Chretien urges PM Harper not to follow through on election promise.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Sort of arrogant, no? Having a former PM ask the current PM not to follow through on his election promises?

Thank you Jean, but cutting party subsidies was an election platform promise, in fact I would call it a major plank of that platform, and the Conservatives were elected on that platform. The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Liberal Party where promises to abolish the GST or the numerous times they promised a national child care system are never followed through on.  This PM will follow through on his platform promise.

If a party's own members do not care enough to support that party with their own money, why should the taxpayer have to prop them up?

The video Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada do not want you to see.

Because after all of these years they have yet to be able to spin it positively in any way, shape, or form. 






It really is all about character.

BTW for those interested here are the numbers for the amount of times that Ignatieff used the words "We", "Us", "Our" and "Ourselves" in the 2minute and 8 second video above.

Updated with more of the same from Ignatieff:


.

Liberal John McCallum admits Ignatieff's corporate tax hike will cost jobs.

Yesterday on the Roy Green show on the Corus Radio Network, Liberal MP for Markham—Unionville, John McCallum admitted that the Liberals plan to raise corporate taxes from 16.5% to 18 % would cost Canadians jobs.



That's John McCallum ladies and gentlemen, part of the Liberal Team!


Update:  John McCallum apologizes to Peter Donolo for telling the truth about the Liberals plan to raise taxes!  The Liberal Party of Canada, where telling the truth requires an apology.



Past posts on McCallum:

Meet your new Liberal Transport critic.

"I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down.."

And you want to be my latex salesman Mr. McCallum

The front runner for Finance Minister under Ignatieff.

John McCallum again on the Roy Green Show. This time talking about Ignatieff signing the 2008 coalition deal. (listen as hilarity ensues)

Another Liberal Photo Op/smear failure.

Brant Liberal candidate Lloyd St. Amand joined the long list of failed Liberal Party photo ops the other day when he and Liberal trade critic Willowdale MP Martha Hall-Findlay stopped off outside a supposedly closed factory in an effort to highlight “job losses” allegedly caused by the Conservative business tax reductions.

One small problem: The factory wasn’t closed at all, and the company’s Vice President was not happy to have been used as a prop in this Liberal deception:
“[The Liberals’] attempt at disparaging the Conservatives...was a disaster… Ironically, we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.” (John Paul deBoer, Vice President, Brant Screen Craft, Brant News, March 3, 2011)

And that is not all. St. Amand also admitted that federal opposition parties “forced” the government into stimulus spending in the first place ( which is the biggest reason we are in a deficit) and also said that “If they had done something sooner, as other countries did in 2007 and 2008, it’s quite possible that many of the jobs that were lost could have been saved,”  As if other countries were actually spending money on stimulus in 2007 while the economy was booming and BEFORE the recession hit; but then again revisionist history seems to be Liberal trait.


Previous Liberal photo op failures:

A man outstanding in his field. (Ignatieff gets it wrong. with video)

The Liberal caucus adoors adores Ignatieff.  (Symbolism bites Ignatieff. Also with video)

Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos

Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)

"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”

Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.

"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."

Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"


Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.

Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”


and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
 

Mr. Ignatieff. Please answer your own question.

On Wednesday Michael Ignatieff again went out on the road in an effort to (re) introduce himself to the Canadian public as if somehow the forth time will be the charm. At a Liberal Party function, which was held in the back of a restaurant located in a small suburban Ottawa mall, Ignatieff lead off his stump speech with what the LPC hope will become the 'ballot question' in the next federal election.

"Are you and your family better off now than five years ago?" .

Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?


Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)

 

I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff  is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:

On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of  $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)


5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.


Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.

 -----------

Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.

WIll Justin Trudeau defend the charter from Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette

Quick, someone call Justin Trudeau!

Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette continues on her quest to make herself the laughingstock of Canadian politics by perusing passage of Senate Bill S-206. The bill would require Parliament to ensure that all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women. Nanny state nonsense, which goes against not only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Liberals everywhere like to pretend that they are so concerned over but also against common sense and such basic ideals such as merit based advancement, all in the name of political correctness.

Here is what she said on S-206 in June 2009: She argues that last fall's market meltdown, which has sparked a deep worldwide recession, is the result of having a relatively small coterie of men holding multiple directorships in a host of corporations.

She suggests that bad investments might have been avoided had more women been sitting on boards, bringing fresh eyes and a more independent, prudent approach to decision-making than the `old boys' club.'
I may be old fashioned but blaming the market meltdown on men sounds sort of sexist if you ask me, but being part of the old boys club by virtue of my parts, I guess my judgment may be clouded by those very same parts, so I had best leave that sexist definition up to the rest of you to decide. (that is as long as your parts are deemed acceptable)

--------------

Some related background on the esteemed Liberal Senator:

From a letter written to an American family concerned with the seal hunt: They should be more concerned with "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners -- mainly blacks -- in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc." than the seal hunt.

Criticizing Alberta's Culture:  discussing statistics and how support for her bill was "off course" lower in Alberta than in Quebec because "we don't have the same culture" and went on to say in way of an explanation after being called out by host Tom Clarke "I am just telling you that maybe we (Quebec) have the appropriate way of dealing with children and education is different then hitting a child."  Not that her arrogant and clueless statement was enough she went on to laughingly say "We have some support in Alberta? That is news for me."

Filing a complaint against CTV and Bob Fife for doing their jobs, with just a bit of libel thrown in for good measure. ( "...and CTV is paid to broadcast these schemes.")


Where is Justin Trudeau and the "party of the charter" when you really need them?



Related: BC Blue on Payette.

Interesting Youtube video on affirmative action.

Marlene Jennings is in a class by herself. Video.

Marlene Jennings, Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine, was busy playing cheap political games (the kind that the Liberals say they detest so much) yesterday in the House of Commons and let Canadians get another glimpse of this MP at work.


Watch the video:

Read it in Hansard.

Stay Classy Marlene. You are a true treasure for Canadian politics and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Lots more from Jennings here.

Ignatieff tries to bridge the enormous gap between men and women.

Michael Ignatieff was busy campaigning again yesterday holding another open mike event and taking questions from the public. The previous one didn't go as well as he had hoped and from initial reports it looks like this one may have ended up the same way.

Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.

 Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:

 "I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been," 

"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."


Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!

Think I am taking that a little bit too far?  Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"

"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.

And thank God we do. It's one of the things that allows us to get over that enormous gap that separates men and women."

I will leave the stereotypical comment about the so called  'feminine and masculine' sides alone because Ignatieff was more than likely just searching for a quick way to respond to the question and didn't realize how utterly cookie cutter and un-progressive it was, but I do need some serious clarification on his next comment about that "enormous gap" that separates men and women.

What exactly in Michael Ignatieff's mind makes up this enormous gap? I doubt that he was referring to biological differences or even something like wage parity because those would make no sense in terms of context, so just what was Ignatieff talking about. 

Are all women more emotional or have different emotions than men, do they think or act differently, are they less rational, capable, or intelligent than men, or maybe women really are from Venus while men do come from Mars. 

I don't know the answer to what he meant with his enormous gap comment but believe me when I say that I am looking forward to watching professor Ignatieff trying to spin answer that question today. That is if some in the media care enough to call him out for these obviously stereotypical remarks.

Time to be open with all of us Mike. If you would be so kind as to please define for us what you believe that enormous gap that separates men and women is, those of us who believe that men and women are equal would appreciate the clarification and no doubt we all would be better off for it.


Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them  'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.

Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.

Mark Holland faces reality and apologizes, something he said he would never do.

Liberal MP Mark Holland, of secret box fame, has issued an apology after asserting back in March 2008 that he would not: Mr. Holland, the MP for Ajax-Pickering, yesterday said his comments did not warrant an apology and said that no bullying or legal threats would stop him from searching for the truth...

OTTAWA, Oct 8 /CNW/ - Today Mark Holland made the following statement with regards to the legal action between him and Mr. Chris Froggatt:
In an interview broadcast on CTV Newsnet on March 5, 2008, I made certain statements regarding Chris Froggatt, then Chief of Staff to Canada's Minister of Environment, and communications between Mr. Froggatt and the Ontario Provincial Police. I have since determined that my concerns regarding Mr. Froggatt were unwarranted. I apologize to Mr. Froggatt and retract the statements that may have caused grief to him and to his family.
This action has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

Here is what Mark Holland said in the House (March 11 2008) on this subject and how he claimed it was his privileges being violated. In other words he had no clue and thought he could say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted.

I have repeatedly questioned the Minister of the Environment about his involvement in both the actions of Mayor O’Brien and his dealings with the OPP in this matter. It was those questions that led to the CTV Newsnet interview, of which Mr. Froggatt now complains.
It is clear that the primary goal of Mr. Froggatt is to prevent me from continuing to raise the very serious questions that I have about his actions and the actions of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the OPP investigation.
Mr. Froggatt is well aware that he is unable to directly control what I say in this House. As a result, he has chosen to attempt to intimidate me outside the House by threatening a lawsuit should I refuse to withdraw my earlier comments and refrain from accusing him of inappropriate activity.
I believe that the involvement of the Minister of the Environment in a bribery scandal and improper interference by the chief of staff to a minister are two issues that are clearly of public importance. Indeed, I have laid these issues before the House on a number of occasions. Mr. Froggatt’s attempt to stifle debate is clearly a violation of my privileges.

Smack down #1 from Peter Van Loan:

The fact that one is a member of Parliament does not give one licence to make reckless accusations that harm the reputation of any individual in this country, regardless of one's position or status.

     Any comments that are made outside of this chamber, outside of one's direct role in the House, are comments for which a member must assume responsibility, comments which they should recognize have risks and that they should have a basis on which they can defend the truthfulness and accuracy of those remarks...

  We protect members within the House to allow for freedom of speech but we also respect the rights of every citizen and recognize that there is a difference between what Parliament means and what the House means. It is by virtue of membership and participation in the House that those privileges exist. It is for the protection of what happens in this chamber that those privileges exist. It is not to give individuals licence to engage in reckless behaviour and destroy people's reputations without any basis, which is exactly the conduct that the member continues to engage in outside the House.

    On that basis, he must, as any other citizen outside the House, be prepared to defend those comments, not to cry like a baby that he is not allowed to say what he wants. He must assume the adult responsibilities for the truth of the comments he makes. If they are not true, then he should own up to the lack of evidence and own up to the lack of truth and be prepared to defend those words in court. That is all he is being asked to do.

Holland still did not get it:
 Mr. Speaker, my comments are very clear. I stand by what I say both in this House and outside of this House.

    The issue is when members of Parliament in trying to execute their duties as members of Parliament ask legitimate questions of the government about matters of deep concern to the country, matters that are well reported, are sued by individuals who try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, to try to intimidate individuals into not asking legitimate, fair questions on matters of fact, in my opinion, that is a serious attack upon the privileges of members of Parliament.

     I believe the courts are being abused and used to try to stifle the abilities of members of Parliament to ask questions.

Smack down #2 From the Speaker: The complaint was all about statements he had made on a television program, and those are not ones that are subject to parliamentary privilege.
As has been pointed out by the hon. government House leader, a privilege exists in respect of statements that members make in this House, but also in committees. Something he neglected to mention is that comments in committee are also protected. Statements made outside the House are not protected. If the hon. member received a letter that alleges he said something that was defamatory of someone else–and that is what I sense from the segment he read–somewhere other than in the House, then the question of privilege is not available to him to have this matter somehow protected under that guise.


Now if only if he would apologize to Alberta for his remarks about nationalizing the oil sands.  Transcript of conversation here, Hollands letter denying his own words(and slamming Premier Stelmach) here.

Anyone see a pattern here?

ht The Phantom Observer 

Related:
Stephen Taylor gets letters (where is the media coverage?)


Update: October 15th (1 week later)   The Canadian MSM FINALLY picks up on the story.   What took them so long, and more importantly, if this was a Conservative does anyone really believe that the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc would have not have been all over this story from day 1 as opposed to the ZERO coverage it has received by them? 

Ignatieff working on his quest to be Number 1!

Michael Ignatieff wants to be #1 and he is 'working' hard to gain the title.

No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.

Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.

Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.



Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:

C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act.  (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)

C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada.   (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)


Update: Ignatieff wonders why the Liberals are not doing better in the polls (This guy shows us time and time again that he has no clue but yet expects Canadians to support him and his CONSTANTLY changing positions. What arrogance.

If 25% is not enough would 50% do it for the "but crime is going down" crowd?

1 in 4 Canadians over the age of 15 have been victims of crime in the previous 12 months, says a recent StatsCan survey. ( Today's snarky comment: What the hell! How can this info even be available or valid since we didn't have a census in 2009!)

Mr. Ignatieff:  25% of your fellow citizens and neighbors have been the victims of crime in the last year and you criticize the building of much need prisons and mock the CPC tough on crime agenda.

Ardvark's free advice: I would suggest that you start paying attention Mr. Ignatieff or in the future you may be wishing that you could poll as well as Dalton McGuinty's latest.

That didn't take long.

Just hours moments after the 153-151 vote on the fate of Bill C391 earlier tonight was completed, the Liberals were already playing politics with the result and sent out a fund-raising email. That didn't take long but who could be surprised after the Liberals, along with some friendly media, played this little bit of politics earlier this afternoon.

Here is some of the email:

This is your win.

When we asked, you spoke up for Canada’s public safety in your community and online. You donated so our Women’s Caucus could spread our message across Canada in the critical final days before the vote. And when Jack Layton refused to take responsibility for his NDP caucus, you phoned his office and told him to get the votes no matter what.

But this is just the start of this parliamentary session, and there will be much more to do in the weeks and months to come. So I’m asking for your help again today, to ensure that we can meet the next challenge as effectively as this one.

Today’s vote is a perfect example of how a strong, well-funded opposition can fight for your values in Ottawa and hold this divisive, confrontational Conservative government to account when it refuses to listen to you.

But today’s victory also comes with a dark cloud.

That dark cloud is the possibility that Stephen Harper approaches every issue the House faces this Fall with the same bitter and acrimonious tone we saw during the gun registry debate.

Canadians like you are calling loudly on politicians to work together more cooperatively. We’re listening to you, just as we did throughout the summer as the Liberal Express traveled over 56,000 kilometres to every province and territory...

The Liberal Party of Canada represents the only progressive, compassionate and responsible alternative to Stephen Harper and his politics of division. Your support today will make all the difference tomorrow.

Thank you,

David

---
David McGuinty
Liberal House Leader
Liberal Party of Canada

Literally moments after; how did David find the time?

More like this email was already to go before the vote even took place, but to be honest I would have liked to have read the other email they had ready to go; the one that was written in the event they had lost the vote. I doubt it would have been much different than this one, perhaps going more after the NDP and PM Harper may have been painted as even more evil, but I doubt they would have started it off by saying 'this is your loss'.

For the party that wants political games stopped, the Liberals did everything they could today to prove that claim false.

You need more: Here is Bob Rae and Ralph Goodale NOT being overly partisan or playing games. (PTBC)

Why did Bob Rae and the 18 other Liberal MPs miss oral questions yesterday?

Bob Rae was noticeably absent from oral questions in Parliament yesterday and he wasn't alone; 18 other Liberal MPs were also too busy doing something else rather than showing up to do their jobs even though Michael Ignatieff's office ordered everyone to be there.

In total 19 out of 75 Liberal MPs, almost 25% of the entire Liberal caucus, were absent yesterday, which must really tick Ignatieff off considering all of the time he invested this summer telling Canadians just how hard he and his party were going to work for them when they returned to work this fall. Another leadership fail, but there is something else revealed here which could be much much worse for his Iffyness.

If he can't get his own caucus to bother to show up on the first day back to work this fall, even though he instructed them to be there, what is going to happen when it comes time for that same Liberal caucus to show up to the whipped vote on the long gun registry?

Remember that Ignatieff has at least 8 MPs in that caucus who had previously voted to represent their constituents wishes against the long gun registry and who now are being directed to change their vote under orders from Ignatieff. If 1 or 2 decide not to show up rather than go against the whip, the long gun registry just may die. Considering the amount of taunting and name calling that the LPC and their minions have been directing towards Jack Layton and the NDP these past few weeks on this issue, if it turns out that Ignatieff and his party are the ones that cause the demise of the LG registry, it would be absolutely devastating to his leadership; in fact I think it would all be over for him as leader of the LPC within a few short months.

You are not on the bus anymore Mr. Ignatieff.

The MSM catches up and Ignatieff spining history away.

The MSM finally catches with a story I broke almost 1 year ago about how PM Harper is in cahoots with the Montreal Canadians for what can be described only as nefarious purposes.

From the MSM Yesterday: “I believe that federal powers have taken over the Canadiens,” (PQ language critic Pierre Curzi) and “It helps federalism more than it does our interests,” (PQ Leader Pauline Marois) CBC, the Sun and the NP.

My posting from October of last year.*

Sources close to the Liberal Party have revealed to me that they are planning a press conference later today condemning the fabled NHL team, the Montreal Canadians, for this logo.
According to my source (Thanks Hedy) not only does the "C" look remarkably like the "C' on the current line up of Olympic apparel , the "H" in the middle obviously stands for "Harper".


*related to this.

Also related:

Michael Ignatieff showed us yesterday just how skilled he is at keeping a straight face while simultaneously speaking out of both sides of his mouth to the media.

"John’s not off to a great start, but we still have to take the high road. I have a responsibility to be tough but civil." and “Canadians don’t like that kind of politics. That’s one of the reasons this guy’s in trouble,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “He thinks it’s all so clever to play these games. Canadians don’t think that’s clever, they think it’s stupid.”

Seriously, the leader of the Party that played political games with: (a small sampling from just this last year.)

the Olympic logo (see above)

abortion

the Jaffer story

the budget vote

prorogation

photo contests

10% ers, H1N1 and FAKE body bags stories

stimulus spending (this one is still on-going)

the home renovation tax credit

threatening elections on principle and then denying it

wants us to believe that his is the party that is trying to make Parliament less toxic.



Sorry Mike but I am calling BS. A party, that to this day refuses to apologize for trumping up a made up story about a communion wafer at a funeral with which they used to try and make political hay out of, can't run around claiming to be the party of the high road and get away with it.

Why the media lets him get away with it I will never know.



More examples of the Liberal high road.

Just one of us. The 10 things Ignatieff can't live without.

A list of 10 things Michael Ignatieff can't live without. Proving that he is just like your average Canadian.



Weird, I can't find hockey, beer and the natural wilderness anywhere on that list.


ht Paul Wells.


Related: LPC President Alfred Apps stirs up the ghost of Pierre Trudeau.

Ignatieff messes up again. "No one has ever said or will ever say in this party that Canadian soldiers were involved in torture"


Errr wrong, Bill Prout Liberal candidate for Dufferin Caledon , did just that. (make sure to read the editorial comment.) I would call this one a lie but maybe he was unaware of Prout's comment(s) on Canadian troops being involved in torture.

I do believe however that he must know that other prominent Liberals have been saying that Canadian troops are implicated in war crimes. What does Ignatieff say about that. (hint: this would be a great question to ask Ignatieff if you happen to be near Meet the commoners bus tour. He is too scared to even visit Alberta on his , so I won't get the chance to ask him.

Ignatieff's leadership skills: Loyalty.

Is it any wonder why Liberal candidates seem to be running away from the LPC lately?

Take a look at what Ignatieff said to former Liberal MP Hec Clouthier:

“I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: ‘Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you’re the only one who can win the seat back for us.’ ...

This all sounds nice but there is one small problem: current Liberal candidate Christine Tabbert.

I may be wrong but is asking Clouthier if he wants to run in for the Liberals in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and telling him that he is the "only one who can win the seat back" for the Liberals really the best way to show loyalty for Christine Tabbert or respect to the people of the EDA that nominated her? If Michael Ignatieff is the straight shooter who calls him as he sees them, as the Liberal spin machine would have us believe, does he really believe that Tabbert does not have a chance against current MP Cheryl Gallant, and more importantly has he told Tabbert his thoughts? Way to show your support there Michael!


Clouthier to his credit did not accept the offer, not because there was already a nominated candidate, but rather because Ignatieff would not allow him to properly represent the views of his constituents.

I said I will consider running, but ‘I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents’,” Clouthier recalled.

“He said: ‘I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.’ I said: ‘No, I’ve been there, done that.’ I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again.”

Listening to constituents is something Clouthier knows only too well due to his election loss 10 years ago when he toed the party line on the gun registry against the wishes of his constituents and lost to Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant. Something that 8 other Liberal MP's should seriously think about before they vote on the gun registry in September.

Nik Nanos thinks dissent will kill the Liberals election chances

Nik Nanos thinks dissent will kill the Liberals election chances.



Maybe they need to start a culture war to save the day. Oops, wrong pollster.


Related: I wonder if KoryVision is looking for an in house pollster?

BTW KoryVison looks to have hired Krista Erickson, Yes that Krista Erickson.

They have a handful of hires and they are already more balanced than the CBC!

More rental problems for the Liberals.

The Liberals seem to be having issues with rentals. We had the $1,500 Taj Mahal of toilets rented for a media event where the Liberals were trying to spin excessive spending by the conservatives, we had Judy Sgro who 'gave' her condo to her children and then proceeded to pay them $1,800 a month rent for that same condo for the past four years, and today comes the revelation that another Liberal MP might also be paying rent to a member of his family.

The Chronicle Herald ( alternate link) has been trying desperately to get in contact with Scarborough Centre Liberal MP John Cannis for information on his residence in Ottawa, a condominium owned by his wife Mary, and whether he is paying her rent and claiming it as an expense, which is strictly against the rules. Without a comment from Cannis we cannot know for sure if he is paying rent or not, but what is interesting is that a former Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi shared Cannis’s apartment until he was defeated in the 2008 election. Telegdi said Thursday that he made out his rent cheques for $800 a month to Mary Cannis. It should be pointed out that Telegadi was not breaking any rules by paying rent to Mary Cannis as she is not related to him in any way.

Stay tuned. I am sure Mr. Cannis will come forward soon with an explanation now that he has a little more incentive to do so.


Have a good weekend everyone; blogging will be slow as the sun is finally shining and there are too many things to get done around the ant hill.

The top ten reasons Ignatieff will win

After the crazy day that was yesterday with the aftermath of the CBC story, the denials, and the affidavit, I thought I would remind everyone of the reasons Ignatieff will win the next election; courtesy of Warren Kinsella. (WK link warning)

I like reason #2: 'The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together....' but personally my favorite* has to be #7: 'The Liberals, meanwhile, will continue to embrace communications discipline – because, as Michael Ignatieff clearly has shown them, communications discipline works. The Grits will utterly dispense of the Chrétien-Martin era internecine warfare, because nobody remembers anymore what they were fighting about in the first place. (I sure can’t.)'


*Yes it is my favorite and I am willing to swear an affidavit to this fact.


Updated: I am reminded that the author of the above once held a different opinion of Ignatieff.
Which position does he take today? I will leave that up to you to decide, but going on the CBC National and dropping the bomb shell that he did while most likely knowing the after shocks that it would cause might be a clue.