Liberal Life and Times

Conservatives Living In The Past

2007-11-09T06:44:00.000-08:00

A former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker admits Canada made at least one mistake when we had the death penalty. That was in the 1960s, which prompted the commuting of every death sentence after 1962.

How far back in time are Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, and the Conservative Party, that they think the Death Penalty is okay in dealing with Canadian citizens in foreign countries?

Was Harper A Young Liberal?

2007-10-22T08:58:00.000-07:00

I was reading up on Stephen Harper in wikipedia, and was quite stunned when I saw it was written that Stephen Harper was a Young Liberal in his Highschool days.

Harper became involved in politics as a member of his high school's Young Liberals Club. He later changed his political allegiance because of the Trudeau Liberal government's National Energy Program (NEP), which he thought was harmful to Alberta's energy industry

I find this surprising, but due to wikipedia's flexability, and I wonder if this is true.

If it is indeed the case, this is quite telling. I think this demonstrates at least partially that the Young Liberals organization is a place for anyone to participate and get involved in politics.

Perhaps more telling is that Stephen Harper might still have been a Liberal if it wasn't for the National Energy Plan.

Hey Manley! When Did 4 = Everything?

2007-10-13T09:21:00.000-07:00

It was recently announced Stephen Harper has appointed a panel to study the issue of Afghanistan. On this panel is former Liberal deputy minister, John Manley, "former clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier, former Tory cabinet minister Jake Epp, former Canadian consul-general in New York Pamela Wallin and Derek Burney, a long-time adviser to previous prime ministers and a former ambassador to the United States."

First off, John Manley is not smart. It could be argued John Manley is merely a hack of the Conservative Party, a dupe if you will, playing the role of a Liberal to 'determine' Stephen Harper's already decided conclusion. But I won't make such an argument, though I think it is perfectly valid. I'm not making it, because I don't have to to show John Manley is lacking of intelligence.

The very purpose of creating the panel is:

to examine four options including the status quo; complete withdrawal from Afghanistan; a transfer to another region of the country; or refocusing efforts on reconstruction that would allow for a new military contingent from another country to take the Canadian combat role.

That being said, "Mr. Manley made it clear he wouldn't be restricted to the four broad policy options enumerated by the Prime Minister. 'Everything is on the table,' Mr. Manley said."

So John Manley joined a panel that is limited to study four options, a panel created to study four options, and he thinks 'Everything is on the table'? John Manley should really just join the Conservative Party. Since I'm sure Manley knows from the outset that the Conservatives favour changing the definition of marriage, staying in Afghanistan for four decades, economic values trump social ones, and that freedoms are trivial; but Manley doesn't have to worry that he may be limited to those interests.....because "Everything is on the table."

Justify Rebellion?

2007-09-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

John Locke had a hard time specifying what would justify a citizen to rebel against his or her government; eventually he basically left the power of judgment in the sole hands those who make the decision.

John Locke explored such questions, because as he wrote, governments were being threatened with upheaval. I am no John Locke, but right now the Liberal Party is being threatened with rebellion. The question I ask is, are these people justified?

The Liberal members I am talking about who wish to change the leadership are numerous, they range from bloggers, to possible liberal candidates, to MPs; the force they are wishing to rebel against is their leader, Stephane Dion.

Strong evident reasons to justify a rebellion would be failure by Mr. Dion to fulfill his duties as Leader; in effect he would be breaking the contractual agreement that is the constitution of the Liberal Party. The Constitution of the Party states:

I see that Stephane Dion has met these particular responsibilities.

It could be argued there are other duties or responsibilities of the Leader that are conventional or unspoken. Breach of these responsibilities would be more difficult to use as justification unless they are universally agreed upon or historically evident.

One could argue that a responsibility of the Leader is to ensure election victory or to be in essence a leader with good chances of winning an election; though not in the constitution, this responsibility could be abstracted from the fact a political party needs to win an election to affect it's vision.

If indeed someone did pose such an argument, it would not relate to the present circumstances, and therefore would be invalid. The point that would make the argument invalid, is that no one could say with any evidence that the Liberal Party will lose the next election. It could be argued that the Liberal Party is weak in Quebec and is partly demoralized, but that is only the present circumstances; extrapolation would be a logical error. In fact, one would think the situation would only improve as the Party becomes more cognizant of the problems it faces. Therefore if one is to attempt to justify rebellion because of Stephane Dion's inelectability or problems in Quebec, they are using a weak argument that is based on even weaker extrapolation.

I have attempted to answer, at least in part, when Liberal members are justified to rebel. I pointed out that it they would have a stronger argument if the Leader did not fulfill his written contractual duties, I also illustrated that their argument must not be based on extrapolations.

I have stated I am no John Locke, but I do agree with him. All those who wish to rebel against Stephane Dion, you do so with only yourself to judge your actions right or wrong.

Conservatives Break Another Promise

2007-09-27T14:40:00.000-07:00

In the 2006 Conservative Election Platform, viewable here, the Conservatives denounced the Liberal Party for its unscheduled surpluses, and promised the establishment of an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority so as to be able to forecast such surpluses and maximize public dollars.

19 months after being in office there is still no such office.

And today the Conservatives have announced a 14 million dollar surplus, one of the largest surpluses in Canadian history.

If the Conservatives believed the Liberals were wrong in using surpluses as a political maneuver, the Conservatives are not only hypocrites, but liars for not upholding an election promise they had in the first few pages of their platform.

Conservatives Make History - At Breaking The Law

2007-09-26T11:42:00.000-07:00

Elections Canada has the ability to revoke a Member of Parliament's power to vote in the House of Commons if that member refuses to give information or refuses to open his or her financial books. The independent body never has had to do this. It has threatened to do this though, a Liberal in 2005, but he then gladly submitted. With the Conservative Party however, because Elections Canada is investigating them for elections fraud, they seem a little more hesitant.

In addition, at present, it's not just one Conservative MP that is refusing, it's 17. The Toronto Star gives a great examination of the situation here. Of the notable Conservatives, there's Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and Heritage Minister Josée Verner, and chief party whip Jay Hill. Of the lesser Conservatives, of which there are many, there is Quebec MPs Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourde, Luc Harvey, and Christian Paradis; B.C. MPs Ron Cannan, Dick Harris, Jim Abbott and Colin Mayes; Ontario MP Patricia Davidson; and Saskatchewan MP David Anderson.

Later today Elections Canada will make it's decision known. It could be that these Conservative MPs may be made useless and not be allowed to continue voting, or they may resume being useless and continue to vote. Either way, the scope of the Elections Canada investigation and the threat to 17 sitting MPs, makes the current Conservative Party historically criminal.

What Does Outremont Mean?

2007-09-17T11:04:00.000-07:00

For about a month, pundits on television have been spewing that Outremont is a litmus test, a referendum, a Leadership vote, and whatever other terms that convey some form of judgment upon Stephane Dion. I did hear from various Liberals the same thing. I heard that as Dion was elected over Kennedy because of his Quebec connections, the pressure was on Dion to turn out the vote.

Within the last few weeks, polls have come out showing the Liberals will lose. Within the last few weeks, I've ceased hearing such talk within the Party of a test for Dion. Within the last few weeks rumours have begun to be milled.

The most disturbing is the rumour Ignatieff supporters are throwing the election there on the understanding it would reflect horribly on Dion, perhaps to the extent of ousting him from office. The rumour was given "legs" by Steve Mahar in the Herald, the article can be read here. However it wasn't until Justin Tetreault gave empirical evidence to the support of the rumour that it could be speculated such a rumour is not a rumour at all.

As Justin notes, and quite rightly, that if anything, it is most likely not connected to Ignatieff. Michael has shown immense support for Liberals in that riding, visiting it 5 times thus far, not to mention his other supporting MPs. If I had to, I would assume that there were some Ignatieff supporters, unto themselves, who have decided to throw the election.

Besides Justin's observations, there are various other features that would lead me to such a conclusion.

1.The riding has been Liberal for 80 years (losing it but once).
2.In 2006, the Liberals won the election with over 3,000 votes over the Bloc.
3. In 2006, the NDP had been third, over 7,000 votes behind the Liberals.
4. Ignatieff had the most delegates from that riding (here)

Cerberus in Justin's comments had suggested it was just incompetance and a weak party structure. I would think a weak party structure could not have pulled off 80 years of dominance, nor does it explain how the NDP has become number one in the polls.

What does Outremont mean? I believe in some shape and form Outremont is a vote on Dion's leadership. Dion appointed Coulon, that says it right there. Dion thought Coulon was the best bet, therefore if Liberals lose in Outremont, he should take at least responsibility for the appointment. I personally believe all apointments in a riding are wrong when the riding association is competent. It is by that sentiment that I would hold Dion perhaps even more accountable for any result, win or lose.

Conservatives Not Being Open? Phfttt!

2007-08-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

On The Conservative Party's website Stephane Dion is attacked for alleging that the Harper government is in talks with the United States concerning exporting bulk water to certain states. The website along with various Conservative blogs, all receiving the same email, call Dion a Conspiracy Theorist. It was brought forth that Stephane Dion had little evidence, and Dion recognizes the difficulty in providing evidence of official communications versus unofficial.

This whole story though I believe is still not finished, indeed the Conservatives in responding to the accusation have, in my opinion, provided stronger grounds for at least a deeper investigation.

In this news article detailing the events as the unfurled, and amonst the various quotes from Conservatives, not once does the Conservative Party ever deny the negotiation of bulk water to the United States. The only comment that could be constued as something similar to that effect is:

Asked on Thursday by reporters whether there are discussions under way on the contentious issue, a senior government official flatly denied that it was on the agenda or would be discussed at the three-way talks at Montebello, Que., involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

This paragraph, though perhaps informative, does nothing more then say that bulk water trade is not on the current agenda and will not be discussed at the summit. It does not say that Harper never negotiated with the Americans for future trade on Bulk Water; in fact the language that is used by the Conservatives is quite careful.

Which brings back up the Conservative website; this too walks the fine line of not out-right denying bulk water trade but attacking Dion for making such an allegation:

The Conservative Party and its legacy parties have a strong record of opposition to negotiating bulk water exports from Canada. The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act prohibits bulk removals from boundary basins. And our Government has repeatedly made clear the fact bulk water exports are not on the agenda as Prime Minister Stephen Harper hosts the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello next week.

Just because the Conservative Party and it's legacy parties (Note: Legacy parties is the worst euphemism since nice personality) have had a history, does not mean the present and future will be like the past, an example being Income Trusts. Further why refer to history? Why not just openly say the Conservative Party is against such trade? Then the website concludes such negotiations are not being held at the summit; I would think this is rather obvious as such trade issues will be between three nations, US, Canada, and Mexico, and not just two, US and Canada.

If anyone believes no negotiations on bulk water trade ever occurred between the Harper government and President Bush, could you please provide one statement from a senior Conservative that says so?

Canadian Soldier Dies Because Of Luck?

2007-08-19T09:48:00.001-07:00

The Globe and Mail today has an article detailing another Canadian soldier's death. The report states that Simon Longtin died as a result of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) going off near his Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). The report also includes various statements made by military officials, of particular interest is this:

Pte. Longtin, who hailed from the Montreal area, was the driver of a 2 Platoon Light Armored Vehicle, or LAV, and was simply unlucky, Charlie Company's officer commanding, Major Patrick Robichaud, said sorrowfully this morning.

I do not want to take anything away from this incident; however this troubles me. The commanding officer, the man responsible for Canadian Soldier Longtin, suggests Luck, or the absence there of, is what killed one of his men.

Major Robichaud could have been talking about the one in a million chance of going over the IED; that is the vast possibilities of routes to take, they were 'unlucky' to have taken the one that had the IED on it; however IED's are purposely created to kill our and NATO troops. The very fact that the IED was only 5 km from the base would hope to illustrate that.

If anyone I know died from a mine blast or something similar, I wouldn't call it unluck, the mine or IED was purposely placed to cause such an incident. To explain it by luck or chance takes away the murderous intent by the mine or IED maker.

I do acknowledge the term "Luck" is used to show scientific probabilities, and that is what could have been the case here, but in a life and death situation, slim probabilities should be considered, leaving all "Luck" out of the equation.

Further the Canadian Army should not believe in luck in any form. If a Canadian soldier dies because of an IED going off 5 km from base, investigations should be conducted, witnesses sought, safety parameters made, and most importantly the Canadian and NATO forces should pursue reason and not leave things to luck, so the our forces are never "Unlucky" again.

The Liberal Party's Constitution If Dion Wrote It

2007-04-23T14:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a version of the Liberal Party's Constitution if Stephane Dion wrote it. This is a satirical response to the claim the Liberal Party does not have to run candidates in all 308 ridings; on the record I agree, however if we have the opportunity to be able to run all 308 candidates then the Constitution of the Liberal Party demands it as it's the Party's most fundamental Purpose.

Again, for introduction sake, here is the Liberal Party's Constitution if Stephane Dion wrote it:

2 PURPOSES
(1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:

(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election to the House of Commons and supporting their election, well you see that only applies to what ridings I want and for what I get in exchange for any deals I make. So really this purpose is more like a suggestion;

(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies in some circumstances, it's really tough to call, considering it all depends on where oppositional Party leaders will be running. Liberal principles and policies don't have to be an option in all 308 ridings, 308 is such a large number anyway.

(c) to promote membership in the Party, well we'll see. If a situation arises in a riding or two, we'll sweep it under the rug, and we'll tell everybody principle before partisanship, even if it's someone else's principle.

(d) to raise money to support the fundamental purposes of the Party, hell yeah! This one is unbreachable. Seriously, no kidding. This is in all seriousness a purpose. I know I was kidding around with the other ones, but this one is a keeper. Seriously. THIS ONE REALLY IS A PURPOSE .... seriously.

(e) to provide a forum for members of the Party to have their say and influence the policies and platform of the Party, that is if we choose to.

(f) to coordinate the activities of supporters of the Party, maybe, like we say, these purpose depend on the circumstances. I guess you could call these really oportunities rather than purposes.

(g) to ensure equitable representation of aboriginal peoples at all levels of the Party, well that's only in some ridings. This isn't for all ridings. Aboriginals can be equally represented in 307 or less. Hey I like that, hell-oooo new campaign slogan.

Logically, Dion Has Acted Contrary To The Constitution

2007-04-23T10:14:00.000-07:00

From recent blogs, the idea that the Dion/May deal is unconstitutional has arisen. Cerberus this morning discusses every EDA (Electoral District Association) has a right to elect a candidate and thus the deal is possibly problematic in that regard. Liberal Outsider in a convoluted form points that Dion is "contradicting" a very purpose of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Upon looking at both cases I feel that both are of concern; however when reading the
Liberal Party's Constitution it is demonstratable that the Dion/May deal was at least not in correspondence with the Constitution.

In "Chapter 1 - Founding Provisions" Section 2-1 states:

1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:

(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election;
(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and
policies;

Now in the non-compete agreement made between Dion and May, Dion clearly does not endorse a member of the Party for election in the riding of Central Nova. This seems quite blantant to me to be acting against the Constitution.

The second point could also be argued quite well to be supporting evidence, as Dion, by this agreement did not advocate or support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies. The Green Party's principles and policies are not the Liberal Party's, yet for Central Nova Dion suggests they are.

One could argue about the impact on the local riding Liberals, as did Cerberus and Liberal Outsider, howerver that can be construed many different ways as there are many Liberals in that riding and therefore many perspectives. But one thing that cannot be miscontrued is the logical conclusion that Stephane Dion has acted against the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada.

YouTube Unmasks Rural Conservatives

2007-04-02T16:22:00.000-07:00

At a public meeting, in a public place, Conservatives in a small rural riding in BC illustrated characteristics not far from a Facist regime. A student, Scott Ross filmed an "Open House" with Ron Cannan, his Conservative MP. It was advertised as an open house for discussion of the 2007 budget and as a commentor on a blog wrote, the local news site, castanet reported it to be a meeting of all constituents.

While filming however a senior citizen took the floor stating he wanted to ask questions before the people. Well a Conservative staffer quickly retook the mic and announced the meeting was for Conservative members only. The senior was silenced and Scott who was diligently filming the affair was physically forced to stop filming the event with the accusation he was breaking the law. Indeed the Act mentioned cannot even apply to an organization or individual besides the Canadian government.

This whole incident is too similar to occasions in third world countries that pretend to be democratic and open but in reality limit freedoms and individual rights.

This occurance demands all Liberals to pick up camaras and follow suit but also demands from us that we will never let this happen to our Party.

Merry Christmas And Happy Holidays

2006-12-23T22:46:00.000-08:00

It is not the money in the gift, but the love in the intention, that makes it Christmas. I want no person going hungry, no person hurting another, no person alone; I want all people to know that they are loved.

Merry Christmas And Happy Holidays.
-Daniel Mosely

2006-12-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

Gerard Kennedy Rocks The YLC Biennial Meeting

2006-11-30T14:46:00.000-08:00

Today has been fantastic at the convention. Braeden Caley, Gerard Kennedy BC Youth Co-chair was honoured with Young Liberal of the Year. Politics aside, well leadership politics aside, there is no other Young Liberal more deserving of this award. Braeden has spent years campaigning harder then some candidates. Congratulations Braeden.

Back into the Convention, today began with the theatre we all know as the Leadership Race on the stage of the YLC Biennial Meeting. It began with each campaign sneaking off from the meeting to get prepared to escort their candidate in with the standard hype.

With each candidate on stage, they went into two minute speeches, followed by questions by the youth. The first question concerned immigration; but it was the second that really differentiated the candidates.

Braeden Caley asked, with a camara in his face, "Do you support continueing the mission in Afghanistan up until 2009 and beyond? Yes or No?" Bob Rae was the first respondent, his answer was that he was not obligated because he never voted on it. My question would be, "Is that a yes or a no?" Rae continued that Canada must not forget one of the three "D's," that is development.

Michael Ignatieff answered that we must utilize the three D's, emphasizing development, as he had forgotten what the other two stand for. Overall though Michael showed leniancy in his position, and hinted that 2009 is not written in stone.

Stephane Dion was not clear, he referenced imposing a Marshall Plan-like system on Afghanistan. My question to this is, "How can such a plan be implemented when the country is on the brink of civil war?" But again, Dion had pluses, as he too was hinting at some form of early withdrawal, once a strong civil society has been formed.

The next candidate was Gerard Kennedy. As soon as Gerard began talking, the atmosphere in the room changed. Previous candidates had been speaking as if they were having a conversation with a fellow Liberal; Gerard Kennedy spoke as if he really wants to be leader, he's hungry for it.

His voice booming in the full convention hall, his answer was direct, a simple response stating he was not in favour of remaining in Afghanistan unless NATO reassess's and changes towards a far more effective mandate. Attacking Stephen Harper, and his ignoring of social development, the whole room burst into applause and cheers. Up until tat moment, applause for candidates during speeches was along partisan lines; Gerard was the candidate that inspired crossing over those imaginary borders, and united the room in a common sentiment.

It was in this regard, today was a great day. Braeden Caley, of the blog of the same name and a prominent Young Liberal, was awarded Young Liberal of the Year and Gerard Kennedy garnered YLC excitement unlike any other candidate.

It's More Than A Majority, It's A Clear Majority That Canadians Oppose Quebeckers As A Nation

2006-11-29T11:04:00.000-08:00

The most recent poll has come out, and it is more than obvious that non-francophone Quebeckers, francophones outside of Quebec, and Liberal Party supporters reject the idea of Quebeckers having a nationality other than Canadian.

The poll question was, "Currently, there is a political debate on recognizing Quebec as a nation. Do you personally consider that Quebecers form a nation or not?" And in each category the overwhelming answer was "No."

Non-Francophone Quebeckers responded with 62% saying No.

Francophones outside of Quebec responded with 77% saying No.

Liberal Party supporters 72%

It was the French speaking Quebeckers who were the lone language and regional supporters of the motion at 71%. This is significant, but in regards to the Federal Government as with the Liberal Party supporting such a resolution is unrepresentative and unjust.

I wonder how can any candidate justify supporting the motion that passed?

Especially in consideration of this testimony:

Jean Johnson, president of the French-Canadian Association of Alberta, said the concept of a Quebec nation was settled within Quebec decades ago.
"Taking this dialogue to the federal level creates an isolation between the two francophone communities, the community in Quebec and outside," he said.
"It's not a useful situation in creating a united country."
When the federal government recognizes Quebecois and ignores the rest of French Canada "we're really persona non grata," he said. "We're second-class citizens. It's very emotional, and it's a feeling of being rejected."

First Convention Post

2006-11-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

Today I got to work. I found the Palais De Congres, and went out immediatly to the campaign tables. Ignatieff and Kennedy were the first set up, for a good while a head of the others. Bob Rae's team I heard had been waiting on red and black posters of him, that one Young Liberal mentioned made Rae look like Hitler. I won't comment, I'll let you be the judge.

I then went into Kennedy HQ, which has to be the closest office to the Registration and soon voting room, as the HQ is on the same floor but a 100 meters away. It was great finally meeting the voices you've talked strategy with.

The overall atmosphere of the Convention is comadery, everyone I met was genuinely nice. There was politicking, but that was to be expected.

The day began with Michael Ignatieff registering. It was given quite the extravagance, with people announcing his arrival. Then as he walked into the enormous room a few chanted his name. Talking with a Young liberal after, this Dion supporter thought it was pretty contrived.

I continued the day in the Registration room, guarenteeing rules were being followed. Today, Tuesday, roughly 600 delegates registered. That is 600 elected, Ex-Officio, and Alternates registering. This may seem like a lot, but with a total nearing 6000 solely elected delegates, tomorrow is predicted to be mayham. I hope everyone gets there early.

Some Ex-Officio's I scrutineered over were the MP Denis Coderre, Senator Grant Mitchell, MP Pablo Rodriguez, and some Riding Presidents. Of note, it seemed the ex-officio were having the most problems. Their badges seemed to be missing data, or they weren't fully in the system.

Overall registration for today was extremely smooth, only one report of a woman crying, and that was only because she couldn't be a volunteer. That was resolved with her becoming one. There were a few delegates who hit rough patches but our Liberal registrators were amazing. I did not see one problem they did not reconcile, and I was there for over 5 hours.

There were delegates from all over. Of notice though was only the top four candidates' supporters were clearly wearing their pins today. I only say one Scott Brison delegate wear his pin. After registration I did see a few Martha supporters but that's it.

Gerard Kennedy will be registering tomorrow morning so register early and meet Gerard.

Kennedy For Prime Minister

2006-11-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

Quebecois Have A Nationality, Canadian. Gerard Kennedy Leads.

2006-11-27T08:13:00.000-08:00

Gerard Kennedy has taken the position that the Quebecois are not a nation. Whether you agree with him or not, this is leadership. This is being bold and standing up for what is right.

This announcement is the largest announcement thus far in this leadership race. One only has to gaze at the newspapers to see this.

Winnipeg Sun
London Free Press
Globe And Mail
Toronto Sun
Montreal Gazette
The Vancouver Sun
CBC

These are but a few of the articles on Gerard Kennedys innovative and revolutionary decision.

This announcement has already meant many new endorsements for Gerard. Tom Axworthy, who headed the renewal commission has endorsed Kennedy, as well as a riding president in an Ignatieff's MPs riding. Vicky Dhillon, president of the Brampton-Springdale Federal Liberal Riding Association and a recently elected Brampton city councillor today announced she was endorsing Gerard Kennedy for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership.

Don't Support The Quebecois Motion, Because Your Candidate Is

2006-11-26T16:11:00.000-08:00

I was scanning the Liblogs and I saw a few supporters, one noticably was a Dion supporter. Instead of giving her reasons for supporting the motion she quotes Dion. Gerard Kennedy hasn't made it clear where he will stand. And if he comes out tomorrow announcing he's for the motion, I'll still disagree with him.

Quebecois shouldn't be recognized. Yes it would serve as a symbolic gesture to the Quebecois, but it would not only marginalize more legitimate nations such as the First Nations and the Acadians, but it would lead to growing seperatist sentiment to harbour within Quebec.

You can distinguish nation in a sociological sense, but you know what? You shouldn't put anything in a constitution where you have to specify in what sense the word shall be defined. Ambiguity leads to misinterpretations, and misinterpretations lead to seperation. What the Constitution needs is clarity, any candidate for this Quebec motion is against clarity.

If one thinks their candidate is right in their consideration, how about providing your own reasons, or justifying your candidates?

One thing is for sure, in BC and Alberta referendums on the subject, it would not pass. So alienate the west or piss off the sovereigntists, your call.

In Kennedy I Trust

2006-11-23T18:41:00.000-08:00

I am destroyed by this Quebecois as a nation proposition. Doesn't anybody grasp the implications? Seeing the Quebecois as a nation, is a confusing proposal at best. In the end it will divide Canadians.

Of all the leadership candidates, and I note Ignatieff has fallen in my books yet again. A brieef explanation is needed. First Ignatieff, Dion, Kennedy were my top three. Then Dion and Kennedy, then Dion began giving mixed messages as Ignatieff was making strong decisions, even if they were in error. Then Ignatieff takes credit for this current disaster and he is off my radar, in fact he's buried in my backyard next to Professor wiggle-pants my dead pet gerbil. Gerard Kennedy said it best about Ignatieff's modesty.

"Kennedy said it's "an interesting strategy if (Ignatieff) is saying this has gone according to plan."

That is quoted from this article. The article that is giving me hope for the future of the Liberal Party and Canada. Gerard is leaning towards opposing this nation motion.

Kennedy has stated in reference to this resolution:

"I'm not sure it's the crowning achievement of the Liberal party in recent times,"

Also the article states:

Before making a decision, Kennedy said he wants to know whether recognition of Quebecers as a nation "will influence future domestic or international court judgments."

All I can say is, since all the other candidates are supporting it (Iggy and Dion) or going to support it (Rae) if Kennedy opposes this resolution I will support him to his dying day.

Dion Copies Kennedy, AGAIN

2006-11-22T07:30:00.000-08:00

This morning this story 'broke,' Stephane Dion wants to pull out our troops before 2009, and he wants to do it by also engaging with other NATO countries on our withdrawal. For anyone who has kept current of this Leadership Race you'll find Gerard Kennedy came out with this idea not just a week ago, but months ago. Before Stephane Dion, before any Layton idea, Simply put, Gerard Kennedy was the first to call Afghanistan like it is and say the mission is not being effective.

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position can be found on his website in multiple places, Here, a Forum on Afghanistan, and here.

Dion's Afghanistan Position can be found here, the one lone article he just did an interview on.

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position:

"Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy today called for Canada to push NATO to re-evaluate what amounts to a losing strategy in Afghanistan and for Prime Minister Harper to address the shortfall in aid development.

"If NATO fails to change their strategy, Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan," Kennedy told Ontario Young Liberals as part of the Young Liberal Summer Speakers Series at Ryerson University last night."

Dion's Afghanistan Position:

"Liberal leadership contender Stephane Dion says Canada should withdraw its troops ''with honour'' from Afghanistan before 2009 because their current mission is ill-conceived and misguided."

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position:

"In August, I called for a re-evaluation of what amounts to a long term losing strategy in Afghanistan, changing into one that would be a proper mandate for our armed services, the Afghani people and Canadian principles. If NATO fails to change the strategy, Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan...."The only way we can justify staying in Afghanistan is if we can create a mandate for real success.""

Dion's Afghanistan Position:

"In an interview with CanWest News Service, Dion said the current military mission is not making progress. But he quickly added any pull-out of troops would only occur after discussions with the other NATO countries involved in the military mission."

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position:

"In August, I called for a re-evaluation of what amounts to a long term losing strategy in Afghanistan, changing into one that would be a proper mandate for our armed services, the Afghani people and Canadian principles. If NATO fails to change the strategy, Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan."

"Kennedy noted that Canada has a role to play in marshalling other NATO countries to call for a winning plan in Afghanistan. "Sustainable peace cannot be achieved by military operations alone. The international coalition should focus on the immediate and long-term economic needs of the local communities, and any use of force should be balanced with extensive, visible and effective development efforts," he said."

Dion's Afghanistan Position:

''Canada must say: 'Look, we are very willing to work with you, to design something that makes sense, because I don't want to risk the life of our soldiers if we are not making progress','' said Dion.

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position:

Loss of life, lack of progress and no end in sight weigh heavily on our national conscience. By focusing solely on the military objectives in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper is making the same mistakes that the Bush administration made in Iraq and it will lead to similar long-term failure.

Dion's Afghanistan Position:

''We need to involve the other nations much more. It is really sad what happened because Mr. harper last spring played the macho the one who will be able to carry us out of Afghanistan. He copied the speeches of Mr. Bush, I think President Bush should request copyright from these speeches,'' said Dion.

Kennedy's Afghanistan Position:

It is now clear, Afghanistan faces three interlinked crises: an opium crisis, a development crisis and a security crisis. The international community and the Afghani people must deal with the opium and development crises before lasting security can become reality.

Last year's crop was worth $2.7 billion at export, or 52 per cent of the GDP, representing a 20 per cent increase in poppy planting and a record for the biggest crop in Afghanistan's history, according to the United Nations.
Revenues from opium crops fund the Taliban's operations against international forces. Additionally, without economic alternatives the allegiance of local populations shifts support away from the international community and towards Taliban insurgent factions that capitalize on growing economic desperation.
The biggest failure in Afghanistan to date has been the way the international community has alienated the Afghani people.

Dion's Afghanistan Position:

''You have the Taliban, you have warlords, it is a complex situation. E and we need to work with the other nations to see if we can create a type of Marshall Plan like the one for Europe after the Second World War to be sure that the poppy can be used for licit activities. Otherwise I think it is very very difficult to make progress,'' said Dion.

Now perhaps Kennedy should request copyright from Dion's speeches. Not only that but Dion's position is but a shallow pool compared to the ocean of facts and evidence supporting Gerard Kennedy's position. I advise all to read Gerard Kennedy's website for further details.

Prior to this copying of Kennedy Dion has done it before. In regards to the Canadian Wheat Board, Stephane Dion copied Gerard's stance identically as noted in a previous post here, about nine posts down.

Someone Has A Lot Of Time On Their Hands . . .

2006-11-21T18:01:00.000-08:00

This clip is funny, but some lengths people go to for a laugh.

Stephane Dion, Saying It Like It Is . . . Or Isn't

2006-11-20T08:37:00.000-08:00

Stephane Dion has recently twice taken two sides on different issues. This may seem like double-speak on my part but it's all on how Dion tests the political waters before making any commitments. I have two examples to showcase this quality.

First, this article it clearly says Dion supports Nuclear Energy. In this article, however, it seems Dion adds alot of stipulations. It is in reference to both that it is unclear if Dion is for Nuclear Energy or not. So contradictory that even some Dion supporters think he is for it while others don't. One Dion supporter claims Dion says he supports Nuclear Energy but added those stipulations knowing it would never happen; thus Dion would get the best of both worlds. In all of this, and if one is to give into some Dion supporters claiming he does not support Nuclear Energy, then on one side Dion doesn't support Nuclear Energy, and then on the other he does.

The difference in News stories is most likely a test of the waters by Dion. The taking of for and against Nuclear Energy is troubling.

Another example, this is the most awe-inspiring of Double-speak, it involves Dion's compromise on the Quebec Nation issue. You can read an article concerning the story
here, here, and here. With Ignatieff's quagmire a solution was thought to be needed, so Dion stepped up and drafted a compromise resolution. Let it be clear Dion drafted the resolution (see articles).

An interesting feature of the article is Dion responding to Ignatieff's gaffe:

"Don't go there if you are unable to say how many nations you want to recognize ... Don't pretend that it's necessary and symbolic, second point, because it's a contradiction."

Keeping that in mind, look at what Dion said about the resolution, he himself drafted:

"It's a draft. I'm even not sure myself I would say I support it. But it's better than the current resolution."

Dion wrote a draft and he does not know if he would support it. His thoughts written down on paper concerning the best way to resolve the issue, and he does not know if he would support his own ideas.

Again Dion is testing the water's, he wants to gauge the reaction of those involved before making a commitment. This is an adequate method, for a follower of polls, and not a leader of them.

Herbert Implies Kennedy To Win Leadership

2006-11-17T12:11:00.000-08:00

This Article by Chantal Herbert argues that Liberals will choose Gerard Kennedy as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. They will make that decision by determining which candidate will not only hold the same Liberal seats but gain new ones.

While all the other candidates have their positives. Michael Ignatieff his policy towards Afghanistan and his nation proposal for Quebec. However as we are all aware these pluses are easily translateable into negatives by just going to a different region within Canada.

Bob Rae has the ability to draw NDP support. But he can also lose support be his history as Premier of Ontario.

Stephane Dion, well Chantal is not too friendly. She says he's alienated Quebeckers on one front but has maintained some support from his federalist position. Overall however he doesn't hold more support than Kennedy in the province she even adds that he has the less among the top four.

Gerard Kennedy, however has positives that aren't outweighed by his negative. His negative being his showing in Quebec.

Of the four, Kennedy is probably the best placed to hang onto the Ontario base of the party. His strong showing in the delegate selection process speaks to that advantage. He also is likely to do well in the parts of Western Canada where the NDP is the main opposition to the Liberals.

Despite his shortcomings in French, Kennedy, like Dion, would likely hang onto the Quebec seats the party currently has. If the Liberals did not lose those ridings last January, the party probably will keep them under any leadership scenario.

By Chantal Herbert, a noted Quebec journalist, as well as Justin Trudeau, a noted French Speaking Canadian have all said Kennedy has the best chances, it all but eradicates any misgivings towards Gerard Kennedys future support in Quebec.

Kennedy Will Win Liberal Leadership' - Chantal Herbert, Toronto Star

2006-11-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

Of the four, Kennedy is probably the best placed to hang onto the Ontario base of the party. His strong showing in the delegate selection process speaks to that advantage. He also is likely to do well in the parts of Western Canada where the NDP is the main opposition to the Liberals.

Despite his shortcomings in French, Kennedy, like Dion, would likely hang onto the Quebec seats the party currently has. If the Liberals did not lose those ridings last January, the party probably will keep them under any leadership scenario.

Why Justin Trudeau's Opinion Matters: To Cherniak, and others

2006-11-15T00:04:00.000-08:00

First let me state I address this specifically to Cherniak because everyone knows he his a prominent Liberal blogger, thus his opinion holds slightly more sway than an average bloggers none.

Jason Cherniak gives his sarcastic remark, that since Justin Trudeau is not a delegate then his opinion should not be considered. This is a remarkable position to take. Just looking at this broadly without any deeper inspection, Justin is a Canadian. Therefore his opinion matters as does all Canadians. Liberals would not select a leader if 75% of the population was against him, no matter the support within the Party. This I accept is a mere supportive argument.

My stronger argument is, Justin Trudeau is an icon, it may be inhereited (which by listening to him talk, the future will prove it to by self-made), but he is an icon nonetheless. Jason Cherniak cannot deny that under Trudeau the Liberal Party had a high point; a high point in appeal to non-Liberals and a high point in polls and a high point in membership. Thus Trudeau, the name, is not only remembered within the Liberal Party but outside as well.

Thus when Justin Trudeau takes a position when it comes to politics, the media listens and so does Canadians. Of all the people who have endorsed a candidate (exluding other candidates) none have had the media attention that Justin Trudeau has had within this Liberal Leadership race. If anyone is to doubt this, look at CTV which has done multiple television interviews with Justin, posted multiple articles, not to mention CBC and newspapers. One only has to scan the blogs to see bloggers picking up on Justin Trudeau's latest speculation on the race and he hasn't even endorsed anyone as of yet.

So my main point to all those who question or downplay Justin Trudeau's opinion, I accuse them of not caring what non-Liberals think of the Liberal Party and of Canadians even if it is just one, Justin trudeau.

Justin may have inhereited his icon status and thus no real physical accomplishments, but what he holds, is his non-;iberals, and a wider range of Canadians, attention then the Liberal Party does. Thus in this regard, his opinion is more important then mine, more important then Cherniaks, more important then just an MPs; it is important because he speaks to all those Canadians who were Liberals long ago under Trudeau, he speaks to those that remember how great Trudeau was. The media knows this, why doesn't Cherniak?

Dion Is For Nuclear Energy? What The Fu#$?

2006-11-13T11:02:00.000-08:00

You know I am amazed at Stephane Dion. I am amazed at through this leadership race the real person is slowly exposed. When I was first trying to decide which candidate to support, it was only between Kennedy and Dion. Rae and Ignatieff did not appear Liberal for me. Kennedy was focused on the human side of Liberalism while Dion was focused on the environmental side of Liberalism, thus I chose Gerard Kennedy.

However, things have changed. More evidently, Stephane Dion has changed.

Stephane Dion, and I have posted on this before, pretty much created Kyoto, then he went and missed the vote on it. A former environment minister missing the vote on his own initiative is surprising.

Now it has come out, here, here, and here; that Stephane Dion wants to use Nuclear Energy. Nuclear Energy; a method that not only generates incalcuable risks associated with that generation of energy but creates waste that too has the potential to destroy life.

Nuclear energy may offer decreased emissions in the short term but creates stockpiles of radioactive waste that it is yet unseen when exactly it would be safe.

I cannot believe Stephane Dion is for Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is a hazard to, not only the environment, but all life on this planet. The Sierra Club has already rebuked Nuclear power here. It states:

The Interim Policy of the Sierra Club hasn't changed in regard to the use of nuclear power. Nuclear power is considered to be the least safe alternative to fossil fuels as well as the most expensive alternative....

Safe storage of nuclear waste is a fairy tale. For you or me to believe that we can find a safe storage solution for radioactive waste for millennia is immoral.

New nuclear plants are not a transitional energy source since plants such as Callaway and Watts Bar are licensed for 40 years. A new nuclear power plant is an economic boondoggle. It requires federal grants, loan guarantees, and risk insurance, so will be heavily subsidized by the public.

Our way of life is threatened by the way we produce and consume energy. Our resources should be spent on alternatives to our use of fossil fuel for transportation and alternatives to our use of coal for creation of electricity. We should not spend our economic resources, natural resources, and technological resources to create future problems for humanity with nuclear power."

A Conservative MP is for Nuclear Energy, and as we all know, Conservatives are fantastic when it comes to the environment. So missing a vote on Kyoto and now proposing Nuclear Energy, how many more pages is Stephane Dion going to take from the Conservatives.

Seriously, how can Stephane Dion change so much?

I Hope This Isn't The Beginning Of A Closed Minded Liberal Party

2006-11-10T17:19:00.000-08:00

One cannot help notice how the debate over the LPCQ Resolution of recognizing Quebec as a nation has dominated every forum in the Country. In the media, in the blogs, and in youtube (see previous post). The sentiment within Canada is mixed; outside of Quebec, no one is pretty much for it, and in Quebec, it's unclear.

Within the Liberal Party the spectrum is fuzzy. Which candidates are for recognizing Quebec as a nation and which aren't. They've all said yes to a degree but then the difference of degrees is what makes a mountain different from a hill.

But one thing to notice from all of this, is that everyone has made up their mind. I have came to a position, but I am open to change it. I don't want to change it, to have Quebec recognized as a nation, but if someone was to argue and win against me, for such a proposal, then alas, I would have no other choice. But others are not as open, actually, a lot of Liberals are closed minded.

Close minded because they fear Canada would break up, or that the provinces would have so much power their idea of Canada would no longer hold. Perhaps they want to keep the identity of a united Canada or perhaps they love Quebec. Or more simply they think Quebec is nothing special. Another possible option is, Liberals are so focused on this leadership they'll pick up on anything if it smells of blood; in particular, Michael Ignatieff's.

The latter option, I disagree. I think most Liberals are blinded with patriotism that they cannot conceive of even having a rational debate with other about such a Quebec notion.

In all the multitudes of blogs, newspapers, Television panels, and etc. I've seen or read, not one, not one, offered a chance of debate; not one talked as if it was a debate. Not one positing anything unique to the conversation other than their own opinion of yes or no. Well, I shouldn't say no one, Michael Ignatieff did.

I am not supporting Michael Ignatieff, I am supporting Gerard Kennedy; but I like ideas, whether they be positive or negative. Ideas inspire thoughts, thoughts inspire long trains of processes that arrive at conclusions I would have never conceived. For doing something that all the bloggers, all the pundits haven't, Michael Ignatieff stands out.

Gerard Kennedy has always shined and he continues to do so. In every speech of his he makes me feel more human, more in touch with Liberalism. I am honest and I think that Gerard has not brought a new idea to this debate; in his defense, he does so wishing not to bring Canada into Constitutional ruin, which brings in the component of theory versus practice. So Kennedy is still my favorite, but as Ignatieff has fallen in the eyes of those Liberals who never bothered to open them, he has risen in mine.

LPCQ Resolution And The Liberal Party

2006-11-08T09:16:00.000-08:00

Fact Is The Conservatives Are Detached From Canadians

2006-11-02T10:12:00.000-08:00

While the Conservatives coldly base policy on theory and ignore the most important factor, people; their latest move has hurt Canadians unnecessarily hard. Yesterday the Conservatives attempted to fix income trusts; their maneuver however impacted working Canadians, middle-class Canadians to a greater extent then the upper-classes.

Gerard Kennedy has devoted himself to showing the faults with this government, while others advertise themselves, Gerard sees the priority in attacking Stephen Harper. Kennedy doesn't attack the Conservatives because of partisanship, he attacks them because their wrong. As with this situation, the Conservatives first lied about their intentions. At gerardkennedy.ca it is clear Harper misled Canadians:

In a 2005 National Post editorial, Harper wrote," As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground."

Canadians relied on the Conservatives word to their financial detriment. They broke a key election promise and are serving up the same old game of over- promising and under-delivering. Canadians deserve better.

Now as the government, the Conservatives did a 180 degree turn and devastated income trusts.

This change has hurt Canadians, something the Conservatives either ignored or didn't comprehend in their planning.

he Harper government's income trust cure falls disproportionately and unfairly on fixed income Canadians. Today, thousands of individuals suffered a large, permanent loss in their hard-earned savings as a reward for following the rules of the day and after a commitment from the Conservatives that no changes would be made.

Not only does the Conservatives strategy hurt Canadians directly but it also could have an impact on investor confidence; the impacts of this policy are yet to be fully realized.

One thing is for sure though, and that is this damage could have been lessened by an implementation of a gradual system of introducing reforms to the income trust operations. A gradual introduction would have minimalized any pain felt by middle-class investors and aided Canadians in adapting to the change.

Appearantly Stephen Harper thinks Canadians should just deal with it. I think we should deal with Stephen harper first.

Michael Ignatieff, I Hardly Knew Ye

2006-10-31T09:17:00.000-08:00

I'll be open and honest. It would be in my interest to have Michael Ignatieff remain a top contender until the final ballot, as Gerard Kennedy's support would grow to counter him for a final ballot declaring Kennedy the winner. And as such it is to my disappointment that I am seeing Ignatieff's general support decline; this is a feeling garnered from the media, blogs included.

To prove my point, here is a collection of news articles portraying Ignatieff in a negative light.

1. Globe: Ignatieff favoured by Harper
2. Reuters: Ignatieff is a Hawk
3. Globe: Toronto debate-poor showing
4. Globe: Iggy not a politician
5. Globe: Iggy betrays Trudeau
6. Globe: Ignatieff not a politician, different article
7. Canada.com: Son finds Ignatieff Offensive
8. Toronto Sun: Ignatieff stands against everything Trudeau believes
9. Globe: Ignatieff dragging the rest of Canada down
10. Globe: Kadis Leaves Ignatieff, goes to Rae
11. Globe: Michael Ignatieff is a "fool"
12. Globe: Ignatieff spouts anti-americanism
13. Canada.com: Ignatieff Out of Touch
14. Globe: Ignatieff lacks Sound Judgement
15. Globe: Ignatieff's Gaffe is last straw
16. CTV: Ignatieff loses co-chair
17. The Star Phoenix: Ignatieff campaign sputtering
18. Calgary Herald: Iggy lacks compassion and flip flops
19. Canada-Israel Committee- Asking ignatieff to apologize
20. Straight.com: Canadian Muslim Congress asks Ignatieff to apologize
21. Globe: Iggy plays into Harper's hands
22. Globe(letter): Iggy divides better then unites
23. Leader-Post: Iggy- Major Gaffe
24. Globe(letter): Iggy trying to fool Liberal Party
25. Toronto Star(letter): Not a Liberal
26. Globe(letter): Ignatieff pandering
27. Toronto Star: MPs wife quits in response to Ignatieff
28. Vancouver Sun: Anybody but Ignatieff- Axworthy
29. Ottawa Citizen: Iggy ain't hip
30. Winnipeg Sun: Ignatieff's Gaffe
31. National Post: Iggy Falls
32. National Post: Iggy thinks Israel is guilty
33. Globe(letter by Cherniak): Iggy is confused
34. Toronto Star: beginning of end for Iggy
35. Canadian Jewish News: Cotler says Iggy was wrong
36. Globe: Iggy divides
37. Globe(letter): Iggy not a favorite
38. Toronto Star(letter): Iggy in his ivory tower
39. The Gazette: Iggy needs to watch his mouth
40. CityNews: article and video- Iggy hurt the Party

And these are just the pages that still are current. I know of at least 1o other articles that I couldn't find.

Again I would like to see Iggy turn this around and finish a strong second to Kennedy, but it looks like that won't happen.

The Real Problem With Quebec As A Nation

2006-10-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

Between the leadership campaigns, it is clear the problem rests in defining the steps in taking to call Quebec a nation. Gerard Kennedy in this article states a perspective that most candidates are likely to take.

Kennedy argues that Michael Ignatieff should not be attacked because of Leadership politics but any attack must be directed to the debate to add constructive criticism rather then division. Gerard Kennedy suggested:

"...we need to take some of the leadership politics out of this. I think we need to neutralize this discussion as much as possible.
"There are initiatives being taken from a variety of camps to see that this does not become an accident, that this doesn't (come) in the way of what should be a revitalization of the party in terms of taking the next step and turning a page in Quebec."

But behind this non-partisan approach Kennedy did offer his problems with the current situation.

Kennedy said the resolution is so sensitive and "fraught" with vagueness it could end up dividing Canadians and further weakening the Liberal party. He portrayed it as an "accident" waiting to happen....

Kennedy said on CTV's Question Period it is "problematic" for anyone to raise the idea of reopening the Constitution without providing details as to how that would work.

As to be clear all candidates except Martha Hall Findlay have stated Quebec should be called a nation, the exact phrasing, the exact meaning is to be worked out. Like Gerard Kennedy I think this debate should not be hampered by Leadership politics, it should be contested by all sides so a resolution to all is worked out.

A final note if Quebec is classified as a nation, in that it has a people that are more unique then the people of Newfoundland or of BC or of any other province, I will return my Liberal Membership Card to whoever is Liberal Leader. I fully admit Quebec has a unique people and society, but so does every other province.

I could even pose the argument, this is with no eastern roots, infact I've never ventured farther then Alberta, that Newfoundland is the most unique province. Being the last province to join would have that effect. Also more obviously, there are a lot more jokes about Newfoundlanders then Quebeckers thus giving them an identity that we all are aware of. Whereas a Francophone Quebecker has no real difference then a Francophone from Manitoba. To my argument I will amend that the Maratimes are more unique then Quebec, perhaps the most unique regional society in Canada.

But with joking aside this is not a warning, this is fact, if the Liberal Party accepts Canada as a nation in the definition that I stated above I will no longer be a Liberal Party member. This is no light matter. In politics I am a Canadian first
and a Liberal second. If the Liberal Party challenges Canada, I side with Canada.

Gerard Kennedy Will Beat Stephen Harper

2006-10-30T16:43:00.000-08:00

I have brought up a few of these points before, but they deserve reiteration. These are points strictly in consideration of campaign worth.

Gerard Kennedy Comes From The West- As Liberal Leader, Gerard would be the first leader west of Ontario, this would not only be a first for the Liberal Party, but it would be a huge election selling point. I can see the election ads stating the western roots of Kennedy, his home province of Manitoba, his education and his social career in Alberta on top of his Ontario experience. Simply Gerard Kennedy has the broadest appeal. Broader then Harper.

Gerard Kennedy Has Been A Social Icon- Gerard Kennedy, doesn't have any baggage, and on top of that ran a National Food Bank for years. His dedication to helping the down-and-out puts him at a higher level then Harper. Just contrast the cld calculating economist of Stephen Harper with the warm, caring, food bank director and Ontario Education Minister of Gerard Kennedy. So not only in consideration of the poor, but Gerard has background in ministerial running of the largest province's Education system. Gerard Kennedy's background is far superior then Harper's, appealing to everyone, and cannot be attacked.

Gerard Kennedy Will Change Canada- As Liberal Leader most Liberal leadership candidates do not offer that great of change. Most of the candidayes offering similar plans in regard to Afghanistan. Gerard Kennedy has an innovative approach to Afghanistan that'll offer the Canadian public a choice, and that choice will be Liberal.

Gerard Kennedy Speaks With Passion- Gerard Kennedy and Michael Ignatieff, and to a lesser extent Bob Rae and Stephane Dion speak well. Gerard Kennedy however, wether on television or in the debates offers a real person conversation. Michael Ignatieff quite often meddles into methods unbefit of a politician such as theorizing and drifting into the dialectical. Bob Rae keeps blindly asserting that his Ontario reign was a success for the time, ignoring reality. Stephane Dion, for me at least, has been increasingly rude and arrogant. He has attacked other candidates to which I expected more of him. Simple those three don't portray a relationship with the everyday person. Gerard does.

Paul Wells Blasts Ignatieff

2006-10-25T10:19:00.000-07:00

Now I have articulated my stance in contrast to Michael Ignatieff's, and made clear I disagree with certain portions of his platform, however I must say that different ideas are what the Liberal Party needs. Even if they aren't the best or most proper, different ideas lead to a more thorough debate which in the end gives a stronger conclusion. I believe Gerard's ideas are the best, but if it wasn't for Ignatieff, perhaps I wouldn't have been able to compare and contrast as I did and recognize it. I say this of Michael Ignatieff, as by appearances he is becoming less popular or more of a target of attack, especially in the recent Paul Well's Blog.

The Paul Wells Blog attacks Ignatieff's stance in referring to Quebec as a nation, and goes deep into this argument. Paul quotes the Montreal Gazette:

"None of the Quebec commentators who have been cheering [Ignatieff] on suggest there is even a remote chance of success of his constitutional proposal in the foreseeable future.

"And while the mere word 'nation' might be too much for English Canada to swallow when applied to Quebec as well as aboriginals, the recognition he is proposing is purely symbolic, and so empty that no Quebec government could accept it.

"The campaign manifesto in which he made the proposal says recognition would not be 'a prelude to further devolution of powers.'

"Nor would it be an interpretive clause like the 'distinct-society' clause in the ill-fated Meech Lake accord, directing governments, legislatures and the courts to take Quebec's nationhood into account in interpreting the rest of the constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For Ignatieff 's 'fundamental principles' that are to be respected in the constitution include 'the unity of Canadian citizenship' and 'the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.'

Then Paul sums up the tirade on Ignatieff by making the same observation I gave weeks ago. My observation, under the title, "University of Toronto Professor: "Ignatieff denies what he said meant what it means," I stated:

So as you see it is fascinating, instead of having to apologize, which most jewish groups want, Ignatieff pretty much denies what he said meant what it means; so any need to apologize evaporates.

I find this ridiculous, and troubling that a scholar could make such a claim without knowing or grasping he is double-speaking. And if he is doing it on purpose, I would rather have a leader who is clear and tries not to mislead.

Paul Wells gives how that opinion is actually applied to reality:

Turning to the Globe, we see Raymonde Folco, an MP who wavered in her support for Ignatieff after he called Qana a war crime. "But after speaking to him at length, she said she believes that Mr. Ignatieff did not say what he really meant."

Precisely. A stout refusal to believe what Michael Ignatieff says has become the central condition for supporting his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. The opposition to Ignatieff now comes exclusively from people who fear his words have meaning.

As I have mentioned I welcome Ignatieff to the Party he, like Gerard, have brought new ideas to the party, however because they are not the best ideas I think Michael Ignatieff would not make the best leader.

Gerard Kennedy Puts Renewal First

2006-10-24T14:19:00.000-07:00

Some Liberals believe the Red Ribbon Report was enough, I don't. The Red Ribbon offers superficial changes, changes that are only changes in perspective. We are still the same flawed Liberal Party that lost the last election; we are still the same Liberal Party that fights more amogst ourselves then against the Conservatives. What The LIberal Party needs is real renewal.

The last debate is a prime example of this infighting. Potential leaders digging and attacking other candidates, Liberals booing Liberals, all this is proof the Liberal Party is in repeats. Gerard Kennedy is not attacking other candidates, and he is not trying to divide the Party. There are no "stop Kennedy" websites or venomous articles relating some misdeed Kennedy may have committed in the past, because Gerard Kennedy puts renewal first.

The other leading candidates are focused on gaining the Liberal Leadership, Gerard is focused on changing the Liberal Party. Gerard doesn't want the Liberal Leadership if he can not, with the Liberal membership, change the Liberal Party; to change it into the Party of the 21st Century. I don't want any leader who is interested in anything but renewal, I want Gerard Kennedy.

Gerard Kennedy in a speech at a rally, spoke to myself, and to any other Liberal wanting a real change within the Liberal Party. He was on the stage, looking at every one of us, and he said:

We now have what we needed - a significant foundation to build a strong consensus for real renewal of the Liberal Party. We have already proved part of our point - thousands of Liberals responded to your persuasion, your phone calls, your organization and your example by voting for an ambitious view of the future. There was no outside hype or old machine politics, just other liberals leading the way.

I am more convinced than ever than we can - and we must - win. I know I can persuade Liberals to trust a renewed party - one that relates to ordinary working families, delivers results that matter and earns back the respect of Canadians.

Gerard Kennedy puts renewal first, renewal is present in his grassroots campaign, and it is present in his vision for the Liberal Party.

And This Is Just The Toronto Debate...

2006-10-22T23:17:00.000-07:00

If it was in doubt, the Liberal Party is attacking each other. This clip is concerning the Toronto debate, I'd hate to see one about the recent Quebec debate.

To The Pundits And Bloggers Who Think Gerard's French Will Stop Him From Being Leader...I Pose A Challenge

2006-10-21T22:14:00.000-07:00

To all of those who think Gerard Kennedy's French is the reason he will not be Leader, I offer challenge. Argue Why.

It's that simple.

As to preventing poor arguments, let me refute some right now.

Bilingual Argument - Answering, "Well a Leader must be bilingual, as that is a requirement to be Prime Minister," is not applicable, as Gerard Kennedy has been objectively tested to be bilingual.

Representative Argument- Answering, "Well a Leader must be able to talk French to represent the Quebec people," as above, Gerard Kennedy can speak French, and he will represent Quebec.

Election Argument- Answering, "Gerard would lose a debate against Harper and Duceppe in French," does not hold water either, as in the debates it is clear Gerard can understand French and respond.

Now I do admit, as stated above that Gerard's degree of French is lower then some candidates, but in regard to the Election Argument, understanding and being able to communicate his ideas is more then enough to beat Harper and Duceppe. As Gerard, and some Liberal Candidates already do so on substance alone.

Delegate Argument- Answering, "Gerard only got 1.6% of the delegates proves his French will not get Quebec support in the next election," is so flawed on many levels.

First, an election between Liberals does not even begin to represent how the actual population would vote. If that was true, Paul Martin would have had over 80% of the seats in his election, which he clearly didn't.

Second, only 10% of the Quebec Liberals voted, putting the whole delegate system in question about fair representation. So if you use this premise, you would have to admit all candidates in Quebec are not representative of Quebec.

Third, Gerard Kennedy was at the beginning and apparently still is a dark horse, when Liberal organizational leaders were selecting candidates they chose candidates they knew. I know someone who was at such a meeting of Liberal Organizers, and had let slip they got key organizers in Quebec even before the race begun.

It is your job, you the pundits or bloggers who repeat the same conclusions without providing your premises, to tell me why Gerard's French will prevent him from becoming Leader.

The Comment Section is open to all responses.

Just Look At Kennedy's Record

2006-10-21T13:13:00.000-07:00

Gerard Kennedy on October 19th in reaction to the conservatives environment announcements responded by attacking the lack of substance and innovation in their platform. The whole release can be read here.
This is what a leadership candidate should do. A candidate should act as an opposition leader, because, it is pretty obvious, we are in opposition. Gerard has been repeatedly expressing the concerns of the people of Canada against the Harper government. His most recent is blasting the environment plan of the Conservatives.

"The clean air act is actually a dirty piece of legislation," said Kennedy. "It focuses on pollutants that we already have laws to deal with - if they're enforced - and all but ignores the decisive measures Canadians want and expect for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions."
"Once again, Stephen Harper is trying to change the subject because it doesn't fit within his own narrow vision of Canada. He and his Tory cohorts don't believe in climate change - despite the best scientific evidence - so he's coming up with an environmental do-nothing bill that puts off action, maybe forever," Kennedy said. "We should instead implement clean air standards immediately using existing legislation."

Gerard Kennedy has an extensive environment platform, you can view it here and here. Harper's plan for environment leaves Canadians left out of the government's policies. The Conservatives offer no real improvements to help fix the problems that face Canada and the the World.
Gerard Kennedy also notes that the Conservatives environment policy is:

"especially disappointing in its low expectations and in the way it pits one region against another."
"This is cynical politics, and Canadians will know it. Quebecers say consistently that they want action on climate change, and as someone who lived and worked many years in Alberta, I know that Albertans are way ahead of their Tory MPs on this issue...."
"Taking the easy way out - the Harper way - helps nobody. It's time for a revitalized Liberal Party of Canada that will share Canadians' concerns about the environment, and tackle the tough issues."

This isn't the first open barrage on Harper, Kennedy has made. One of the first grevious misjudgements the Conservatives made was their budget, and Kennedy let them know it. He issued a statement, here, in it he says:

With this Budget, the Harper government abandoned our country's commitments to aboriginal Canadians agreed to in Kelowna - cutting planned funding by 80 per cent .
With this budget, the Harper government abandoned our country's fight against global warming - eliminating every single climate change program.
With this budget, the Harper government has abandoned Canada's students - instead of providing up to $6,000 per student for tuition over four years, this budget provides only $80 for text books. Instead of leading Canadians to a shared national sense of purpose, they chose to recycle the failed rhetoric from Mike Harris' Ontario and left Canadians thinking: 'what does this mean for me' instead of 'what does this mean for my country'.

Following that, Kennedy on his website, gerardkennedy.ca, offers an open invitation to write Stephen Harper a letter to express the need for change in Afghanistan, you can read Kennedy's here. But more examples of Kennedy's assault on Stephen Harper and the conservatives on their Afghanistan stance are plentiful. You can read more here, that is where Kennedy poses:

that Canada can help lead the plan to solve the opium trade and development challenges facing the Afghani people, "The only way we can justify staying in Afghanistan is if we can create a mandate for real success."

Newspapers have illustrated Kennedy's forcefulness in attacking the Conservatives failings, you can read such a reference here.
Gerard Kennedy also attacked Harper in his decision to miss the AIDs Conference, you can read his statement here.
And just recently, just before his response to the Conservative Environment policy, Gerard stood up for farmers by demanding Harper keep the single desk for the Canadian Wheat Board. The CWB has been benefiting Canadian farmers for years, the Conservatives want to privatize it through backroom dealings. Gerard,here, states:

"I know from my own experience that the people who best understand how our food system works are the people facing hunger who I met at the food banks and the people who actually produce the food - our farmers.
"They should debate and decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, not Stephen Harper's ideological soulmates. And to put forward enterprising ideas that will help our vital agricultural economy, our farmers should have all the information, pro and con, not just what the government thinks."

It is quite clear Gerard Kennedy is leading the opposition against Stephen Harper. The Liberal Party is already coalescing around Kennedy's stance on Afghanistan. And as I've noted in a previous post, Dion promptly addressed the same concerns as Kennedy in regards to the CWB. In all the example I have put forth above, in his very character and in his policy platforms, Gerard has demonstrated to me that he is the best opposition against Stephen Harper.

The End Of The Debate, Gerard's Remarks

2006-10-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

The way Gerard handles himself in this video clip only demonstrates to me how a Leader should be.

His speaking skills give him the dominating presence that make it feel like he is the only one in the theatre. The way his voice booms when he is passionate and resonates when he stresses the need for greater human emphasis in politics convey the urgency and importance of everything he discusses.

Most candidates chose to idlely stand behind a podium, a few took the microphone and gave a more personable performance. There is no doubt in my mind that Gerard Kennedy would knock the socks off of a piece of dead wood like Stephen Harper.

Dion Copies Kennedy

2006-10-17T13:08:00.000-07:00

I recently published a post stating Gerard Kennedy's view on the Harper Government privatizing the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), I posted that blog on October 13 at 1 pm, you can view it here. I wrote my blog after checking all the leadership candidates websites.

Well today I checked them again, Kennedy's still says the same thing while Dion's has a new post, amazingly Dion announces the same position against Harper's move towards the CWB. Not only that but on the Dion website it is dated Oct. 13 2006, you can view it here.

I had thought the Dion campaign dated their website to make it look like Dion made the announcement as soon as Kennedy did, but I cannot prove it. I can say without a doubt Gerard Kennedy had the post on his website hours before Dion.

Inspired By A Comment: Dion's English

2006-10-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

I saw this clip on YouTube but I wasn't going to post it because as a Kennedy supporter I know candidates have their weaknesses and Gerard's happens to be French. Well a commentor in a previous post says Dion's English isn't that bad compared to Gerard's French, well watch the clip, you be the judge.

Am I The Only Blogger That Uses Evidence?: Gerard Kennedy Won The Debate

2006-10-17T08:20:00.000-07:00

I must acknowledge that this is my own opinion and every other blogger has contributed their own, but none have provided any real evidence.

Michael Ignatieff never showed any passion, prove me wrong; show me a clip where he changed his low voice more then a decibel higher. I watched the debate twice, and I never saw more then an enthused pitch in his voice. Contrary to Kennedy who conveyed his passion to the crowd and Martha Hall Findlay even Ignatieff, watch the clip. Ignatieff also tried to slam Bob Rae, showing disrespect for office of Leader. It back fired and Rae slammed him, and all he could repeat was "That is not true."

Bob Rae showed some passion but there is no doubting that he was malicious in his attacks on fellow Liberals. The more reason why Bob Rae has fallen in my books. After he slammed Ignatieff there is a image of him laughing that makes him look sinister; it's quite disturbing. Further, Bob Rae looked 65; I take this as another flaw for obvious reasons.

Stephane Dion admittedly showed the most passion out of these three but it was dampered by his poor english speaking. Further Dion lost respect by his continual utterance of "This is unfair," to Ignatieff concerning the previous Liberal government didn't get it done. Lastly Dion too attacked fellow Liberals, I don't want a leader who attacked or was so rude to other Liberals that he made the whole Party look bad.

Scott Brison was fantastic. He brought great insight into every discussion he was involved. He provided humour such as "I play hockey too." He only slammed Joe Volpe because Volpe wouldn't let him finish. Only because of this negativity am I offering that Kennedy won, as Brison had done a great debate otherwise.

As for Gerard, watch this clip. His style of speaking was unmatched and the content of his speeches is so undoubtedly Liberal, he only furthers the Liberal cause. Of importance Gerard unlike the other major three never attacked another candidate, he wasn't even rude. This in my books, as should me in yours is a winner.

Harper Tries Another Behind-The-Scenes Maneuver, Gerard Says No

2006-10-13T13:26:00.000-07:00

The way this Conservative government has been operating is under the radar. Cut spending to programs indirectly or reorganize departments in such a way so they don't make headlines but they still achieve their mistaken objectives.

A current example is Stephen Harper's attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board has proposed a major revamping of its role, which studies show have averaged sales of $265 million more per year over nearly a decade in a half than would have been realized otherwise. The Board proposes retaining the "single desk" for sales, but the Conservative government seeks to create a system in which some farmers could opt out.

The Harper government has ordered the Board to stop disseminating information that supports views in favour of the single desk.

This is a backroom attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board; well Gerard Kennedy says no Stephen Harper.

Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy today blasted the Conservative government for seeking to muzzle opponents of its questionable agenda to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

"Canadian farmers deserve a say in the future of an institution that affects their livelihoods," Kennedy said. "It's another example of how Stephen Harper's Conservatives put their narrow ideology ahead of the interests of ordinary Canadians. Not only is the government pursuing a wrong-headed agenda, it's doing it in an undemocratic way."

For more on Gerard Kennedy's position you can click here. Farmers are also demanding Stephen Harper stops this action, they have spoken out on the subject to the House of Commons, you can read their address here.

For a fuller explaination of the operations of the Wheat Board you can click here or read on.

The negotiating position of the government of Canada at the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks has been to defend the democratic right of Canadian farmers to choose the kind of marketing institutions that will best serve their interests.

For western Canadian grain farmers, this means defending the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) with its statutory authority as the “single-desk” seller of wheat, durum and barley to all export markets and for domestic human consumption.

It is a democratic right because the CWB has a 15-person board of directors - 10 of whom are elected by farmers. Elections are held every four years and every grain farmer has the right to vote. The ballot is a preferential ballot, which means winning candidates must have more than 50% support in order to be elected.

If farmers want to change the board’s mandate, they can do that through the election process or by a plebiscite. Eight of the current farmer directors strongly believe that the CWB adds value to farmers and support the CWB’s orderly marketing authority.

The U.S. and EU want to remove that decision from Canadian farmers. At the WTO talks, their negotiators have been clear that they want an end to the single desk selling authority of organizations like the CWB. Organizations that, in trade lingo, are called State Trading Enterprises (STEs).

Farmers still control board

Despite the fact that the CWB is farmer-controlled, it is defined as an STE because it operates under the authority of an act of Parliament. That Act enables the CWB, on behalf of all 80,000 western Canadian grain farmers, to negotiate with buyers for the best achievable price for wheat, durum and barley. It also empowers the CWB to negotiate with railroads and other service providers for better service at a competitive cost.

The WTO position of the U.S. and EU, whose companies are some of our biggest competitors in the world market, would basically outlaw farmers’ ability to have an effective organization able to compete with these companies.

It would make it illegal for any farm group in any country to establish a marketing organization that had bargaining powers backed by legislation. It wouldn’t matter whether 51% or 100% of the farmers democratically voted in favour of the concept, as it would be illegal under WTO rules.

That’s when the handful of multinationals that already control more than 70% of the world grain trade will be truly unchallenged in their domination. For all intents and purposes, those companies would completely control the world grain trade and a basic staple of the world’s food supply.
Art Macklin

Those companies are actively working behind the scenes to ensure that happens. On Feb. 2 of this year an organization calling itself Grain Vision sent a letter to Chuck Strahl, minister of agriculture and agri-good, also minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, urging the government to change its negotiating position at the WTO. The letter was also addressed to David Emerson, minister of International trade.

It stated:

"Cabinet needs to change this position (defending the CWB). We are asking you, as the ministers responsible for the negotiating position, to immediately put the need for this change on the Cabinet agenda.… We ask that you begin to provide greater consistency in Canada’s negotiating position by allowing our agricultural negotiators to explicitly bring the monopoly powers of state trading enterprises into the discussions…. For greater clarity, Grain Vision is recommending that the government of Canada be prepared to discuss and negotiate the matter of exporting state trading enterprises at the WTO."

Grain Vision is driven by corporate interests

Predictably, Grain Vision is driven by the interests of a collection of grain companies that stand to make a handsome profit from the end of the CWB. The list of companies signing the letter includes: Cargill Limited, Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited, Rahr Malting Canada Limited, Agricore United (a company whose largest single shareholder is ADM), Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (no longer a farmer cooperative), and James Richardson International Limited.

The letter was also signed by a handful of groups like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the Western Barley Growers. Those groups often claim to be a legitimate voice of farmers but in reality would not exist without the sponsorship largess of big corporations. Some urban chambers of commerce, some Alberta government mandated farm groups, the Grain Growers of Canada, and a few other groups also signed the letter.

If the Americans, Europeans and multinational grain companies get their way, new WTO rules will make it illegal for any group of farmers to organize and collectively bargain for export crops.

This becomes an issue of national sovereignty. The principle under attack is the democratic right of citizens or an economic group to have legislation enacted that empowers them to organize effectively in the interests of the majority. To deny Canadian grain farmers this right is also to put at risk this right for farmers producing products under the supply management system.

Trade unions, teachers unions, and many others could also be affected by this principle since they are empowered to bargain for their members by legislation under which a majority vote allows them to bargain for the whole group.

A wide cross-section of Canadian society should be concerned by the WTO attack on the CWB because they could be the next victims if the principle is established. NUPGE

Art Macklin, his wife Donna and their youngest son Nathan operate a family farm in the Peace River Country of northwestern Alberta. Mr. Macklin is a former president of the National Farmers Union and a current elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Top Four Leadership Candidates' Healthcare Comparison

2006-10-13T09:31:00.000-07:00

This comparison is compiled by CTV descriptions of the candidates' views on Healthcare; you can view each here (look on right sidebar). For a more accurate source I advise reading each respective candidate's website. These descriptions were written fairly early so they lack current policies, however there are one or two surprises.

Below the list I will enlist my own comments on the healthcare views.

Gerard Kennedy

Although Kennedy has not published a sweeping platform on health care, he has made comments that make his position clear on controversial issues.

Kennedy has called on the Harper government to continue federal funding of a safe injection site in Vancouver, saying it was a program that saved lives and protects the weakest strata of our society.

"Insite saves lives and is a Canadian social and medical success story," Kennedy said in a statement.

"Of the 336 users who overdosed, the experienced professionals at the site performed life saving interventions and helped provide thousands of users with harm reduction strategies to reduce crime and prevent the spread of disease."

Kennedy also called on Harper to attend the 2006 AIDS conference when the prime minister cited a scheduling conflict, saying he should do the right thing.

"The eyes of the world will be on Canada and it will be a national embarrassment that the head of state of the host country refused to attend," he said.

"Tackling this disease internationally requires the firm resolve of all nations, and Canada has played a significant and pioneering role in the fight to date."
When Kennedy resigned as a Toronto MPP, he reminded constituents of his accomplishments on the health-care front.

He said that highlights during his tenure included significant funding for St. Joseph's Health Care Centre, which resulted in reduced wait times for cancer treatment, hip replacements and cataract surgery.

He also said that while in opposition, he worked with members of the community to stop health care and education cutbacks.

Stephane Dion

Dion has expressed comfort with private practice playing a limited role within Canada's health system, saying most family doctors practice in their own offices and send patients to get blood work or tests in private laboratories anyway.

"But this private sector involvement should in no way jeopardize the five principles of the (Canada Health Act)," Dion added, "notably universal access."

He says what Quebec Health Minister Dr. Phillippe Couillard is trying to accomplish in his province is a good way to engage the private sector. That is, focusing the sector on diagnostic tests, "in a way that strengthens the public sector and universal access to the system as a whole."

Dion said he's for giving significant federal transfers to the provinces so that they have the power to improve their health systems, but within the parameters of the CHA.

"I want to do much more to improve Aboriginal health, increase health research, promote healthy lifestyles and sports activities," said Dion. "I want to put in place a better Canadian drug approval process, and better international cooperation on dealing with pandemics that we must prevent in Canada."

Michael Ignatieff

Ignatieff's health-care strategy so far offers no specifics. In a Maclean's piece in September, he declared that the federal government has a legitimate role under the Canada Health Act to ensure that all Canadians have access to publicly-funded health care.

But he has described health care as a "provincial jurisdiction" which the federal government should play an overseer's role in.

In a speech to the Canadian Club of Calgary in May, he seemed to exhibit openness toward Alberta's desire to pave its own path to medicare.

"Albertans, like all Canadians, believe that Canadian citizenship implies equal access to quality health care paid for out of general taxation," he said.

"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."

He described the best role for the federal government is to be a "clearing house" of ideas on how to deliver the best health care to provinces while containing costs.

Bob Rae

Rae supports a universal, taxpayer-funded health care system -- but he suggested that he wouldn't be opposed to using the private sector to deliver those health services.

On Sept. 7 in Toronto, Rae unveiled a health-care platform that featured a "single-payer" medicare system, and said he would expand that system to include a National Catastrophic Drugs Plan -- which would cover "catastrophic" drug costs such as those some cancer patients are hit with.

"No one in Canada should ever have to choose between their health and financial catastrophe," said Rae, "and that is too often the case today."

"We have to find innovation in the public system. We have to find more cost-effective ways of delivering service; we have to find more technologically adaptive ways of delivering service."

When he was premier of Ontario, Rae also put in place the Trillium Drug program, which covered residents who can't afford high prescription drug costs.

Comments

Gerard Kennedy lacks a comprehensive plan, but so do the rest of the candidates. I do admit Kennedy in this description didn't outline his vision as well as Ignatieff, but most points are made, see his website for his more comprehensive view. Kennedy does give evidence of his motivation and experience in healthcare which I find admirable.

Stephane Dion gives a shocking statement, he allows for an element of private healthcare. This is news to me considering I've read every speech listed on his old and new website and his journal work. I am questioning Dion as a potential second.

Michael Ignatieff takes a more decentralized role when it comes to healthcare. My only qualm is that he puts healthcare solely under provincial jurisdiction, this is problematic to me in that not all provinces can supply a sustainable level of care.

Bob Rae leaves it vague as to whether he wants even more private involvement in Healthcare then Dion, which significantly worries me. Also cost-efficiency does not necessitate private healthcare. I believe the current system needs to be more stream-lined and more involvement and coordination by doctors.

Of the four I would have to say Gerard Kennedy and Michael Ignatieff give the most reasonable positions. This is going on the above information. I do have other information but only on some of the above candidates.

University of Toronto Professor: "Ignatieff denies what he said meant what it means"

2006-10-12T09:53:00.000-07:00

I was reading the Globe and Mail when I ran across this story. On reading it I thought it had good points, but would have no real significance as it was probably like my blog, just one voice, no matter how articulate it is. But on reaching the bottom, I was quite surprised to see who it was by, it read:

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.

I was quite flabbergasted for many reasons. First, a Professor of a major University in Canada wrote this about Michael Ignatieff:

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.

This is interesting in that a high academic was motivated in speaking out against Ignatieff.

This brings on the second point of interest; the fact that the writer is such a academic. Often Ignatieff supporters boast of Ignatieff's education and position, I must admit this seems to indicate that Ignatieffs acclaim is not all that correct.

But of all, this Professor brings up a very good point about Ignatieff's Orwellian style of talking:

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.

So as you see it is fascinating, instead of having to apologize, which most jewish groups want, Ignatieff pretty much denies what he said meant what it means; so any need to apologize evaporates.

I find this ridiculous, and troubling that a scholar could make such a claim without knowing or grasping he is double-speaking. And if he is doing it on purpose, I would rather have a leader who is clear and tries not to mislead.

Clifford Orwin finishes with the last paragraph:

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?

As Ignatieff Loses Support, Kennedy Gains Support

2006-10-11T17:58:00.000-07:00

Michael Ignatieff, as reported earlier has lost the support of an MP:

Federal Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff's latest comments on the Israeli air strike in Qana have cost him a key campaign member.

Susan Kadis, a Thornhill MP and his Toronto campaign co-chair, withdrew her support Wednesday after Ignatieff accused Israel in a televised interview on Sunday of committing a "war crime" in the July 30 bombing in Lebanon.

The full article can be read here.

Now it is interesting because on this same day, Gerard Kennedy has another supporter announcing his endorsement:

Greg Elzinga, president of the Vancouver Centre Liberal Electoral District Association, a man who has played key roles in numerous federal and provincial election campaigns in the eclectic urban riding today endorsed Gerard Kennedy's campaign for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

As riding President in BC and as an extremely experienced individual, Greg Elzinga brings assets that are invaluable to our campaign. When asked about why he joined Gerard Kennedy, Mr. Elzinga reponded:

"Kennedy recognizes the growing importance of Western Canada. I believe he is, hands down, the best of the candidates and I also believe that his stance on what Canadian society, Canada's environment and economy needs to become best reflects my image of Canada.

This is a study of contrasts between two candidates; one discourages a supporter, while the other attracts more.

Michael Ignatieff: The Fallen

2006-10-11T15:19:00.000-07:00

Michael ignatieff has lost support and is making enemies. Just scanning the blogosphere you can find Ignatieff supporters renouncing Ignatieff and declaring their withdrawal of support; granted they do so anonymously, but the effect cannot be understated. Further loss of support for Michael has been generated all from his statement, as taken from the National Post:

In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show, Mr. Ignatieff apologized for comments in August when he told a newspaper he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli bombing that killed dozens of civilians in the Lebanese village of Qana.

"It was a mistake. I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it," he told the French-language Radio-Canada program Tout le monde en parle.

"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."

His accusation that Israel committed a war crime has began a fierce reaction against the leadership candidate that has caused more damage to him then Volpe's scandal to Volpe, and it has been but a few hours.

Just recently announced was that Susan Kidias, a Member of Parliament who had previously supported Ignatieff has stated her withdrawal of said support. This statement came through her communications assistant in a communication that has marked just one disastrous event after another for Ignatieff. The full communication reads:

SUSAN KADIS WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FOR IGNATIEFF

THORNHILL - Susan Kadis, Member of Parliament for Thornhill, announced today
that she will be withdrawing support for Michael Ignatieff.

Kadis' comments come after Mr. Ignatieff told the French-language
Radio-Canada program "Tout le monde en parle" that Israel's attack on Qana
during theconflict this summer was a "war crime". Mr. Ignatieff was
commenting on astatement he had made in August when he said he was not
losing sleep over an Israeli bomb strike on Qana. He went on to say that it
was a mistake, and heshowed a lack of compassion.

"Michael is an intelligent person and I would think that he would have a
better handle on the Middle East given his years of experience on human
rights and international law". Kadis stated, "I find his unprovoked comments
very troubling given that fact that the Israeli response came in light of
brazen kidnappings by Hezbollah of Israeli soldiers". Kadis continued,
"Israel did not seek this confrontation and would not have occurred if UN
Resolution 1559 had been implemented. This was an attack intended to root
out a recognized terrorist group who were raining down thousands of missiles
on Israel".

-30-

For more information contact:

Shannon Earle, Communications Assistant

Yet this is just one of the examples of Ignatieffs fall. The Canada-Israel Committee has put forth a call for Ignatieff to publicly retract his statement and to apologize. You can read their address here.

Further examples are present in the National Post article:

His comments, broadcast on Sunday, sparked an angry reaction among Jewish leaders who learned of them yesterday.

"That's appalling. To call it a war crime is totally, totally unacceptable," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada.

"I have to wonder if he is pandering to certain delegates who will be voting in the Liberal election for leadership."

Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, said it was frustrating to hear Mr. Ignatieff's accusation.

"For somebody as well-informed and experienced as Mr. Ignatieff, he should know that is not a reasonable charge to level against Israel," he said. "What he ought to be preoccupied with is the kind of intolerance that gave rise to the conflict to begin with and the extent to which there are efforts to have it leach into Canadian society."

He said his group had been concerned by previous comments about the war made by Mr. Ignatieff's chief Quebec organizers, Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez. Mr. Coderre took part in a pro-Lebanon march in Montreal in August at which some participants carried the flag of Hezbollah, which Canada has classified as a terrorist organization.

Since joining the leadership race, Mr. Ignatieff has had to back down from controversial comments several times. Contacted for clarification yesterday, an aide to Mr. Ignatieff said he would not retract the use of the term "war crime,"...

In just under a few hours Michael Ignatieff has caused the loss of the jewish community, of an MP, of notable interest groups, and of grass root supporters; one can only wonder what will happen in the days to come, and what he would do as Leader.

Michael Ignatieff: Judge And Jury

2006-10-11T11:48:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of blogs about this, but I just want to provide my own insight into this event.

The National Post reports, here, Michael Ignatieff "has accused Israel of committing "a war crime" during its conflict with Hezbollah last summer."

Michael ignatieff, a respected candidate for Leader of the Liberal Party alleged on a Quebec talk show that Israel committed a crime paramount to sanctions and international consequences. Now some have said this is just one in a series of Gaffes for Michael, I disagree. This is by far the most irresponsible action one could imagine. This is not some membership scandal like Volpe, but this is an exact example of a mistake Ignatieff would make as leader of the Liberal Party and of Canada.

I seriously fear Michael Ignatieff could possibly harm Canada by what he says. There are fundamentalists that would react quite strongly to such a statement made by a nations leader.

Others already are speaking out against Ignatieff, as noted in the article:

His comments, broadcast on Sunday, sparked an angry reaction among Jewish leaders who learned of them yesterday.

"That's appalling. To call it a war crime is totally, totally unacceptable," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada.

"I have to wonder if he is pandering to certain delegates who will be voting in the Liberal election for leadership."

Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, said it was frustrating to hear Mr. Ignatieff's accusation.

"For somebody as well-informed and experienced as Mr. Ignatieff, he should know that is not a reasonable charge to level against Israel," he said. "What he ought to be preoccupied with is the kind of intolerance that gave rise to the conflict to begin with and the extent to which there are efforts to have it leach into Canadian society."

I am really interested in hearing a defence of Michael Ignatieff, because I cannot fathom one, logically that is.

Gerard Kennedy-That's to get your attention, Now Brainiacs, Stop Going To Altavistagoogle.blogspot, You Give Him Money

2006-10-10T10:32:00.000-07:00

Altavistagoogle.blogspot.com aka Canadian republic, is making up material and making flashy headlines just so the Kennedy supporters and all those who are swayed by tabloid headlines go there because he generates revenue for every person who visits his site. He repeats the same things over and over, he doesn't post anything new!

Don't visit his site! He mentioned Kennedy in one post and now since all those supporters went to his site he has seen how lucrative it is. Just don't go. No one respects him or even thinks he is a legible blogger. He says he doesn't lie, well read his headlines.

Stop going, ignore him. If you keep going you'll only perpetuate his disgusting blogs. He has no job, he has no prospects, (he admitted that himself); he relies on visitors, stop giving him money, stop visiting his site. I am boycotting his site as I hope all bloggers will.

"Green" Gerard

2006-10-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

As Stephane Dion has performed at least a highly questionable act, missing the vote on Kyoto, I was motivated to reflect on Gerard Kennedy's platform on the environment. One of Gerard Kennedy's papers on the environment can be found here.

It begins with an introduction by former Minister of Environment, Charles Caccia, MP for Davenport, 1968-2004. Mr.Caccia outlines the importance of certain environment policies, such as the Kyoto protocal, and he also emphasizes the need for a leader who is dedicated to achieving those policies and goals.

To this end 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; a leader who can make difficult decisions. We have such a leader in Gerard Kennedy.

A prominent feature of Gerard's motivation for environment prosperity, is that he knows that our climate, our earth needs real policies that work because of the growing problems we face.

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.

This is what differentiates Kennedy from the other candidates, the role of the economy in relation to the environment. A major factor of the American's not signing on to Kyoto was that other countries would profit by the U.S. being hampered by environmental restrictions. Thus economic concerns outweighed the environment to the Americans. Mr. Kennedy does not place economic interests over environmental interests; he sees them as mutual perpetuating forces, that with the guidance of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments can better both spheres.

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.

Having environmental and economic interests working towards a successful Canada, industry and technological advances will serve as a byproduct which will only serve to further the virtuous cycle of environment sustainability and growth.

Gerard Kennedy is putting forth a National Strategy for Energy and Environment. Planning to work with the provinces is necessitated by the reform needed to thoroughly direct environmental policies; "We have to merge and integrate environment and economic policies. We have to modernize federal and provincial tax systems. We have to give momentum to environmentally beneficial technologies." Kennedy advocates such a strategy, a strategy that will work with the provinces and regions to protect the fragile ecosystems that exist in Canada while fostering green-friendly industries, "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."

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.

Gerard Kennedy does not leave it at just talk, a crucial difference between Gerard and others, is his reliance on results. If a policy isn't working, if it's just talk it is worthless. He provides not just policies but a system of assurances to determine if these policies are as effective as they should be. His framework for his strategy on Environment and Energy 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.

I am sure other campaigns have quality environment platforms, on my opinion in substance and practicality Gerard Kennedy has the most principled and applicable strategy. Gerard not only seeks to revolutionize government's outlook at the environment but having it working with it in the economic sphere as partners to feed off of each other to create a more prosperous and successful Canada. It is only through the use and measuring of results that this can happen, and this is a quality that only Gerard Kennedy's platform has.

The Real Negatives During The Leadership Race

2006-10-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

Over the past months bloggers have made a big deal about many things, so let's try to take perspective on them, and see which are real negatives and which are the most disastrous. I will try to be as unbias as possible, feel free to disagree in the comment section.

Michael Ignatieff

Well in the beginning Michael Ignatieff had the most "gaffes." When asked if he'd run in the next election, Michael answered, "Depends who is leader." After public uproar Michael quickly made clear he would run in the next election.

At the time a lot of bloggers used this to argue Michael isn't that dedicated to the Liberal Party. Because we can't get inside his head, however, and from his past interviews I see that he was kidding in some respect and if one uses a suitable level of charity, the remark could be understood as such.

Yet in politics the public rarely uses charity, so in this regard, Michael's gaffe could foreshadow future errors as Leader. Thus he was termed 'the Rookie' early on.

Also another mistake of Ignatieff's was in an interview Michael said he was not losing sleep over civilian deaths in Lebanon, you can read it here. He even admits it was a mistake. Now this can also be attributed to his being a Rookie, but it also opens the door to another bigger problem of Ignatieff's; he is too detatched. This may seem unfounded, but I have heard this from a Provincial Youth Co-chair of Ignatieff's as well. Michael, being an academic, has been more concerned with theory then reality, and thus does not understand or appreciate the human component as he should. Therefore he committs himself to cold statements such as "not losing sleep."

I see his detachment from the more practical, humanistic side, as the real negative of Michael Ignatieff.

Also there was a dispute involving Michael and memberships but that will be ignored as Michael was proven wholly innocent.

Bob Rae

Bob began well, though not popular, his reputation was rather clean; however as he became more popular, more negatives began to develop.

The first was that it came out, that Bob had contributed to the NDP in the past election. He defended it as (and this is no alteration) "giving to charity." He also pointed out that he gave to the Liberals as well. Including the use of any charity, I see this as undeniably horrific. Bob Rae, a former Premier should know, that a polutical party is not a charity.

For giving to the Liberals, that excuse does not make the first action right. If you consent that giving only to the NDP is wrong then my argument is won. My argument goes: If giving solely to the NDP is wrong, and since Bob Rae gave to the NDP and the Liberals then it is a neutral outcome; then by that reasoning, doing a wrong is erased by the action of something right. However that conclusion is an absurd logical deduction.

Bob Rae did not give to the Liberals to apologize in giving to the NDP but he gave to both illustrating his opportunism. In giving to both parties, Bob Rae made friends in two parties.

His opportunism is further collaberated by his switch from the NDP to the Liberal Party.

This is the real negative of Bob Rae, his opportunism.

More recently, Mason Loh, Rae's BC Campaign Manager resigned because of submitting form 6's that were forged. This is a real negative but not Rae's prominant flaw. As with charity it could be argued Rae had no idea of the scheme and thus is not liable. Then others can claim Rae should be punished for it as Volpe was. Looking at the story right now and basing my opinion on those facts, I think a fuller deeper investigation is warranted, guilt to be judged later.

Gerard Kennedy

Now because I am a Kennedy supporter I don't doubt recieving criticisms of prejudice, and because I made that declaration I don't want to give the impression they aren't warranted, but I would like any comments to illustrate some basis.

Gerard maintained a clear reputation like Rae for most of the race, if not all, however one incident tarnished his record.

I say it may have put a blemish on Kennedy's reputation, but I do not think it did. First, not many people even know what I'm talking about, to show the low profile or unimportance of the event. Indeed the only public mention I can find and that only has been referenced to by any blogger was this. The article states that Raymond Chan brought in voters to a Delegate Selection Meeting on a Bus, and as it notes, is strictly against the rules.

Where I point to it being subordinatly important, is the fact not only that no newspaper or journal or news program picked it up, but that Raymond Chan admitted to the error and took full responsibility. Not only that, but in the same article it is referenced that other Leadership campaigns committed the same offence. In the comments section it is admitted that Ignatieff's Campaign did the similar strategy.

For those who still disagree, I pose that in degrees of offences forgery, as was in Bob Rae's case, and transporting voters, are very distant. The consequences are evident of this. Mason Loh has stepped down, where Chan has publicly apologized.

Gerard Kennedy though has a real negative, but not in the same genera as the previous two, Gerard's real negative is he is not a profficient french speaker. This real negative has been deemed the root reason why Quebec organizers selected other candidates; I won't offer speculation. Gerard has been criticized for poor French, I personally think it is mediocre. I dare you to distinguish between an expert french conversationalist and a French or Quebec citizen. My point being that judging language skills is often done by either saying it is good or that it is bad. Clearly Kennedy could get by in a discussion with a Quebecois, he isn't the best or even good, but he can get by.

I see the reasoning behind the criticism that Kennedy does not speak the best French. And as this is not my defence of Kennedy, I will not go into my argument. The real negative of Kennedy is that he speaks mediocre French.

Stephane Dion

Stephane too like Gerard and Rae began with a clean reputation, but this was a story that broke that reputation for Dion. I read the articles about this and the blogs, I see that there was a lot of exaggeration by the media as no consequences have been imposed. However because Mark Marrison admits to doing the action and Mackinnon makes clear the action is at least questionable I see this in the same regard as Raymond Chan's Bus of voters, but to a lesser degree.

A flaw for Dion, and this is from observation from blogs and results from the super weekend, is that he does not speak English that well. Now he can talk in english and make his point clear, but he does not portray his emotions or strength in any of his speeches. He has gotten better since I met him, but his english is not the greatest. You are probably wondering then if I'm comparing Kennedy's french to Dion's english, well I don't know. I am not perfectly bilingual, so I can not compare the differences.

The most recent and biggest flaw for Dion that I can percieve is that he was absent in the vote on Kyoto. Kyoto was implemented under Dion as Environment minister, Dion was known for his focus and committment to Kyoto. He was so passionate about it, he named his dog Kyoto. Then when the vote was held by the Conservative government Dion did not show. That is the real negative of Stephane Dion; he doesn't stand for what he says he does.

Now this may seem quite negative on my part for making such a claim, however just because I support Kennedy, does not mean I do not support the environment.

Stephane Dion is quite obviously a green candidate in the Liberal Party. So much so, he published his Green strategy in multiple parts because of it's length. Yet a vote to determine Kyoto's implementation, Dion misses it.

Another example is, in a previous post I have mentioned this as well, Dion talks about his youth campaign, and says how he values it; yet there is no youth website. Now money does not necessarily determine value, but in politics you don't usually take someones word when others are actually demonstrating it. Ignatieff and Kennedy both have youth websites to allow the youth of the party to bring their ideas and discuss them in an open environment.

Recount In Quebec And It's Consequences

2006-10-05T21:51:00.000-07:00

A recount in Quebec is already underway, not because of hanging chads (What, a 6 year old joke isn't funny? You'd think I'm Jay Leno...) but because the original counters counted wrong. CTV reports that:

According to three different leadership camps, the recount started Thursday afternoon after it was discovered that party officials in Quebec had incorrectly rejected blank ballots or those cast for candidates who've dropped out of the contest.

Under party rules, those ballots should have been counted as undeclared or uncommitted.

The full news report can be read by clicking here. The consequences for this recount are of some importance. Now since those ballots are no longer rejected, but are considered undeclared ballots, that increases the number of undeclared delegates as well as reduces the delegates for the front-runners in Quebec, Ignatieff and Dion.

It reduces Ignatieff's and Dion's as the percentage of undeclared ballots would garner delegate spots and reduce Ignatieff's and Dion's percentages in that riding and thus reduce their delegates. CTV estimates Ignatieff and Dion could lose up to 35 delegates.

Also the report also suggests that the Liberal Party in general failed Quebec. Gerard Kennedy was blasted for his 1.7% turn out in that province, now that percent will increase due to the recount, but also only 10% of the registered Liberal eligible to vote actually did. This indicates the whole Liberal Party failed Quebec. I am a Kennedy supporter. but this article is very disappointing in its exposing of the Liberal Party's problem in Quebec.

Rumor About Dion, Important To Note, It Is Just A Rumor

2006-10-03T17:37:00.000-07:00

Well the Liberal blogosphere is full of speculation, the word is Dion will drop out of the race to support Kennedy. What is the evidence, you ask? Well it appears that an anonymous blogger made a comment here (Second comment down) and then that led to this which led to a fire around the blogosphere. But I think we have to take this for what it is, a rumor and nothing more.

It isn't backed up by any evidence, though Liberal Outsider suggests Dion hints at it in a letter here, but this does not prove anything. So Anonymous commenter, unless you have any evidence to support your claim, I will say your statement is false and perhaps even a lie.

You may be wondering why I am calling someone who is telling me that one of my candidates competitors will drop out and support him a possible liar, it may seem odd, but I would rather have an honest fight, based on policy, till the convention, then speculation and ghosts.

So let anyone continuing this rumor either provide evidence or don't spread gossip.

Rae, Kennedy, or Dion. All Possible.

2006-10-03T08:19:00.001-07:00

Excert from my conclusion:

If we can't say who will win, then what can the Rae campaign, Kennedy campaign, and Dion campaign do? Well they can argue policy, present their candidates better. Cherniak wants to show why Dion can beat Ignatieff to sway the anybody-but-Iggy-crowd to Dion, because he hopes Dion is the only contender who can do that, but as I have stated that is false. Rae, Kennedy, or Dion could take on Ignatieff. I guess Cherniak doesn't believe his candidate can sway people on policy alone.

Who can beat Ignatieff? Honestly, any of the top three, Rae, Kennedy, or Dion, can beat Ignatieff. This is disagreeing with Cherniak's crystal ball but it's a fact. Rae could win this, Kennedy could win this, or Dion could win this, but more importantly Ignatieff could win this.

Rae could win this by Kennedy supporting him. Possibly Kennedy would support Rae over Dion because of ideological similarities. This is in stark contrast to Cherniak's machiavellian view of politics which is quite disturbing.

Cherniak thinks a candidate supports another wholly based on future power gains. It may be true, but that has huge exceptions. Through the exceptions I can easily show that it may be true but it is no way possible to jump to that conclusion due to contrary evidence.

Would Dryden support Ignatieff? In fact Cherniak has a lapse in his power-theory and postulates Dryden would go to Kennedy because they have similarities, not because of power gain. Dryden wouldn't support Ignatieff because of the huge differences in ideology. Furthermore, if a candidate did support another candidate it does not follow his supporters would too. Looking at the candidates, Rae is more similar to Kennedy then Dion. So it follows more would go to Rae. But it is unclear if Rae's NDP background would have an overiding factor to influence Kennedy supporters away.

Kennedy could win this by Dion supporting him. If Dion supported Kennedy, Rae would support Kennedy, or at least his supporters would because of similarities. Dion possibly would support Kennedy because Gerard is more similar to his platform then Rae; also Dion would go to Gerard because of again Rae's NDP background, and since Gerard's poor showing in Quebec, Dion would be given extreme influence in the campaign. His supporters would mostly follow forcing the majority of Rae supporters to come as well.

Dion could win this by Kennedy supporting him. I just said Kennedy would rather support Rae because of similarities, but this contrary opinion within my own post is building on my conclusion that fortune-tellers like Cherniak ignore for obvious reasons. I mentioned it is unclear if Rae's NDP history woud deter Kennedy supporters, and give them to Dion, thus Kennedy could support Dion. With Dion higher then Rae it is possible that Rae goes Dion.

What is evident here, is that any of the three can win. Cherniak uses machiavellian premises to suppose Dion will win. Such premises all rest on a candidate wanting power, such as Martha wanting a french-canadian and quite humourously Cherniak cites "facts are facts." I hate to point out a flaw, actually I don't, as this one is ridiculous; afterall opinion does not equal fact.

Why would Martha want a French-Canadian? So next time it would be an english Canadian? This alternating system between English and French is not even convention, if it was explain Ignatieff's dominance? Wasn't Martin before him? A fact is a fact, an opinion is not a fact. A fact dictates how reality is and will be, clearly I just illustrated a flaw in your facts, mainly because they're opinions, however well-thought out they may be.

What Cherniak and others want to portray is that there are guarentee's, that there are "facts" that can be used in determining who to give your second ballot support to. Well I'm telling you, that any "facts" anybody tells you are opinions. Cherniak wants to limit who can win, but the almighty Cherniak, even he can't do that.

Rae, Kennedy, and Dion have possibilities to win. There are so many factors that it is opinion motivated by bias that tells otherwise. I am a Kennedy supporter, I don't know who will win, but I hope it's Kennedy.

If we can't say who will win, then what can the Rae campaign, Kennedy campaign, and Dion campaign do? Well they can argue policy, present their candidates better. Cherniak wants to show why Dion can beat Ignatieff to sway the anybody-but-Iggy-crowd to Dion, because Dion is the only contender who can do that, but as I have stated that is false. Rae, Kennedy, or Dion could take on Ignatieff. I guess Cherniak doesn't believe his candidate can sway people on policy alone.

A theme then is present here, Cherniak emphasizes the pursuit of power as the ultimate motivation in selecting a candidate. He does so in postulating why candidates should support Dion, but he also does it trying to convince readers of his blog. He hopes readers of his blog are too, only after power. He does have a place for policy; it distinguishes Ignatieff and everybody else, but pursuit of power is what will collapse 'the everybody else' into Dion. Well Rae or Kennedy or Dion have the same liklihood of ganing the collapsing support, it isn't the pursuit of power that should crown one of them, it's policy.

To convince you I urge you to read the below post, it's from thescottross.blogspot.com. It's what real policy means. I give the entire post because the archival system he uses makes it hard to cite. Here it is:

Why I Look Up To Gerard Kennedy
I look up to Gerard Kennedy, and I realize that that may sound corny or overly sentimental. The thing about Gerard is, I don't just agree with his vision of Canada, I admire it. His latest policy release concerning the strengthening of the equality of women is by far the best policy proposed yet in this leadership race.

First let me explain that a major turning point in my deciding a candidate to support was listening to a speech made by Gerard. In it he said that we have to listen to the quiet sounds; those are sounds that institutions don't listen to, that they have no bureaucracy or procedures or funding to handle them. A student having difficulties learning in an overcrowded classroom, with the teacher too busy to help, that's a quiet sound.

All my life there has been a 'quiet sound"; I knew it was an injustice, but it became so normalized that eventually I accepted it even though I knew it still affected my mother. I grew up in a single parent home, my mom had to work two jobs; one was delivering newspapers at four in the morning, the other was a secretary at Sun-Rype Ltd. She worked extremely hard at both. At Sun-Rype she quickly advanced, from secretary to Customer service, and from there she became manager of Customer Service and Sales. Currently she has a staff and a secretary of her own. The thing is, however, that in all this advancement, in all this positions, money was tight, and there was one fact that kept constant; if she was a man she'd have been making 20% more.

As a boy I'd hear my mom refer to this, not as often as she was justified to do. After a while though, she gradually stopped and I never really grasped the effect this has.

There are other policies from other candidates that have their points, and then there is Gerard's international country, the new value of enterprise, and his extensive environment paper; but out of everything from everybody, this women's equality proposal is by far the greatest. It's great for many reasons; first, it's a policy that should be implemented as soon as possible, no questions. Second, it has real practical value. Unlike other candidates who use vague language in which their policies could be implemented a thousand different ways and thus differ in theory and practice, this policy of have women's wages equal to men's has a singlur translation from the theoretical to the practical. Third, this policy is liberal through and through. It looks to correct the institutions that affect our lives, and in doing so, better them.

Gerard Kennedy listened to the quiet sound, maybe not specifically to my own experience, but to someone's; and now that sound willl be answered with the equality my mother and women deserve. That's why I look up to Gerard.

Predictions

2006-10-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

I predict that by the end of the day the numbers will look like this:

Ignatieff: 28%
Rae: 18.5%
Kennedy 18.5%
Dion: 17.5%
Dryden: 5.4%
Volpe: 4.4%
Brison: 3.1%
Findlay: 1.3%
Undeclared: 3.3%

This is just based on the fact that Ontario has more seats to go then Quebec. Quebec will increase Dion, butnot enough. Kennedy will increase because of Ontario and BC, possibly Alberta. Ignatieff will not grow significantly to stay at 30%. Volpe and Brison will stagnate and thus lose % points. Dryden will stay constant but at no % growth.

You can comment, but this is just to put out my thoughts to see how close I am.

KENNEDY HAS THE MOMENTUM

2006-09-30T19:59:00.000-07:00

Everyone is watching the lovely and fantastic Liberal Leadership Live Delegate Tracker, and I admit I've been watching it quite fanatically through my phone banking. I've been keeping records of the frames from each poll being recorded. From my observations Gerard Kennedy has the momentum. You can see below:

You can see that Kennedy increased by 3% in 40 pollings being returned. Dion was at one time 9% points ahead of Kennedy, as seen here Kennedy has narrowed that lead down to a fluctuating 4%. With polls coming in it must be wondered how much more will Gerard Kennedy rise?

Kennedy, My Candidate

2006-09-28T17:03:00.000-07:00

I am a Young Liberal in BC. My parents are divorced, I lived in Vancouver for most of my life. Looking back on it, I guess I lived in a few bad neighbourhoods growing up, but at the time I never saw the crime or the filth that those areas are now filled with. Growing up, I think I just saw the world through eyes that never aged. Perhaps I still see the world through innocent eyes, always believing there is good in everybody and people can change; but the difference between me as a kid and now, is that I know reality can be painful.

Since my perspective always tries to see the good, when I see wrongs and injustices they don't conform to my idea of the world. Crime, War, Injustice, those shouldn't exist. So when I hear about people in Canada that are starving, when children are being ignored in school, when Canadians are dying in the Middle-East, I want to change that. I don't want people in the alleys of a downtown anywhere, starving. I don't want children's lives affected forever by crowded classrooms. I don't want Canadians focused on military objectives when soon we will be forced to fight the Taliban as well as the people of Afghanistan. I want to change that.

That is why I am involved in Politics, in the Liberal Party, I want to change the world. Gerard Kennedy has that perspective. It is like mine, ideal in theory but practical in reality. The evils and maldecencies that occur in Canada and the world should not happen, they should never occur. Gerard has stated policy after policy that not only addresses and seeks to resolve the problems facing Canada, but to attack the roots, the social problems that give rise to all others.

From the environment, to Womens' equality, to Afghanistan, to the Economy, Gerard does not deal in the superficiality of semantics, he does not just talk, he acts. As other Candidates give speeches about Afghanistan, Gerard Kennedy addressed Stephen Harper and openly attacked the mission.

Gerard Kennedy is the Liberal that can draw from the NDP support without losing the more conservative Liberals. Gerard can do that by being the Liberal Leader of old. Caring and compassionate, with the skills of incorporating all views into the Party.

Gerard Kennedy will win the next election, he has no dangerous faults as other candidates do. Gerard has been a Liberal for a long time, he's lived in Canada all of his life, he's hasn't been investigated in this campaign, and the most compelling is he will bring his youth and new essence to the Liberal Party to re-identify it as the Party of the 21st Century.

I selected Gerard Kennedy because he believes that injustices and wrongs should never occur. That everyone in Canada and the World deserves food to eat, that children deserve a good education, and that torture is never O.K., and that war should always be the last option.

I know reality can be painful, but I also know it shouldn't be; that's why I have chosen Gerard Kennedy.

Gerard Kennedy: My Perspective And My Candidate

2006-09-28T12:41:00.000-07:00

I am a Young Liberal in BC. My parents are divorced, I lived in Vancouver for most of my life. Looking back on it, I guess I lived in a few bad neighbourhoods growing up, but at the time I never saw the crime or the filth that those areas are now filled with. Growing up, I think I just saw the world through eyes that never did. Perhaps I still see the world through innocent eyes, always believing there is good in everybody and people can change; but the difference between me as a kid and now, is that I know reality can be painful.

Since my perspective always tries to see the good, when I see wrongs and injustices they don't conform to my idea of the world. Crime, War, Injustice, those shouldn't exist. So when I hear about people in Canada that are starving, when children are being ignored in school, when Canadians are dying in the Middle-East, I want to change that. I don't want people in the alleys of a downtown anywhere, starving. I don't want children's lives affected forever by crowded classrooms. I don't want Canadians focused on military objectives when soon we will be forced to fight the Taliban as well as the people of Afghanistan. I want to change that.

That is why I am involved in Politics, in the Liberal Party, I want to change the world. Gerard Kennedy has that perspective. It is like mine, ideal in theory but practical in reality. The evils and maldecencies that occur in Canada and the world should not happen, they should never occur. Gerard has stated policy after policy that not only addresses and seeks to resolve the problems facing Canada, but to attack the roots, the social problems that give rise to all others.

From the environment, to Womens' equality, to Afghanistan, to the Economy, Gerard does not deal in the superficiality of semantics, he does not just talk, he acts. As other Candidates give speeches about Afghanistan, Gerard Kennedy addressed Stephen Harper and openly attacked the mission.

Gerard Kennedy is the Liberal that can draw from the NDP support without losing the more conservative Liberals. Gerard can do that by being the Liberal Leader of old. Caring and compassionate, with the skills of incorporating all views into the Party.

Gerard Kennedy will win the next election, he has no dangerous faults as other candidates do. Gerard has been a Liberal for a long time, he's lived in Canada all of his life, he's hasn't been investigated in this campaign, and the most compelling is he will bring his youth and new essence to the Liberal Party to re-identify it as the Party of the 21st Century.

I selected Gerard Kennedy because he believes that injustices and wrongs should never occur. That everyone in Canada and the World deserves food to eat, that children deserve a good education, and that torture is never O.K., and that war should always be the last option.

I know reality can be painful, but I also know it shouldn't be; that's why I have chosen Gerard Kennedy.

The Importance Of The Youth: Kennedy and Ignatieff

2006-09-27T15:21:00.000-07:00

Youth is one of, if not the most important factor in this Leadership race. For two reasons, the first is that youth delegates and the youth of the Party play a huge part in the race by being around 33% of the delegates and having the technological skills to blast into the blogosphere (excluding of course the exceptions of Cerberus and Cherniak who out do the young guns regularly). The other reason is Youth in the form of new ideas and rejuvenation the Party needs to change the Liberal Party and to change Canada.

But here the first point is of interest here. The Liberal Party recognizes the importance of Youth, giving them the opportunities to reshape the Liberal Party and to keep it current. In fact on the YLC homepage it states you don't even have to agree with the Party in fact they promote difference of opinion; that's how the Liberal Party can change with the times. That is the importance of Youth, to have the Liberal Party in touch with the present so it can continue into the future.

Because the youth are our future, it seems important for Leadership candidates to address Youth concerns. However out of the eight rmaining candidates only two think the youth of the Liberal Party are worth addressing specifically and providing a website to accommodate they're diverse opinions. Those candidates are Gerard Kennedy and Michael Ignatieff. In my book the only two candidates who have demonstrated a desire to represent all interests.

Gerard Kennedy was the first to have a site specifically for youth, at Generation Kennedy, he was followed by Michael Ignatieff with Iggy Nation. I support visiting both sites to see the differences. I won't explicitly say which is better, but I do think Kennedy's is actually more youth oriented as opposed to Ignatieff's that seems less organic.

Either way both candidates are models of how a Leader should be. He should focus on the present and think of the future. Bob Rae has no real youth wing; a Bob Rae youth delegate is motivated either by a chance of power or is easily influenced.

Stephane Dion has an extremely vehement youth wing, indeed Kennedy's and Dion's are the largest youth wings of the campaign. The question is where are they in Dion's view? I take the position of putting your money where your mouth is. A candidate can say he is for the youth and rejuvenation, but if he ignores your interests or subjecates you to a lower recess, is he really?

There is a youth for volpe site, but it is in poor taste, I'll leave you to find that on your own.

In all this, it is pretty clear what candidates recognize the importance of youth, the future of the Liberal Party, and which candidate should be leader of the Liberal Party.

So Much Opportunism, So Little Time. The Problems Of Bob Rae

2006-09-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

If you grant me the lieniancy required, please allow me to use 'opportunism' in place of other motives of Bob Rae. This post will go to show quite readily Bob Rae's opportunism.

A Short History Of Opportunism

Bob Rae has only been a Liberal for a few months, becoming a member in February. I know this from amoung other things, because I was at an pre-leadership event of his in Vancouver. At that event even Bob joked about his ink on his membership card still being wet. This was just two months since he had contributed against Liberals, to the NDP. He also contributed to the Liberals, but not to the advantage the NDP recieved; for more information, click here, scroll down and read, "How Can A Liberal Be So Un-liberal." At that time he also told a friend he wanted the NDP to gain more seats. That was then, this is now. Bob Rae is a a few months old as a Liberal and he's running for Leader of the Liberal Party.

Present Opportunism

In Maclean's, you can read it here, Bob Rae seemingly proves my point of his opportunism. Bob states:

"The big change in my life wasn't going from being a New Democrat to being a Liberal," he says. "The big change was from being in opposition and being in government. It made me think about politics in a different way -- the need to get to solutions, the need to set priorities. When you're in opposition you can say all sort of things."

I admit one has to analyze what he says, but for what politician do you not have to. The big change for Rae wasn't between Parties but between being in power and not being in power; this is troubling, Rae is either saying the NDP and the Liberal Party are extremely similar or Bob Rae didn't change. I have only crossed off the option of growing out of the NDP ideology because I believe that takes longer then two months. We can assume the NDP and the Liberal Party are not similar; thus Bob Rae didn't change ideologies.

Why Opportunism

Then why did Bob Rae change parties if not ideologies? The latter part of his statement adequatly answers this, "for power." That's the only change Bob wanted, the big change from being in opposition to being in government. This is the opportunism of Bob Rae.

Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, and Martha Hall Findlay, only candidates not suspected of any wrong doing

2006-09-25T11:13:00.000-07:00

This race is turning into a disgrace for the Liberal Party.

First Joe Volpe with his numerous assualts on Liberal Dignity with signing up members who were way too young. Now his current scandal of signing up dead people and paying for membership fees, you can see a blog's satirical take on this here.

Then there was this aricle, it explains that Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden, and Scott Brison are under investigation for giving out confidential information about Liberal members.

Now Michael Ignatieff is having his reputation rebuffed and actually sullied greatly, and in doing so the Liberal Party's. It seems Michael Ignatieff has a complaint against him. 48 members in his riding had their memberships paid for them by the Ignatieff campaign, the evidence is pretty strong. Newspapers have quickly jumped on this; reporting it here and here.

So with 5 of the leadership candidates having their conduct questioned, it makes you think. Is a good strategy for future leadership races, to not do anything that would merit investigation or complaints? You would think this is obvious, yet here we are, with a majority of our potential leaders being put forth in the media as scandolous crooks.

Bob Rae, the leading; Gerard Kennedy, the dark horse; and Martha Hall Findlay, the underdog, all have warranted no scandals or disrepute for the Liberal Party.

49% OPPOSE AFGHANISTAN, 38% SUPPORT: Plus how the candidates stand

2006-09-24T22:13:00.001-07:00

The Toronto Star put out this article giving the poll results and then listing the Liberal leadership candidates's stances on the issue.

49% of Canadians surveyed oppose the mission in Afghanistan, dramatically higher then those who support at 38%.

I hope you read the article. Here's a summary of the positions in relation to the poll numbers.

Joe Volpe:

Wants to change the mandate.

Bob Rae:

Wants a discussion.

Hedy Fry:

Stay till 2007, but keep our original mandate.

Martha Hall Findlay:

She can see staying or leaving, all depending on our NATO partners.

Ken Dryden:

Stay in Afghanistan, in fact he never talks about positvely leaving, just about extending it.

Stephane Dion:

His stance is somewhere between Harper's and Layton's, his words. Also depends on our troops and if Afghanistan wants us.

Scott Brison:

Not just military, must have humanitarian component, and reviews of our mission.

Michael Ignatieff:

Home after 2009.

Gerard Kennedy:

Home if NATO doesn't change it's mandate into a more effective one.

The question is who represents the people?

Fact Is Dion Campaign Broke The Rules

2006-09-24T00:13:00.000-07:00

I blogged earlier of three campaigns that provided the Strategic Council Poll with confedential membership lists; appearently, quite disturbingly no one is shocked or dismayed. Maybe because everyone likes Dion, Dryden, and Brison, I for one do. But I'm not blaming the candidates, unless they knew. Odds are however it was their campaign managers who lacked the judgement necessary or who were underhanded and purposly and knowingly broke the rules.

For those of you who do not know the situation, in the strategic poll Dion and Dryden got supremly higher numbers then what they had been getting. It turns out, here that they supplied the poll with their membership lists. So wonder of wonders, their numbers go up, looking way better then before.

For more reading on the shadowy actions of Dion in him breaking the rules you can go here

Scott Brison is also accused of this, but as Personally Penny pointed out, his numbers should have been alot higher. So I personally agree with Penny.

Now I've already had the commentors trying to downplay this, which is just Orwellian to me. How can you deny something is black? No matter what they say I'll always see four fingers, I'll always see that the Liberal Party RIGHT NOW is investigating those campaigns. That's a fact! You can't spin that.

So far, the party is still investigating. Party national director Steve MacKinnon said, “Needless to say, using our membership lists for anything other than the intended purpose . . . troubles us. Membership lists are the property of the Liberal party and they are not to be disseminated to anybody on whim.” (glad to see that it’s about the party’s property rights, not members’ privacy interests - ed.)

Dion’s campaign director, Mark Marissen, claims “his camp received legal advice that it was within the bounds of the agreement to give the membership lists to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll”, pointing to terms of the confidentiality agreement that permit the lists to be used by “an outside source” if the source signs a confidentiality agreement.

Some commentors have noted what's the harm? Me qualm, and it may be just a little reflex of mine, is when someone breaks the rules they get punished, especially when they break the rules, agreed upon by the party for their own advantage. Mark Marissen even admits they did it, currently he's saying they thought it was by the bbok, but this is just one more incident highlighting Mark's questionable methods.

Another example of hopefully just Mark's "accidents" and not Dion's was that during the last leadership convention, Jean Chretien requested that leadership camps in his riding allow an "undeclared" slate win so as not to politicize his role in the convention. At the convention his delegates would be fair game. Jean was granted this request.

After this precedent, Paul Martin made the same request to all 10 leadership camps, and after much consideration, 9 agreed. One refused. The refusal came within days of the Form 6 submission deadline, and came from Stephane Dion, despite the fact the request was conveyed to Dion via two Martin-ites turned CanaDions: Tim Murphy and Mark Marrissen. The refusal from Stephane was in very poor taste. Perhaps it's because he has no ground organization and required all the delegates he could get?

Dion, Dryden, and Brison, tsk, tsk

2006-09-23T16:12:00.000-07:00

An article highlighting the dirty and shadowy attempts of some candidates. Most notably the second tier candidates who want to change public perception about their chances. Well it looks like Volpe and Bob Rae have some company.

I can't believe this.

Liberal leadership contenders face possible sanctions
Canadian Press
OTTAWA Three Liberal leadership hopefuls could face sanctions for giving
the party's confidential membership lists to a newspaper which used the data
to conduct a controversial opinion poll on the leadership race.
The Globe and Mail, which published the poll results last week, said it
obtained the lists from the campaigns of Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden and Scott
Brison, although the latter's camp has since denied any involvement.
Yet each candidate was required to personally sign a declaration of
confidentiality before the party handed over the coveted lists of members
across the country.
In the declaration, candidates agreed to take "appropriate measures to
protect the confidentiality of the personal information on the lists." They
further agreed that they "will not disclose the lists to anyone outside the
Liberal Party of Canada." Liberal national director Steven MacKinnon said
the party is still investigating the possible breach of confidentiality.
"Needless to say, using our membership lists for anything other than the
intended purpose . . . troubles us," Mr. MacKinnon said.
"Membership lists are the property of the Liberal party and they are not to
be disseminated to anybody on whim," he added. "We are taking this very
seriously."
Mr. MacKinnon would not disclose the nature of the sanctions that could be
imposed on candidates deemed to have broken their oath to protect the
confidentiality of the lists. But party insiders said punishment options
include a private reprimand, a public reprimand, a fine or even
disqualification of a candidate, an unlikely option in this case.
Leadership hopeful Joe Volpe said he's not sure what penalty could be
imposed but "I'm told they're quite harsh and severe." However, Mark
Marissen, Mr. Dion's campaign director, said his camp received legal advice
that it was within the bounds of the agreement to give the membership lists
to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll.
He said the paper and pollster, Strategic Counsel, signed declarations
ensuring the lists would not be used for any other purpose.
Mr. Marissen pointed out that the confidentiality agreement signed by each
candidate expressly states that use of the lists by "an outside source" such
as a mailing house or call centre, is allowed, provided that a
confidentiality declaration is signed.
Not all rival camps were buying the argument, however. Some noted that
campaigns would ordinarily use a call centre to solicit support from
members, not to conduct a poll.
If camps did provide the lists to the Globe, Mr. Volpe said: "It's in
contravention of an agreement that all the campaigns signed."
"We all undertook to keep the lists within our respective campaigns and to
use them . . . for membership or voting purposes only," said Alex Swann,
spokesman for former Ontario premier Bob Rae's campaign.
"It was a serious undertaking. We take those things seriously." Mr. Marissen
said the Mr. Dryden and Mr. Brison camps also provided lists to the Globe. A
Dryden spokesperson was unsure but Mr. Brison spokesman Dale Palmeter
vehemently denied his camp's involvement and said he's demanded an
explanation from the newspaper.
"To the knowledge of everyone on our campaign, no one provided the lists,"
he said.
Moreover, Mr. Palmeter questioned the results of the poll, which suggested
that Rae and Michael Ignatieff were virtually tied when party members were
asked who they'd support on the first ballot. Mr. Dion was close behind. The
poll also suggested that Mr. Rae and Mr. Dion had the best potential for
growth on subsequent ballots.
Mr. Brison emerged with only three per cent support but Mr. Palmeter said
the poll appears to have surveyed very few Liberals in Atlantic Canada,
which will account for 10 per cent of the delegates to the December
leadership convention and where Mr. Brison's support is strongest.
Mr. Palmeter pointed out that the survey didn't even bother to specify the
sample size or margin of error for the region, although it does provide such
data for all other regions of the country.

SO TRUE. SO KENNEDY.

2006-09-22T14:38:00.000-07:00

I don't care what candidate you're supporting, you're candidate should at least ask this about any government act:

'How will this translate into results? Where are the results?'"

This quote is taken from today's Globe.

Keeping government in the theoretics and distant from people and their daily living is a part of why the Liberals lost the last election. What has to be done is government in accordance with results. This transcends any difference in Liberal Ideology, in fact it's non-ideological, it's a principle of procedure how an effective body should be ran.

Most Liberals already accept this, as seen in the result of our election loss motivating us to change.

Gerard Kennedy has this characteristic, the Globe iterated that fact today.

Michael Fullan, senior policy adviser to the Premier and chief architect of Ontario's blueprint for raising levels of numeracy and literacy, said he was "amazed" to find at their first meeting that the minister knew more about the proposal than his own officials. Mr. Kennedy quickly became its driver.

In Mr. Fullan's judgment, four things made Mr. Kennedy effective: concern for social justice, his sheer, intellectual prowess, an obsession with results, and indefatigable energy. "He must have worked 20 hours a day. I'm sure it made him annoying to some staffers. Too much micromanagement. Too many expectations. He didn't berate anyone, but he was demanding. He put enormous pressure on people, because he was driven that way. I've worked with policy makers for 25 years. Most just want to get it on the books, not worry about implementation. Gerard's take was, 'How will this translate into results? Where are the results?'"

Having a result based government will constantly keep it renewed and connected with the people it governs. It must be reactive to the changing needs of the people. Gerard Kennedy already has done that.

"I established clear goals, at the ministry and elsewhere, and gave a lot of latitude, but was never content to see those things not done. You have to get the implementation. There's nothing worth getting up for otherwise."

This, he conceded, "was a bit unusual for people. They were used to being handed an objective along with, 'Could you at least make it look like this is happening?' But government is not an academic exercise. It's spending people's money and causing some good to happen."

Kennedy's ministry was a success in Ontario and has been an example to other provincial and federal ministries.

Act Together, New Leader, Afghanistan: Liberal's will Win, Conny's will Lose, No Coalition Necessary

2006-09-22T10:43:00.000-07:00

An article in the Toronto Star places huge emphasis on the fact that the Liberal Party won't win the next election, partly because of the electoral system and partly because other parties are becoming more prominent. The article could be summed up with the reporter announcing his views that the Liberal Party should be more left,

And with a coalition it is likely to lead a government that actually represents a majority of voters, instead of its usual 38 per cent to 40 per cent. This is an advantage that is uniquely available to the Liberals: The Conservatives, because of their solo position on the right, could not, given the current party support pattern, attract any coalition partners, so are condemned to form only minority governments, or to form the opposition.

But the he goes on to add that it might not give a majority, in fact I propose it wouldn't even give us a minority.

The NDP is their obvious first choice. If that does not offer sufficient seats to form a majority (as is currently the case), then the Liberals could opt for a minority government in the hope of surviving with a few Conservatives not voting, or Bloc members crossing to support them on an individual basis. This is not an ideal situation; but it is the best on offer, and better than any available to any other party.

With a coalition with the NDP Liberal Members would dwindle. The reporter, Hugh Thorburn forgets about the political spectrum within the Liberal Party. There are Liberals who find the NDP too socialist-like in nature. This is just an observation of members especially in my riding.
If the Liberals and NDP were to team up, it would be an end or at least obstacle to the Liberal Party.

I am bold enough to state that the LIberal Party will win the next election without a coalition. We will do so with a new leader, (Partisan Warning) perhaps Kennedy, and we will win by our stance on Afghanistan, on our renewed structure, and the freeness of no sponsership related propaganda. What we need however is the belief and determination that we will take the conservatives down.

To Hugh, the electoral system will due until a better one comes along. All systems have their faults. For him to base long-term perspective on one election is beyond extrapolation.

Hugh forgets the past and thinks that people are now no longer Liberal. He forgets the reason people wanted Liberals out was so we'd get our act together. Well we got our act together and we got a whole new game.

Not Infighting, Just Fighting: There's Nothing In The Liberal Party Called The NDP

2006-09-21T09:20:00.000-07:00

This Bob Rae has clearly gotten myself and many others angry. On my blog you can see I posted on Sept. 18 to vent and show my extreme disgust with his actions. Joan Bryden a reporter for the Canadian Press, either through bias or complete error has reported my motivation and others as attacking Bob because of the strategic council poll that showed he was the leader. So not only does her article refute Bob Rae's actions (quite poorly) but she also advertises that he is in the number one spot.

First, to Joan Bryden, look here, do you see the date? Sept. 18th, same with Northern Liberal's. Now look here at the Strategic Council's poll. It says Sept.19th. So Joan, your article made it in countless newspapers, such as here, here, and here, and you were completely wrong. You misrepresented Liberals against Rae. It's not that he's leading that I have a problem with him, it's that he's un-Liberal that I have a problem with him.

Now Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail is also wrong. Bill here, is also saying it's in light of the poll. I must again say check the dates of my post with the Council's poll.

Let me set this straight, even before this poll I thought Bob Rae does not have a good chance, I still think he does not.

The NDP contributions he made are beyond any petty Leadership feud, this is a Liberal feud vs the NDP.

Bob Rae contributed during an election to the NDP, while I was contributing to the Liberal cause. A literal translation, Rae was my opposition. I can not support or even respect someone who thinks they can lead me when so soon ago they were fighting me in federal politics.

Michael Ignatieff, I can follow. I may fight with his campaign, but we fight over differing Liberal values and principles, not different ideologies or political parties.

In Curry's article he goes on to:

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis also said he has problems with the donations. "Playing the field until you sort of decide where you're going and say, 'There's an opportunity here for me,' I think doesn't sound right by a lot of people," he said.

Ms. Mathyssen said she was under the impression that Mr. Rae donated to her campaign in January because he wanted more NDP MPs in the House of Commons.

"For him to say he believes in NDP candidates and is willing to support them, to switch and go to another party is absolutely unbelievable, unspeakable," she said.

Rae Resign? Or Has Just His Ethics?

2006-09-20T13:45:00.000-07:00

I am not going as far as some, particularly Liberal Outsider in demanding Rae resign; but I do see and feel the same feelings of disgust towards a, sadly, potential Leader of the Liberal Party.

I do not see Rae disobeying or in conflict with the strict word of the Liberal Party's "Rules and Procedures," or with the Constitution of the LPC; but I know Bob Rae in funding the NDP, especially in a riding where we lost by around 800 votes, then running as a candidate is ethically wrong.

For a detailed account of what exactly I am referring to you can visit my previous post here or visit The Northern Liberal, Liberal Outsider, Canadian Cerberus, Calgary Grit, Naylor's take,
Far And Wide, Wonk Blog, Fuddle Duddle, A View From The Left, Yes Another Liberal Blog, and Cherniak on Politics.

First and foremost I think Bob Rae has to answer for what he did. A statement explaining his actions. Then if he admits that he made those contributions which Elections Canada says he did, there should be an inquiry by the National Returning Officer into that conduct.

Any Liberal who brushes this off did not fight in the last election. I fought in a riding where $300 dollars would have meant life and death.

I may be sentimental but I look to officials in the Party for inspiration, afterall I am arguing for them in debates, door-knocking, and in every chance I get. I can't respect Bob Rae. The last election is muddled by Bob Rae's actions, and furthermore he's tarnishing the Liberal Leadership race by his arrogance in thinking he can do what he's done.

Bob Rae has to answer for what he did, if he doesn't and wins; I'll mail him my Liberal Membership Card, because I won't be needing it and certainly it's older then the one he has.

How Can A Liberal Be So Un-liberal?

2006-09-18T16:03:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't know how Bob Rae would run as candidate for Leader of the Liberal Party when he has only been Liberal for a few days before the contest began. A few days is not an understatement it is a literal specification of time that transpired. So I exclaim again and again at the marvel that is Bob Rae; how could he be so opportunistic?

Well for anyone who thinks this evidence is not substantial to merit a second thought, I present detailed information that specifies in great detail the opportunistic nature of Bob Rae. Him not being a Liberal Member but until days before the race just leaves the image that he was liberal just not officially. However these accounts illustrates that is not the case, and up to months prior to the Liberal Leadership contest he was funding NDP candidates purposely to defeat Liberal ones. Strictly policy-wise Bob Rae might have made a good Leader, but including his character and actions he should have his conduct seriously questioned.

In tight races against Liberals Bob Rae has supported NDP candidates.

Three days before the last federal election Bob Rae donated $300.00 to a NDP candidate by the name of Ms. Mathyssen in London--Fanshawe. She was in a very close two-way race with Liberal newcomer Glen Pearson to replace Liberal Defector Pat O'Brien. Mathyssen narrowly defeated Liberal, Pearson by 868 votes. The difference could have easily been overcome by a 300 dollar contribution to the Liberal Party or without a contribution to the NDP.

Perhaps at the time Mr. Rae didn't like Glen Pearson, or perhaps at the time (8 months ago) he just didn't like Liberals. Maybe Mr. Rae wanted to help out a past colleague. (Ms. Mathyssen was Member of Ontario Parliament from 1990-1995 in Mr. Rae's NDP caucus). However when Ms. Mathyssen ran federally in 1997 and 2004 and provincially in 1999 and 2003, he did not make a donation. Only when she had a shot at defeating a Liberal in 2006 did he ante up.

Days before the election in 2004 Mr. Rae donated to David Christopherson, the NDP candidate in Hamilton Centre also in a tight race against Liberal incumbent and Minister of National Revenue, Stan Keyes. Mr. Christopherson won the election defeating the Liberal by 5,373 votes.
He also contributed to Tony Martin in a nail biter against Liberal Carmen Provenzano. Mr.Martin won by 752 votes.

Donations made by Bob Rae in 2006 (sourced from www.elections.ca):
Mathyssen, Irene (New Democratic Party) - London-Fanshawe, Jan. 20, 2006, donated $300.00
Carnegie, Rochelle (New Democratic Party) - Willowdale, Dec. 22, 2005, donated $250.00
Godfrey, John (Liberal Party of Canada) - Don Valley West, Jan. 16, 2006, donated $300.00

Donations made by Bob Rae in 2004 (sourced from www.elections.ca):
Christopherson, David (New Democratic Party) - Hamilton Centre, Jun. 25, donated $250.00
Martin, Tony (New Democratic Party) - Sault Ste. Marie, Jun. 28, 2004, donated $250.00
-----
I am astonshed that Bob Rae is a candidate in the Liberal Leadership race. The aforementioned facts can only try to describe the gross enormity of his opportunistic actions. How can a Liberal be so unliberal?

CONSERVATIVE CRISIS: Liberals Must Speak Out

2006-09-06T11:32:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported that the Conservative Party of Canada is practicing anti-democratic behaviour within it's party. The story states that Stephen Harper and the Party claimed this Summer that no Conservative Incumbant would be protected from challengers in their nomination process. However, instead of out-right and clear denial to challengers, the Party dismisses challengers without explanation.

Denying the possibility of democratic procedures such as electing a candidate, and holding a previous candidate responsible is fundamental and necessary to representaion and euitable votes. Grassroot Conservatives are so outraged that they are suing their own Party for such injustice.

I believe it is our duty as Liberals to aid these Conservatives in pursuing a more democratic Conservative Party. This is not to illustrate Liberal generousity, this is to fight tyranny in a democracy.

As Liberals, participants in a political organization, we know the importance of having your voice heard; it is this reason that we must help the Conservatives because they should enjoy the same rights that we do.

I will pursue a curse of action to motivate the Liberal Party to take the Conservative problem to heart, and address a call of action to Stephen Harper.

I may disagree with the Conservative Party and it's ideology, but I do not disagree with it's rights.

Environment Minister For PM?

2006-09-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of the Leadership race Gerard Kennedy was criticized for being weak if not void of policy; as time progressed and opportunity arose, Gerard proposed policies on every facet of Canada. He has wide ranging addresses from Domestic affairs, such as party renewal, women's equality, education, immigration, and food supply. He has also demonstrated a juggernaut stance in foreign affairs, posing the policy of withdrawal of Canadian forces if NATO does not renegotiate its mandate and pursue a wider scope then just occupying Afghanistan. This all arising from Gerard Kennedy, someone that has risen from nothing to be a leading contender for Liberal Leadership. Therefore the bar is pretty high for those who started the race with federal political acclaim such as Stephane Dion; yet Dion remains at bar level if not below.

Gerard Kennedy has progressed and has developed original policies; while Stephane Dion has repeated old speeches and ignored significant issues. The most important of which, is foreign affairs, or anything do with foreigners. Stephane Dion has not put forth a single policy directed to Canada's relations with other countries. I do admit he put forth an explanation of why the Liberal Party was not supporting Israel as Harper was, but this lacks any predictive value of what he'd do as Leader and Prime Minister.

Stephane Dion is a bright man, he was a professor of political science, he has written many scholarly journals, and has many years of federal government experience; yet the question arises, where is his foreign policy? Where is his stance on immigration? Dion answers at a time of pre-civil war in Iraq and turmoil in Afghanistan, with policy proposals on the environment.

Is Dion still environment minister? No infact he's the foreign affairs critic! His job in the Liberal Party of Canada, right now is arguing against the Conservatives, finding their flaws, and addressing a proper means of action. The question is why is Dion ignoring foreign affairs and currently discussing the environbment? The answer may appear negative, but I feel it's rational; Dion does not have any ideas, good or bad, about foreign policy or immigration. Dion does have ideas about the environment.

In conclusion, if you want an environment minister, who appears to know only that, to be Prime Minister vote for Stephane Dion.

Michael Ignatieff: Losing Momentum, But Gaining Props

2006-08-29T15:50:00.000-07:00

(Props as in slang for propellers or possible sources of momentum)

Cerberus's blog is right, there is a lot of media coverage on all the candidates, most notably on Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy. Now this is an honest statement, and I open the door to discussion on it yet I hardly doubt anyone would have much evidence; but Ignatieff and Dion seem to only be in the media, at least partially due to particular 'friends' or 'supporters' in the media. Whereas Gerard Kennedy has actually got media attention from policies and his positions.

I admit this sounds prejudiced, as you've noticed this Blog endorses Gerard Kennedy. As a reflective being I cannot say it is completely without bias, as I don't exactly know; but I can present evaluable facts to back up my claim that Ignatieff and Dion are on the down turn of their momentum, that is if Dion ever had real momentum.

Michael Ignatieff recently had an interview about him published in Macleans, it was written by Peter C. Newman; now this article was motivated not because of the man or his policies, but based on his past and currently recent 'buzz.' The article begins with such a hint into the reasoning to choose Ignatieff to do an article on:

"Cool" best describes Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leadership contender creating all that buzz. Cool is an elusive essence but it sums up the lanky ex-Harvard professor's surprising emergence as the candidate to beat in the Liberal party's desperate quest to renew itself.

Furthermore in that article, the interviewer doesn't ask Micael about his policies, the closest he comes is a follow up question pertaining to expanding Ottawa's powers. This illustrates that Michael is only in the media only as a result to his past momentum and conveys no self-generating force in the media about his campaign.

Another article about Michael Ignatieff that had some Ignatieff blogs hot and heavy, was the article in the Globe and Mail written by Michael Valpy. Now this is all inconclusive, but I think it should be presented and be judged upon. The motivation for this article is still trying to cash in on the percieved momentum of Ignatieff, as it too does not contain specific or broad references to his policies; but tied with that is the possibility of the Globe and Mail commtting a case of favoritism or partisanship.

Evidence for this is:
1. Michael Ignatieff was a Globe and Mail reporter when he was 19, a newspapers reputation or at least it's own perception of itself would increase knowing a future Prime Minister worked there.
2. Another piece of evidence is Michael Valpy, the writer of said article, has known Michael Ignatieff for 40 years, certainly adding to a commitment to the length of the article.
3. Michael Valpy, in the article discusses a conversation with, guess who? Peter C. Newman, the very writer of the Macleans article. Valpy writes:

"I had breakfast at the summer's outset with political journalist Peter C. Newman, who talked over bagels in his north Toronto apartment about how politicians who become accepted into the mythology of the country have nicknames bestowed on them: Rex for Mackenzie King. Mike Pearson. Dief for John Diefenbaker. PET for Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
"And now Iggy," Mr. Newman said.""

Does this not convey a certain sense of like minded individuals trying to 'prop'el Ignatieff?

Hedy Fry Turns 65

2006-08-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

If you asked me a few months ago of who the oldest candidate is in this leadership race I would have said Bob Rae or possibly Michael Ignatieff. When I found out Hedy Fry was the oldest I was taken back, she does look good for her age, especially compared to Bob Rae who in person looks by far the oldest.

Well it was Hedy's birthday a few days ago, now she's 65 years old, a senior citizen, and she's running to be Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Yup, a senior running as leader....at a time when the Party needs to be rejuvenated, she wants a senior citizen to do the job. I am not saying senior citizens wouldn't make great Prime Ministers, but there are a considerable amount of negatives associated with a more elder Leader.

The criticisms are indeed generalizations, this I'll fully admit; but some generalizations are handy, in fact we use generalizations every day. I mean these criticisms as just addressing the situation and I mean no disrespect to Hedy Fry, senior citizens, or anyone else. I would actually like to hear a response from the Hedy Fry campaign to these criticisms though it will likely be just an attack on generalizing. And such an attack is reasonable, though I maintain human beings have to generalize to an extent to survive, for easy reference see David Hume's Habit or Custom; and in this scenerio, though they even might not apply to Hedy, they would apply to her appearence during an election as Leader and thus provide yet another obstacle to the Liberal Party.

An old Leader conveys an image to the public that the Party is old and dates, criticism number one.

Objection two, is a problem of succession. If Hedy Fry only wants to be in politics for another ten years, which I think would be her limitation; then we already have to begin thinking of posturing for the next leadership convention.

A third is with being set in her ways. Already the Press refers to her as stubborn, which in my opinion is not that bad. However when in times of Elections and major debates one must admit where faults lie and give honest answers and make concessions.

Again I mean no disrespect and I wish Hedy Fry a belated Happy Birthday, I wish her all the best.

It Is Now Official...

2006-08-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

Rae Rant: Why I Don't Support Bob Rae - And seriously, why does anyone?... seriously

2006-08-25T07:03:00.000-07:00

When choosing a candidate I admittedly only looked at Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy. Everyone else did not even appear on my radar. Bob Rae wasn't even a blip; because I can't even think of supporting someone as Leader of the Liberal Party when he started the race with the ink on his membership card still dry. I know everyone knows this but it astounds me that Rae is even a competitor. In the states Rae would have been humiliated for even conceiving to run with a flip as big as the one he did.

Seriously, come on, can someone explain why they think someone who has been a Liberal for a few months can be Leader of a National Party? I know Rae is experienced, but come on! It doesn't matter if you're Jesus, Trudeau, or Denzel Washington, if you have only been a member for a few months on that point alone you shouldn't run for leader, let alone if you just switched allegiances from the NDP.

Why do you need to be a Liberal for a longer period? For countless reasons. The first is so people trust you. Trust is huge. If you were a Liberal member all your life you'd have the respect you deserve instead of the respect you buy or from misgotten notoriety. Another reason is for elections, if Rae was to win, which he won't, he'll end up collapsing into Ignatieff; but if he did win he would be blasted by the other Parties on flip-flopping. I guess the Liberal Party is just missing that critical cut-throat edge found in federal elections.

My argument on this point is pretty subtle and elementary, composed of pure unbelief. But COME ON! I don't get it. Do you realize the huge negative this is for a Liberal candidate to have? He shouldn't even be a 'Hedy Fry' possibility. I am just blown away.

This huge momentous example of a flip flop isn't even isolated. A report from the Canadian Federation of Students stated:

"Students’ fears about Bob Rae’s post-secondary education review were fulfilled today. Rae, a long time advocate of higher tuition fees and higher student debt, called for steep tuition fee hikes along with increased private and public student loan debt. In addition, Rae did call for more public funding and a system of grants for low-income students.

"While Rae does call for grants for low-income students, only families earning less than $22,615 would be eligible. Students from homes with family income between $22,615 and $35,000 would receive some form of grant to cover a portion of tuition fee costs but all those above that income threshold would finance their education exclusively through loans.

“Students welcome the fact that Rae is calling for the restoration of grants in Ontario after he eliminated our grants program as Premier,” said Greener. “However, throughout this process Bob Rae has argued that ‘rich’ students need to pay more. It will come as a surprise to Ontarians that he considers any family with income above $35,000 to be wealthy.”

For contrast look at Bob Rae's Current Plan for Education:

1) A principle we must enshrine in our education systems is that every qualified student should have access to college and university. No one should be loaded down with debts they can’t afford.
2) We need a federal-provincial student grants and loans program to cover both the living expenses of students and their tuition, starting with the least well-off students, and moving steadily upwards.
3) Ottawa should be a full funding partner in supporting the base operations of colleges and universities and priorities for labour market training, apprenticeship, research and graduate education....

The flip isn't that prominent, but it is there. As Ontario Premier he made it clear that he sought only to alleviate the financial difficulties of the very poor ignoring the poor, and in fact, increasing the difficulty for the poor to further their education. Now as a Liberal Leadership candidate he is advocating everyone experiencing financial difficulties be able to attend higher education.

I shouldn't even be addressing the problem with Bob Rae, because he shouldn't have even be running.

Seriously,......Come on!

Candidates Are Already Following Kennedy

2006-08-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

Gerard Kennedy on July 25th issued a release pertaining to the safe injection site; in it he "calls on Harper to continuing funding North America's only site." The news release can be found at: http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/news_e.aspx?id=61 . The importance of the date is important because almost a month later Scott Brison and Ken Dryden have come to the same conclusion.

In today's Globe and Mail, an article titled "Dryden, Brison back injection site" by Lillian Au, tells of Brison and Dryden urging Harper to continue to allow the safe injection site, known as Insite to operate. Dryden spouting that "These are people who are in tough shape, have harmed themselves, oftentimes have done harm to others, and the key is to try to find your best answer....The safe-injection site is part of that best answer." Brison adding "Of course, when there's a critical mass of people that need a safe-injection site, that's a top priority."

This is great, that the Liberal Party is forming a consensus, but what does it say with two of the candidates 'following' another a month later?

In Kennedy's release he passionately states that:
"Insite saves lives and is a Canadian social and medical success story. Of the 336 users who overdosed, the experienced professionals at the site performed life saving interventions and helped provide thousands of users with harm reduction strategies to reduce crime and prevent the spread of disease. This is a program that helps protect and support the weakest part of our society. It is a tangible example of practical compassion - something the Harper government should be doing more of."

Another feature that has been duplicated from the Kennedy campaign is Kennedy's address of proactively pursuing equitable participation of women in the Liberal Party of Canada. A first policy of Gerard's was and is to have a goal of 50% participation of women in the Liberal Party caucus. This policy was introduced back in March at every event Kennedy attended, myself being in attendance to a majority of them. At the time he received some misunderstanding and criticism from notable members of the Dion campaign. Some had thought that he meant a mandatory level of 50%; he actually stated clearly that it was a goal to achieve, to move towards in order to promote the talented women of the Liberal Party into the positions they deserve. Now Ken Dryden has put out his own very similar policy.

I cannot say Dryden did not have this policy in mind earlier but I can say he never made it public until now which seems rather questionable. Ken Dryden's vision statement is:
"Liberal Party of Canada caucus with only 21 female members (or 20%) is unacceptable. We must be committed as a party to increasing substantially the number of women who will run successfully for us. This is about increasing the number of women who will WIN. It is also about us as a party winning elections and forming the government, and governing better." I don't doubt that it is Ken Dryden's statement, but I do know however that it is Kennedy's vision.

Stephane Dion Campaign Falsifies Their Records

2006-08-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

On Stephanedion.ca you'll find the latest news and information on Stephane Dion. A new item on Display is "Dion and Young Liberals present youth platform" which goes on to give a "10-point plan to increase political engagement of young Canadians."

It furthers with "Young Liberals from across the country have come together with Stéphane Dion to set out a clear vision for increased youth participation in politics, increased youth voter turnout, and increased voice for youth within the Liberal Party."

Near the end of this document it lists what appears to be a long list of prominent Liberals who are supporting Dion. From an unidentified source, I was notified of a name, Adam Miron. This name is of some interest, you'll find it around a third from the bottom; it's from this selection:

Neil MacIsaac, NS, St. FX Young Liberals, Executive VP

Jenna McGrath, NS, Saint Mary’s Young Liberals, VP Organization

Andrew McGregor, NB, President of the Mount Allison Young Liberals

Adam Miron, BC, President of UCC Kelowna Young Liberals

Jackie Moher, NS, Nova Scotia Young Liberals, VP Federal

Jennifer Mowbray, ON, Vice-President of the Davenport Young Liberals

What is of interest here, upon further investigation it was shown that Adam Miron isn't President of UCC Kelowna Young Liberals, in fact he doesn't live in Kelowna at all, let alone visits it regularly. Adam lives in Kamloops where he was trying to form a campus club at TRU, a university.

Even more there is no such thing as UCC, there is no club or association of the Liberal Party that has that Acronym nor one suitably found on google.

It is beyond a doubt falsification took place, possibly either by error or purposeful intent.

The question is why did the Dion Campaign result to such means?

Why I don't support Bennett

2006-08-21T20:19:00.000-07:00

At an event Carolyn Bennett stated that "it is time to get non-liberals out of the Liberal Party." I was struck by this comment. A leadership candidate so oblivious to how politics work, how and why politics is the way it is. On the face some may not notice her misconduct; I use misconduct as the gravity of the term well suits the error, as I will go on to illustrate.

To begin then, excuse the obvious premises as they gradually build to unmistakenable conclusions. A political party is engineered to represent the interests of people. A proper political party is organized and composed in such a way that majority ultimately makes the decisions. Therefore a political party represents the majority's interests in each relative decision.

Now let's build from Bennett's claim; suppose she is right, there are non-liberals in the Party. What harm does it do? Does it do any? I'll argue no and on the contrary it makes the Party better.

Addressing having non-liberals in the Party, what harm could they do? Well they could misrepresent the Liberal Party or seem opportunistic. Philosophically I hope it is impossible to misrepresent the Liberal Party as a Candidate or MP on any issue; because to me the Liberal Party encompasses all views. And through this encompassing, there is debate; thus from the trails of fire from the competing points of view, the policy victor is the stronger for having it's impurities casted aside. Practically it is possible to misrepresent the party but that's in regards to slips of the tongue not issues of concern. For a candidate or MP was chosen from their riding association, thus a more conservative MP may not represent the Liberal Party directly, but by representing his or her conservative liberal riding he or she does indirectly represent the Liberal Party of Canada.

So what harm can a non-liberal do within the party? Well that member could have their democratic say, is that bad? They could fight for what they believe in, is that bad? They could be opportunistic (by switching parties for political gain) but fault lies also with the people who would vote or accept such an individual too, thus that argument collapses.

The one argument that could supply Bennet with her justification is that non-liberals are ruining Liberal values by distorting them either too left or too right. But the quick resolution to this argument is to reply, values and policies are decided by a majority, as the majority changes, alas so does our values and policies. That is how the Party changes. That is how it stays current.

It is clear by Bennett wanting non-liberals out, she merely is stating she doesn't want the Liberal Party to change. Because the Liberal Party needs change, and it can be easily seen that Bennett wants to keep the Liberal Party the same, I do not support Carolyn Bennett to be the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Centrism: The Problem of the Left in the Left

2006-08-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

A political organization represents the people in it. A Political Party is created for that sole purpose, of representing and consolidating interests. However there is a lapse in the transference of interest between the party and the people in it.

Let me explain. There is an image of the Liberal Party that it is Centrist or just left of centre. As reflecting individuals we see others perceptions of our party and we cannot help but too see the party that way. To change the Party, we would have to perform either a few actions from an extreme side or many actios from a little farther off skew. But no matter which path we choose our initial first actions will not change public perception immediatly; thus there is a lapse in interest between the peoples in the party's interest and the party's interest.

Currently, because the Liberal Party succeeded in election victory after election victory it became more focused on elections then representing the peoples interest. I must address however that winning elections is valuable and important, yet should not be the sole primary concern. We must now direct our efforts to re-analyzing the peoples interests within the party and identify the Liberal Party as a Party of the Left moderated by interests from the centre, not the other way around.

In this leadership race there are two such candidates who are able to bring the party back into its respective political position. Those candidates are Gerard Kennedy and Stephane Dion.

I have met both candidates on many occassions, I have asked them the same questions, read everything about them, including all of Dion's work and speeches; there is a clear difference between the two and it is transmitted through each of their characteristics.

Stephane Dion is experienced in Federal politics. That experience however is not as intrinsically valuable as it would let on. In all of his speeches he does not argue for anything new, instead he argues to support past government policies, akin to Michael Ignatieff arguing to support American foriegn policies instead of being creative and innovative and producing his own direction.

Gerard Kennedy in every speech and article imparts his inspiration of changing Canada; of making it the greatest nation on Earth. An International Country where we are an example to the world by being leaders in every sphere; by recognizing differences and building the strength inherit in them. Certain elements are familiar, but a Canada that listen's to the quiet sounds, sounds like a child being ignored by a teacher, is so real and compassionate that it's originality is obvious.

Stephane Dion is a past senior member of government; he is stuck in old methods and procedures. Where the Liberal Party needs rejuvination, he'll bring past solutions.

Gerard Kennedy is young and has the political experience necessary to revive the Liberal Party and the Left.

Gerard Kennedy is the person that represents the people of the left, the people of the Liberal Party, and of Canada.