THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

February 19, 2009

Not-so-liveblog of the OttawObamaRama

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 10:15 AM ET | Comments (2)

Yes, today's the day: President Barack Obama visits the capital of our fair dominion. Air Force One just landed in Ottawa, and we'll keep an eye on things and post any notable happenings here, including links to good commentary or other interesting tidbits. But Obama's visit is so short — less than seven hours — and the agenda so constricted, and the president himself will be so removed from the public, that we're not expecting much of interest.

Nevertheless, CBC is dancing from foot to foot right now, and has live streaming video online, as does CPAC. The National Post is liveblogging the whole thing here. The Globe and Mail has some updates on its homepage but if it's doing anything live, we don't see it. It does, however, have a PDF of the president's full itinerary.

We'll also likely post links and commentary on our Twitter feed at twitter.com/thismagazine, so you may want to follow us there today.

FEBRUARY 20 UPDATE: Yeah, there is not much to say here. An awful lot of TV talking heads having to fill an awful lot of dead airtime, since nearly everything took place behind closed doors. Move along, nothing to see here.

More entries on: On the Hill

January 28, 2009

What a crazy concept..

Posted by Lindsay Kneteman at 03:17 PM ET | Comments (1)

Earlier today there was a headline on Yahoo!'s homepage that caught my eye, "Liberals demand budget change". What was this all about, I wondered, could we be in for some more political drama?

Sadly, no. The big budget change turns out to be the inclusion of three "detailed progress reports", something that can be summed up as one of the most obvious ideas ever. I'm actually quite surprised that the Conservatives didn't include something like this in the original budget, since they're so big on accountability. Unless of course... no, no, I'm sure Harper will follow through with his budget promises, even the arts and cultures one.

Oh sure, the Liberals tried to spice things up by mentioning that they'd defeat the government if the reports show that the 2009 budget isn't saving the economy but I wouldn't put much faith in that, unless of course the polls show the Liberals and Iggy with a healthy lead over the Conservatives.

The inclusion of these accountability reports might be a bit of a dull move but it is a smart one. After all, who's going to complain about forcing the government to show that a) it's keeping its spending promises and b) those promises are doing some good? By demanding that the government show that it's being responsible, Ignatieff himself comes off as someone responsible, someone who maybe you might want to vote for.

At the same time, the fact that in theory he could bring the down every 90 days gives him a sense of "edge", that he's here and ready to do battle with Harper. Sure, it's no coalition but then that whole coalition thing was kind of scary and confusing to many Canadians. However, bringing down the government because it "lied" about how it was spending our tax dollars, that's something people can get behind.

To be honest, I'm rather looking forward to these reports. To me, spending billions while cutting billions in tax revenue seems counter-intuitive but hey, maybe it'll work. I just hope that these reports come with clear, digestible summaries and charts that will allow pretty much any Canadian to understand exactly what's being spent (or cut) where. That way ordinary Canadians, and not just the politicians, can pass an educated judgement on the 2009 budget.

More entries on: On the Hill

Ignatieff Liberals declare victory, and surrender, in one deft move

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 11:37 AM ET | Comments (0)

Michael Ignatieff's press conference this morning was quite the performance: the Liberal interim leader told the assembled press that he was putting the prime minister "on probation." Which is an odd metaphor to use, since probation usually follows punishment. The decision to amend the budget and pass it is more like rewriting the law after the crime has been committed so that it's no longer illegal. (I'd stop short of actually calling the budget a crime, however — even one this disappointing).

You can tell that Ignatieff wants the "probation" line to be the soundbite that sticks today, because that's the line he posted on his Twitter account this morning. But the substance of the announcement is more complicated. The Liberals will introduce a motion this afternoon with specific amendments to the budget — investments in affordable housing and postsecondary education are welcome sights here — at which point the ball is back in the Conservatives' court. The poison pill in this arrangement is the ultimatum that the Grits want reports on the budget's stimulus measures every three months, and that each of those updates will be an opportunity to pull the trigger on a non-confidence motion.

In other words, we're getting the worst of all possible outcomes: a cut-and-paste budget that lacks coherent focus and still suffers from gaping holes and inadequacies, plus permanent electoral brinksmanship, with the Liberals and the Conservatives playing parliamentary chicken every 90 days. It's fashionable to deride the NDP these days — in conservative and progressive circles alike — for the party's clumsy power plays such as the now-dead coalition, and their apparent surrender to the role of perennial bridesmaid to the Liberals. But at least the NDP has had the simple integrity to say No to a budget they think is wrong.

More entries on: On the Hill

January 26, 2009

Throne speech kills the coalition with kindness

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 02:56 PM ET | Comments (0)

Monday saw the return of Parliament after its long winter hibernation, a product of the Harper government's surprise prorogue in December. And much like a hungry bear waking up from months of slumber, it was a pretty sluggish, grumpy affair.

The throne speech itself provided almost nothing of substance, just refried Obama-ish platitudes about standing shoulder to shoulder in a time of crisis, etc. etc. Today was all about the mise en scène for the real show, which is of course tomorrow's budget. In the televised scrum after the speech (helpfully televised on CPAC) both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton were pressed on whether their parties' coalition plans from last month will amount to anything now. Layton said he was still game and that the ball was in the Liberals' court; Ignatieff said he was going to read the budget before making any decisions. But given that the details of the budget have leaked out steadily over the past week, there can't be many surprises there.

Given the government's backpedaling on the more poisonous features of the previous budget — "Old assumptions must be tested and old decisions must be rethought," the throne speech sheepishly telegraphs, the parliamentary equivalent of "my bad" — conciliation is in the air, and nothing will kill the dreams of a progressive coalition faster than goodwill and co-operation. My bet is the Liberals cave and support the budget, and this whole sorry episode is reduced to a single question in the Trivial Pursuit "Crazy Canuck Aughts Edition."

I've embedded the PDF of the speech for your reading, uh, pleasure here.

More entries on: On the Hill

December 09, 2008

The Daily Show on Canada

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:30 PM ET | Comments (0)

Last night, Jon Stewart once again lampooned Canadian politics with a look at our prorogued Parliament.

Watch here.

More entries on: On the Hill

December 05, 2008

All I want for Christmas is an effective government

Posted by Melissa Wilson at 10:56 AM ET | Comments (0)

Almost every year that I was in high school, I had to write an exam on my birthday. Two years ago, the Robert Pickton trial started on my birthday. Last year, Heath Ledger died (not too bad until you start receiving phone calls along the lines of "Guess what I just heard!" instead of "Happy Birthday"). This year, the week of my birthday will be marred with an unfrozen Parliament — slated for January 26, 2009 — and Harper's last-ditch attempt to wipe the imagined horns from his forehead in the form of a new federal budget before a confidence vote decides his fate.

So let me get this straight: We Canadians have spent the last three years (almost) watching Harper's condescending smile siphon money from worthy causes. Then, we spent five weeks and $300 million on an election that left us right where we were before (except for poor Dion, who took a serious tumble) and now we've got to spent the next seven weeks enduring further political propaganda while a handful of suits play tug of war with Sussex Drive.

What an excellent use of resources. Enough, boys. You've got bigger fish to fry. While the kiddies are bickering and the newspapers are plastered with to-the-minute updates on who's got the biggest guns, thousands of workers will, for the first time, be buying their Christmas dinners with food stamps. Canada lost a record 70,600 jobs last month, the vast majority of which were slashed from Ontario's already-struggling economy. This is the worst it's been in a generation, according to the Toronto Star.

And, to put the cherry on the top of a terrific week, according to a poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail, nearly half of Canadians feel that Stephen Harper can no longer be trusted to run our country. Fifty-five percent said they feel that Canada is on the "wrong track."

As I get older and wiser, I am quickly becoming more cynical and jaded. How is it that I live in a country where a near-majority of residents don't trust the elected leader? I thought that was an American affliction. Perhaps North America can only have one trustworthy leader. Regardless, it's time for change, and I don't care who enacts it. Someone has got to stop the in-fighting and fix Canada before we stop worrying about Harper using the R-word and start tossing around the D-word.

Come on. We'll call it my Christmas and birthday present.

More entries on: On the Hill

December 04, 2008

What could have been

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:32 PM ET | Comments (0)

What would the coalition have amounted to if Parliament hadn't been suspended today? According to a report in Embassy, a Canadian foreign policy newsweekly, the coalition would have had an internationalist and multilateral vision; emphasizing human rights. For instance:

"It seems the free trade agreement with Colombia, signed by Mr. Harper last week, could also be dumped in pretty short order. Both the Liberals and NDP have expressed concern over the human rights situation in the country."

But, instead, we have a prorogued Parliament and a freeze on legislative initiatives until the end of January.

More entries on: On the Hill

Parliament: FAIL

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 12:10 PM ET | Comments (0)

This is going to be a long two months.

More entries on: On the Hill

December 02, 2008

What should Stephen do?

Posted by Lindsay Kneteman at 04:46 PM ET | Comments (1)

Well, well, well, this is quite the situation that Harper has gotten himself into. Though it's definitely a nice example of how being a bully can backfire, it's hardly the ideal situation for a country that currently has much more important issues to deal with.

So now that he's here, fighting for his job while Dion, Layton and Duceppe busy themselves crafting a new Canadian government, what should he do?

I recommend a good hour or so in the gym with a punching bag followed by a national announcement about how he and his follow federal party leaders need to talk.

Now, I have to admit that a part of me wants to see the coalition go ahead and take control. I'm curious to see how it would do and what exactly it would do. Who knows, perhaps it could be the start of a wonderful transformation that would see Canada become the envy of the world (well, except for the weather).

But then another part of me, that pesky logical part, points out that now is not the best time for political experiments. Perhaps if we were in the middle of boom times, when the government, any government, could do no wrong, we could try this left-wing coalition thing out. But what the country needs now is strength, stability and someone who knows where to spend and where to save. In otherwise words, we need a government that's currently not being offered to us in any shape or form.

And this is where Harper's announcement would come in. With a tired body but clear mind, he'd declare that last week his party announced some proposals that weren't really the best and that now having learned his lesson, he wants to work with the other federal party leaders to develop an economic plan for the country, one that would touch on everything from stimulus spending to what to do about the auto industry to minimizing (though not necessary avoiding) a deficit. With carefully selected words and sympathetic body language, he'd make it clear that he and his Conservatives realize that the country is on verge of heading into a very dark place and that because of that, they're willing to set aside their ideological differences and work with the other parties for the good of the country.

In short, it would be the type of speech that most Canadians would understand and agree with and that would put Dion, Layton and Duceppe in one hell of a predicament. After an offer like that, going ahead with the coalition would simply look like a greedy power grab, a case of putting politics before country. To proceed with the coalition in that situation would be setting it and the parties involved with it up for an election disaster. This is how Harper could grab his majority, by having his olive branch thrown back in his face.

I like to hope that if Harper decides to do "the right thing" and offer to genuinely work with the other parties, they would put the coalition on hold and get down to the business of running this country, together with the Conservatives. Come the next election, the idea of a left-wing coalition could be re-visited but until then, let's just have a "coalition of Canadian politicians working together to keep this country on track during uncertain economic times".

After all, that's what we elect the politicians to do, isn't it? To run the country and create the conditions that let it and us thrive?

I realize that the idea of Harper stepping up and saying "let's work together" sounds about as realistic as Duceppe deciding that Quebec is just fine as it is, but if Harper doesn't step up to the plate, there's always the Governor General.

This article over in the Toronto Star quotes former Reform MP Deborah Grey on how the GG could step in and sort things out, "I'd get those guys in a room, the four of them, and I'd say to them I'm not proroguing this, I'm not calling an election, I'm not naming this coalition. You four guys get yourself in a room and don't come out of there until you decide that you're going to run this government, and I am forcing you all to get back to work and make the economy the focus, stupid, rather than all of this inside baseball."

Good advice; I hope someone follows it.

More entries on: On the Hill

More on the coalition

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:14 PM ET | Comments (1)

The Liberal-NDP coalition has great support among the countless disillusioned by the Conservative Party. The Conservative's recent proposals for a "three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity and eliminated subsidies for political parties" struck many the wrong way - notwithstanding the party's eventual reversal on their subsidies decision and ban on civil servant strikes.

Yet despite this, there might be at least one sufficient reason to withdraw one's support for the coalition: it's arguably undemocratic. In today's Globe and Mail, Janice MacKinnon, professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan and a former NDP finance minister, had this to say about a coaltion she would normally be inclined to support:

"as a Western Canadian, I fear the reaction of most in this region should they awake one morning to find the Conservative Party, which won 72 of 92 seats in the West just weeks ago, replaced by a coalition with a prime minister from the Liberal Party, the party that came third in every province in Western Canada. This would be especially dismaying since the election results weren't even close: The Conservatives won 37 per cent of the vote and 66 more seats than their nearest rivals."

We might want Harper out, and we might even believe the coalition would work, but we should also keep in mind the way everyone voted.

More entries on: On the Hill

Two heads are better than one (but proportional representation is best of all)

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 11:07 AM ET | Comments (0)

Your This Magazine bloggers haven't weighed in yet on all the coalition talk that's sprung up in the last few days, mostly because there's been so much speculation and so little substance to talk about. The Parliamentary procedures that will dictate exactly how, or when, or if the coalition of the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc may make their move and topple the Harper Tory minority are arcane and far from cut-and-dried; a lot depends on the elaborate Kabuki theatre of "opposition days", brinksmanship over proroguing Parliament, and how the Governor General responds when she returns to Canada tomorrow. It's far from clear how this will all shake out.

It's clear something has to be done, though. For me, this all comes down to the move by the Tories to end public funding for political party campaigning (the financial calamity/bailout issue is another tinderbox altogether). Even for a cabinet known for its cynical partisan moves, this was an astonishing maneuver that needed an urgent response. And given the sudden burst of pro-coalition activity on the web — rallies, petitions, even the blizzard of Twitter messages — we know that there is a huge pent-up demand for that response.

Now, whether a mashup government of centrists, socialists, and separatists is actually going to work? Well, I think we'll just have to wait and see on that front. Coalition governments work, with varying degrees of success, all around the world, and frequently group together parties with way less common ground. So if it gets things moving legislatively again, and preserves democracy-strengthening measures like the public funding of political campaigns, then bully for them.

But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the core problem isn't Parliamentary process or a minority government or any of the parties. The problem is that our first-past-the-post electoral system is fundamentally broken. It doesn't represent the will of Canadian voters. Proportional representation would go a long way toward fixing that imbalance, and it would likely result in more coalition governments. That can be a mixed blessing (see the crazy quilt that is the Israeli Knesset) but on the whole, having your vote count in Parliament is the greater virtue. While it has the potential to be an awkward arrangement, the coalition that has now formed in Canada actually does, in the aggregate, represent a majority of the electorate. What a crazy idea.

More entries on: On the Hill

November 20, 2008

Run a deficit. Please.

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 11:38 AM ET | Comments (0)

Yesterday was the Speech from the Throne, the strange annual ritual where the government writes a speech and the Governor General has to read it in Parliament. The Conservatives laid out a cautious — NDP leader Jack Layton dismissed it as "very timid" — and cost-cutting agenda, with a focus on the economy. There were also references to banning bulk water exports (yay) and increasing renewable energy (yay) through nuclear power (boo); and more "getting tough" with young offenders (boo).

Much of the news coverage since yesterday has focused on the likelihood of the federal government running a deficit over the next few years. This return to the red, after nearly a decade of federal budget surpluses, is obviously painful for the Tories, who regard balanced budgets as a cardinal duty of government. In fact, they said, this is kind of technically not even a deficit at all, you see, because it's not a "structural" deficit plan, whatever that means.

This attitude, that surplus is the natural order of budgeting and that government deficits are a sort of sin that leaders must confess and repent for, is a relatively new attitude in Ottawa. Obviously, the outrageously overleveraged federal government of the 70s and 80s wasn't desirable; living within your means is a good idea for individuals and governments alike. But this simplistic idea — surplus good, deficit bad, full stop — has hardened into orthodoxy over the last decade, and that's stupid.

Government exists to provide social services for the common good. Given that the world economy is crumbling all around us and taking down everyone from banks to auto companies, there's going to be an acute need for a resilient social safety net in this country, and probably soon. All indicators point to an increase in poverty, unemployment, and insolvency, and it is the job — the duty — of the government to pay for programs that alleviate the effects of these calamities. Run the deficit. Provide services. Don't apologize for doing your job.

More entries on: On the Hill

September 03, 2008

It's time for the Green Party to debate (Updated)

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 12:17 PM ET | Comments (0)

This morning the Green Party of Canada announced that it has retained a lawyer to pressure Canadian broadcasters to include the Greens in future electoral debates (including the one rumoured to be announced on Friday). Up until now, the TV networks have always brushed off the Greens because they had no MP sitting in parliament. That changed, technically, on August 30, when independent B.C. MP Blair Wilson joined the party. Even had that not happened, it's time for the Green Party, and leader Elizabeth May, seen here, to get a shot at the microphone.

Many progressives have regarded the Green Party with a certain amount of suspicion — the Greens' growing popularity undoubtedly risks splitting the left, as the Globe's Lawrence Martin writes this morning. (Chantal Hébert in the Star thinks the Greens threaten the Conservatives as well.)

(Update, 5:30 pm: NDP spokesperson Carl Belanger called back this afternoon to say that in the NDP's view, "Nothing has changed since the last election" to make the Greens a part of the debates now. Wilson, he said, wasn't elected as a Green and hasn't sat in session as one, so they don't find the argument persuasive.)

Green Party spokesperson Camille Labchuk told me earlier this afternoon that her party doesn't regard itself as being right or left, and in fact thinks the labels themselves are outdated. "It's wrong to think of the Green Party as a party of the left," she told me by phone. "Many of our supporters are former Progressive Conservatives who are political orphans — the Conservative party is nothing like the PC party was."

But the Greens have undeniably moved left since Elizabeth May became leader, and many of their policies will end up stepping on the toes of the NDP and the Liberals. The Greens have the potential to be a disruptive force in progressive politics (in many ways, they already are), and not necessarily in a helpful or constructive way — Jean Chrétien coasted for years as the Reform and PC parties scrapped with each other, fighting over voters and getting nowhere.

But that's a problem for the parties and their strategists and pollsters and door-knockers. Among voters, the Greens have earned the right to be heard in a national leaders' debate. They're moving the needle on opinion polls; when asked, Canadians generally feel they should have a place in the debates; and their platform needs and deserves the scrutiny that will only really come when they are treated as an electoral going concern. Sniping from the sidelines, as they've been forced to do in recent years, doesn't help anyone. Put them in the ring and see how they do.

The networks say they won't make the call on including May until the election is actually called, but Labchuk said the party's feeling optimistic. "We don't feel like it will be possible to exclude us this time around. We will not accept the argument that we can't be part of the debate."

CC-licenced photo courtesy Flickr user itzafineday

More entries on: On the Hill

October 02, 2007

Throne Speech must address environment, Afghanistan, 'prosperity gap,' Layton says

Posted by mason at 01:54 AM ET | Comments (7)

U of T's The Varsity has just posted a broad-ranging interview with Smilin' Jack Layton, in which he says the NDP won't support a Conservative Throne Speech unless it includes new directions on the Afghan mission, the environment and what he calls the "prosperity gap."

"We want to see a fundamental change of direction on the war, we want to see a fundamental change of direction on the environment, and we want to see some real action on the growing prosperity gap, the issues that your average working family is grappling with," Layton said.

Say what you will about the federal NDP leader's style (I find him a bit smug, personally), he is extremely knowledgeable on a wealth of issues and consistently holds the government to account in areas of interest to Canadians.

In the end, I don't much care how personable I find politicians; if they have policies that back up the things they say and logic behind their words, I'll give them the time of day.

More entries on: On the Hill

April 15, 2007

Martel on Harper's reading habits

Posted by mason at 02:15 PM ET | Comments (0)

Best-selling author Yann Martel was so unimpressed with the reception he and other artists received in the House of Commons recently that he's come up with a web-based response:

For as long as Stephen Harper is Prime Minister of Canada, I vow to send him every two weeks, mailed on a Monday, a book that has been known to expand stillness. That book will be inscribed and will be accompanied by a letter I will have written. I will faithfully report on every new book, every inscription, every letter, and any response I might get from the Prime Minister, on this website.

The site includes a story of Martel's experience being invited to help mark the 50th anniversary of the Canada Council for the Arts. It's a bit of a rambling note, but the point is clear enough: the Harper government is not acting like a friend to artists. Harper's lack of attention to the 50 artists invited to mark the occasion, and the poor showing of MPs at a reception the night before, are especially irksome to Martel.

Will his gifts of books to Harper's office help expand the Prime Minister's horizons? I'm not holding my breath, but it's something to keep an eye on.

More entries on: Lit | On the Hill

March 29, 2007

Stand up, Scarborough!

Posted by shawnsyms at 09:30 AM ET | Comments (2)

It was with incredible joy that I learned that Scarborough Southwest Liberal MP Tom Wappel is not seeking re-election after his current term. From a progressive perspective, you can't get much worse than Wappel. When he threw his hat in the ring for a Liberal leadership convention in 1990, he pledged to make abortion a crime punishable by life imprisonment. According to the Toronto Star, he described same-sex marriage as a sham and a hoax. He argued that anyone with HIV should be denied refugee status in Canada. On the positive side, he did advocate for improved nutritional labeling on Canadian foods.

The lead story in the current issue of Spacing magazine (penned by Eye Weekly city editor Ed Keenan) discusses the great potential of Scarborough, arguing that it is a far stronger example of successful integration of very diverse communities than downtown Toronto. I'm looking to the people of Scarborough to surprise and delight us with a new elected official who reflects this promise. The former borough got off to a great start in the recent municipal contest when they elected progressive school-board trustee Nadia Bello, who has been involved in Scarborough queer Pride organizing and TEACH (Teens Educating and Confronting Homophobia).

Stand up, Scarborough! Yes, you gave us the Barenaked Ladies and numerous other notables. It's time to shine again. We're counting on you!

More entries on: On the Hill

March 15, 2007

The Next Prime Minister

Posted by aaron at 06:06 PM ET | Comments (5)

Stephane Dion is much taller in person. He still looks like a mouse but only in the cute sense. In fact, he's so unintimidating up close, it's hard to imagine him being anything more than maybe your second favourite uncle. Not the one who gets drunk at Thanksgiving and offends your mom (he'd be the favourite) but the quiet intelligent one who always gets just the right birthday gift.

Even at seven in the morning Dion turns down coffee, opting instead for a second glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice. He should have taken the caffeine. His speech, Tuesday, in front of the Vancouver Board of Trade was just too low key for someone with his agenda.

The "Three Pillars," as he calls his plan, is "the economy, social justice and the environment." Instead of the usual pro-business rhetoric, he managed to explain why a national healthcare program is really important to a healthy modern economy and other novel ways of looking at social programs. The tired neo-liberal trap of warning about our competitiveness with United States never came up, instead he mentioned success stories within western European countries and asked how we could better emulate them. This is in front of a big-business audience too.

He also did part of his speech in French which elicited snarky comments from some stock broker looking types in the back row: "What the hell is he doing speaking French, this is BC!" What struck me most about the speech was how formal and bland it was. Maybe it was the language barrier but he seemed incapable of being off-the-cuff. Chretien had trouble with English pronounciation too, but all I remember of him are wiseass remarks and innapropriate cracks; pepper spray anyone?

More entries on: On the Hill

December 19, 2006

Deputy Ignatieff

Posted by calvin at 08:22 PM ET | Comments (0)

Former Liberal leadership front-runner and second place ballot-finisher, Michael Ignatieff, is to play deputy leader to party leader Stephane Dion? Act of party solidarity, indeed. With the rampant characterization of Ignatieff being "arrogant" and "entitled" the former Harvard professor is apparently not yet finished with Canadian politics and, in a resounding display of humility, not quite ready to walk away from his Liberal Party compass. Impressive indeed, but without full disclosure of the parties behind the scenes negotiations, it is unclear whether the maneuvers' credit is due to Ignatieff or to Dion.

More entries on: On the Hill

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---