votes.

I certainly hope this bill does not get passed. It is about time we called our elected MP's to ask them to NOT support this bill. Their response may be one factor in helping us determine who gets elected in the next election.

What Can You Do?

1. Spread the message
to family, friends and email buds.

2. Write letters, send emails to all your list, and call Members of Parliament

It is time Canada looked after it's Vets and long-term citizens before tossing OUR hard-earned money around on people who have no right to this money, never having paid taxes or contributed to our economy. If a family wishes to bring elderly relatives here and are willing to waive their own right to collect these funds in order that the elderly relatives can receive them...fine...otherwise, look after them yourself and do not expect the Canadian taxpayers to do it.

There are too many people abusing the generosity of the Canadian people. We need to stop the madness....NOW!

While I do not agree with the rather inflammatory tone in part of this message, I do think it shows a key Liberal, Mr. Rae, badly out of touch with the sensibilities of many Canadians, especially with regard to their sense of fair play. While it is probably no mystery as to why Ms Dhalla authored the bill, given the bad publicity she weathered about a year ago over her treatment of Phillipino nannies, as well as the fact that her riding houses many immigrants, I find it hard to understand why Mr. Rae would have seconded the bill.

In my view, should Michael Ignatieff ultimately be deposed as Liberal leader, the worst mistake the Party could make would be to select Bob Rae as his successor.

James Travers' Column Today

In his column today, Toronto Star political columnist James Travers insightfully addresses a situation that I have written about a couple of times, the fact that the Federal Liberal Party seems to stand for nothing, judging by its feckless opposition to Stephen Harper's harmful policies. I am taking the liberty of reproducing the entire column, with parts that I have bolded for added emphasis:

Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada
by James Travers


OTTAWA—This country has a problem. It has a ruling party that twists the truth and an Official Opposition that can’t, or won’t, straighten it out.

This summer’s oddly hot topic is one example. Gutting the census is nothing less than another Conservative act of public vandalism. Wagging an angry finger is nothing more than another empty Liberal gesture.

Opinion polls reflect that repeating pattern. For more than four years now Canadians have consistently told pollsters they don’t support Conservatives and don’t trust Liberals.

One unlikely way to end that impasse is for Stephen Harper to come clean about what he doesn’t like about Canada and how Conservatives are changing it by stealth and increment. Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.

Harper owes that explanation. Since taking control of a universally admired country in 2006, the Prime Minister has been altering Canada without a majority mandate or clear statement of ultimate purpose.

Ignatieff has a duty to oppose that strategy. Since replacing Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader has threatened elections and fumed at Conservatives while drawing flexible lines in this capital’s blowing sand.

Harper’s determination and Ignatieff’s vacillation are connected by opportunities seized by Conservatives and missed by Liberals. Without significant resistance or the debate democracy demands, the Prime Minister has consistently advanced policies that are at best controversial and at worst corrosive.

Too often Harper manages to tip-toe dubious schemes past a dozing electorate. While the nation slept, Conservatives grossly abused the budget process with an omnibus bill bulging with unrelated plans to sell the public stake in the atomic energy sector and, even more remarkably, to relax environmental regulations just when the world is reeling from the BP oil spill.

As always, there’s more. There was little discussion of military priorities and less outcry over public safeguards in the sole-sourced contract committing Canada to spend some $16 billion replacing CF-18 fighters. Much was muttered and nothing done to stop Conservatives silencing diverse civil society voices by attacking Montreal’s non-partisan Rights and Democracy and stripping core funding from the umbrella agency has advised federal governments on overseas development for more than forty years.

To Conservative credit, Harper routinely gets the best of a fissured Parliament and an Official Opposition in disarray. The result is a country being forced marched to an unknown destination.

To Liberal shame, serial leaders, with the notable exception of Stephane Dion’s quixotic defence of a carbon tax, have failed to find principled places to stand. In trying every which way to regain power they continue to fall far short of convincing Canadians that a once great party would now gladly risk its hegemony to protect the national interest.

No party or leader willingly commits political suicide. Instead, they lurk in the shadows, weighing odds and waiting for a promising moment to strike. Still, parties risk everything when what’s good for them is seen to be more important than what’s good for the country.

Ignatieff knows that Liberals have taken too long to discard the tattered cloak of Canada’s natural governing party. Liberals are proving equally slow in grasping that an opposition afraid to oppose is an empty vessel voters will fill with blame when the ruling party goes too far.

Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology. Liberals will go nowhere until they are willing to risk something straightening it out.

It's Too Early for The Federal Liberal Party to Start Celebrating

Despite the fact that the latest poll shows the federal Liberal Party virtually tied with the Harper Government, may I suggest that it is far too early for celebration?

While I have generally voted Liberal throughout my life, I have, over the past year or so become increasingly disenchanted with the party's performance under the stewardship of Michael Ignatieff, the main reason being that he has displayed very little leadership and provided almost no reason for support.

Whether accurate or not, historically the Liberals have been seen as the party of the centre, incorporating policies from both sides of the political spectrum but usually avoiding the kind of polarization that has been so characteristic of the Harper Government. Unfortunately, since being in opposition in the latest minority situation, they have emerged as the Opposition Party that wants to form the next Government because ….. well, because they crave the power that comes from being the Government.

Absent, as far as I can see, is any overarching vision that would inspire people to trust them with governing this vast country. Time and time again, either through House of Commons votes that support the Government or by engineering the absence of sufficient House numbers to allow them to vote against confidence measures without bringing down the Government (which would force an election), the Liberals have shown themselves to be hypocritical and without consistent principle.

The most recent example, although I could cite many, is the Conservative's American-style budget omnibus bill which the Liberals rightfully strenuously opposed and voted against, carrying as it did many items that had nothing to do with the budget, including reductions in environmental assessments, selling off parts of Canada Post, selling Atomic Energy Canada without Parliamentary approval, etc. However, because it was a vote of confidence, and because polls showed that the Liberals wouldn't benefit were an election called, the party ensured that 30 Members were absent from the House so the Government wouldn't fall.

At the time, Liberal Bob Rae said that the Senate was the best venue for amending the budget bill. Those amendments were made, with the contentious items removed; however, shortly before the Senate vote on the amendments, a spokesman for the Conservatives said that any Senate amendments would be viewed as an election issue by the Government. So what happened? Predictably, the vote on the amendments saw an inadequate number of Liberal Senators in the Red Chamber (12 were absent), and the bill was sent back unamended.

Michael Ignatief, Bob Rae, and the rest of the Liberal Party will have to do much better than that if they are to have my vote.