The Globe and Mail makes an almost convincing argument as to why it is Ignatieff should take ownership of the healthcare issue in Canada. It’s originally a liberal/NDP issue. Michael Ignatieff is in command, barely but in command, of the liberals. Therefore, it should default to being his issue. The Globe rightly points out it doesn’t fit Stephen Harper if you follow along party lines, what with conservatives–at least, if you look south of the border for your definition of conservatives–opposed to anything government regulated on basic principle. But what the Globe and Mail leaves out, and this is what surprises me, is that Ignatieff isn’t in much of a better position to take ownership of it. If anything, he’s in a worse position than Harper.

Prior to his career in politics, Stephen Harper wasn’t a whole lot different from the average Canadian. Sure, he might have been president of the National Citizens Coalition, but he was still subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else living in Canada. Still fell under the jurisdiction of the very healthcare system he may or may not still want to turn inside out. He, his wife, his kids, were all subject to it–and would therefore be perhaps a little better qualified to have an opinion on exactly what to do with it.

Michael Ignatieff? His healthcare consisted of pretty well full coverage, most likely, while he was living in Boston. Likely paid for both by his employer and, if that wasn’t good enough, out of pocket. Prior to that, he found himself living in the UK. Where he again, most likely had some form of private insurance in addition to, if he ever used at all, the public option as exists across the pond. He has had no experience, either positive or negative, with Canada’s healthcare system since the 1970’s. Certainly he returned to Canada in 2005, and also entered politics at that point–he would be in waiting for Stephane Dion’s eventual implosion before taking charge of the liberal party, but he’s still had no actual experience with the healthcare system as faced by average Canadians. So to expect him to fit into the issue his party has traditionally taken ownership of in the past is, perhaps, a bit of a stretch.

If any one of the three would be the most likely to fit into the healthcare issue, and I cringe to publish this realization, it would almost have to be Jack Layton. Not that I’d be interested to see what he’d do with any kind of actual power, but he seems the most likely candidate for a defense of Canada’s current healthcare system both in and out of Canada. And, in fact, it might make slightly more sense than the Globe’s suggestion that simply because Ignatieff is the liberal leader, it should be his issue–the NDP was, after all, the originating entity that brought about healthcare. So, to exercise the Globe’s logic a bit farther, the issue of healthcare in Canada is actually an NDP issue. And, as such, should be written rather firmly into Jack Layton’s platform come next election. Stephen Harper should steer clear of it–it’s far too liberal for him, as should Ignatieff–it’s far too “Canadian” for him. Or, better yet, why don’t we just not make it an election issue at all. After all, it’s not like previous elections have brought about any real significant changes to it since the 1980’s or so.

The Star goes into a bit of detail on how the registry shouldn’t be a political issue, but rather an issue of public safety. And they cite the Toronto police chief as backing. Yeah, let’s go looking for proof in the murder capital of Canada, folks. Good call. There’s only one problem, though, with the whole public safety explanation. Murders nationally actually went up in 2008, including those involving guns. And those guns were probably not registered–criminals generally don’t like to do that on account of their activities being, well, criminal.

With the bill now having been granted a second reading, even some liberals–though not Michael Ignatieff, apparently–are cluing into that fact. It’s not a matter of public safety, as much as it is a matter of unwanted and unneeded burocracy. And a multi-billion dollar burocracy to boot. Although, on the bright side, that’s a couple billion dollars the conservatives are working on trimming from the expenses column. Could financial rebalancing really be all it’s about? Or, at least, financial non-wasting? Well, stranger things have happened.

The slightly less talked about possibility? They’re targetting the misery vote. Which, as the National Post is quick to point out, doesn’t carry a whole lot of benefit. Well, beyond the fact the liberal party gets to beat this issue to death while all the while tooting their own horn about their better than now preparedness during the SARS outbreak of 2003.

Naw, that can’t be it either. I mean, they aren’t saying their plans would be a whole lot better than the currently in place plans, are they? Surely not. That would be like casting doubt on themselves. Considering most if not all the current plans in place are leftovers from days of old, when crises like that would have been a liberal problem to deal with. Including the single-source contract with GSK to produce the H1N1 vaccine, that was entered into under Jean Chretien and which isn’t up until 2011. The liberals aren’t now taking aim at a uselessly bad contract into which they entered, are they? I didn’t think so.

Folks, I watched the emergency debate on Monday night. Admittedly, out of boredom more than anything else. In between repeatedly informing the opposition that Canada was ahead of schedule with the H1N1 vaccines, and has ordered enough to stick everyone who wants one with a needle and then some, the conservatives suggested that the liberals, as well as the NDP, are trying to politicise the H1N1 problem. While all the while the liberals shot back that it’s not a partisan issue. Well, they’re right. But they’re also wrong. See, Michael, your man on TV just outed you. Horible coincidence or not, intentional or not, ethics bungle or not–quick, ask the ethics commissioner if you screwed up–Sakamoto, a current liberal employee and a former CBC employee, just slapped a partisan tag on it. Tell me it doesn’t suck to be a liberal party member right now.

Based on all reports the roll out has been an unmitigated disaster. It appears provincial health officials couldn’t organize a two car parade!!

Yep, even some level-headed liberals who still have 3 functioning brain cells are putting responsibility for distribution exactly where it needs to be–on the shoulders of provincial governments. Some of which, naturally, are also liberal. Oops. Keep trying, Alf. You’ll catch on someday.

For his part, Michael Ignatieff is pretty much… well, um… doing exactly the same thing–pinning the absolute mess of a provincial distribution system on the conservatives. He, his health critic, and the NDP’s Jack Layton himself stood up in Monday night’s emergency debate, demanding the federal health minister take responsibility for the failure. because, you know, the federal government has all kinds of controll over Canada’s provincial health system. Well, at least their consistent. Not necessarily right, but since when has that ever stopped them?

With only a very minimalistic amount of actual research, there’s a fair laundry list of taxes, administrative costs, etc the HST proposes to eliminate. This is exactly the same HST, complete with proposed 13% harmonization, that New Brunswick adopted in 1997–yes, under a liberal majority government.

A study (PDF) was done in 2000, which outlined that prices in the atlantic provinces did fall with the advent of the HST, due to a combination of lowered tax rates (eastern provinces were seeing taxes upwards of 11% or higher) and lower overall costs in administration. Fortunately, items that are already being taxed provincially in Ontario–at an already existing rate of 8%–won’t see any real price increase when the HST comes into effect for items already not exempt from the PST–they’ll be in line now with the tax situation in atlantic Canada. People in BC, however, might actually fair out a little better. Their provincial tax sits at 7% right now, and will probably still be that way when they harmonize. The Globe and Mail has a sort of hst FAQ posted that explains roughly where it is consumers should expect to see prices fall, and where they should expect to see them increase. The article also points out we won’t actually know how the specifics will play out until it actually happens. Or, until the parties in support of the HST come out with something you don’t have to be an economist to translate.

And that’s the crux of the problem right there. Conservatives and liberals alike are telling Canadians the HST is a good thing, without really explaining why. I mean, beyond the standard responses that businesses will pay less to produce what we need, and consumers therefore should pay less to purchase/use what we need. But it never is that simple. Without details, and without knowing exactly what it is we’re supposed to be absolutely overjoyed to see come into effect in 2010, we’re left guessing. And the guesses a lot of folks are coming out with are that everything up to and including the kitchen sink will probably end up costing more–a theory not hindered by Jack Layton’s general opposition to anything that won’t buy him votes.

Not everyone has the time to actually go and look at how it’s been implemented in every other province who’s doing the harmonization. For that matter, not everyone really cares–they don’t live there. All that matters is how HST legislation everyone knows is coming down the pipe sooner or later will effect them. And right now, beyond Layton’s crying about it and the rough estimations of economists not involved in the actual legislation, that’s precisely what Canadians are not getting. If the net result is going to be lower taxes/prices all round, then say so. If HST provinces will simply be paying more taxes at the cash register and less off their paycheck, again, say so. Stephen harper and Michael Ignatieff’s parties would both support this tax. Stephen Harper is behind the push for the tax to come into effect. An expectation that he, or someone in his government, would be able to provide some degree of an explanation of exactly how such a change would be carried out is not, you’d think, an unreasonable one. So let’s have a crack at that. It might help the move’s popularity some. And really, it could use some help.

Just one small problem Ignatieff didn’t look like he was all too ready to have to solve. On the same day as he made his speech in Vancouver about just how bad off the country really is energy-wise, it was released that prime minister Stephen Harper, while in Alberta today, would be announcing his own attempt at greenness. Specificly, a carbon capture/storage plan. What worries me, and what should worry Michael Ignatieff, is we know about as much about Harper’s plan from that press release as we do about Ignatieff’s plan from his speech. There’s no dollar commitments here, no specifics on exactly what we’d do–no anything that would actually interest the average Canadian voter. There is one noteable difference, though. The speech by Harper hasn’t happened yet. So, he can still improve. Ignatieff? Maybe next time.

HST legislation may not end up actually doing a whole lot to the conservatives at all, if timed right, according to the Globe and Mail. Ignatieff’s decision to support the agreement entered into with BC and Ontario by Harper’s conservatives could put him in a tight spot if legislation to that effect was introduced next week. And, if the liberals don’t bite, Harper still has the option–although I cringe at the prospect–of tapping the Blocke Quebecois on the shoulder. With the recent upsurge in popularity in that province, they might not be so hot under the collar to chance going to the polls if it can be at all avoided. Granted, with the liberals also losing ground to the conservatives in Quebec, Ignatieff’s uncomfortable position if HST legislation does surface might just make him reconsider his lack of confidence in the government.

Sure’ there’s still the matter of the maybe or maybe not deficit–the one Canada might or might not have had were it not in the midst of a recession. And the additional shortfall of having been in the midst of a recession. The liberals tried arguing that once. Well, okay, a few times. It didn’t work out very well for them. Mostly because of the fact they helped push him into overspendulous territory. Which also puts Ignatieff in the position of having to Tell Canadians if he was elected, he’d have to either raise taxes or cut spending to cut through the deficit. But he didn’t. Instead, he and Stephen Harper both said they wouldn’t be raising taxes. And now, that thin line he’s walking between making parliament work and not having confidence in the government may disappear entirely. If the legislation ends up being introduced in the next couple weeks, while the conservatives still have a comfortable lead in the polls, Michael Ignatieff may just have to decide whether to fish or cut bate. And the liberal party may have to decide whether or not to cut Michael Ignatieff loose.

You need look no farther than this past weekend’s surprise, when liberal senators put the breaks on a bill to toughen up on sentencing for criminals, to see examples of that. And now, with Bob Rae lashing out to quickly slam a lid on any speculation he may or may not have had anything to do with the internal scuffle, it only ends up just being compounded. Stephen Harper was commended for being able to unite the right and bring it to a minority government for the past 4 years. Ignatieff is apparently expected to unite the left and do the same, or similar. Now, though, I think liberal loyalists–that is, those who haven’t already crossed over to the dark side–would just be happy if he could unite the center left. And stop the bleeding. Or maybe just stop the bleeding.

Ignatieff can’t seem to unite his party on policy, can’t seem to unite his party on much, and is still just barely managing to keep his head above water. Oh, and let’s not forget failing in the eyes of university educated Canadians, and Canadians abroad–both of which Michael Ignatieff is, and says should be much better for Canada. His support among even liberal loyalists now equals that displayed for former leader Stephane Dion, who spun off into the political deadpool back in January–a shame, really. If this website had been running then there would have been a veritable gold mine of recorded quotes to compare. It’ll take a lot more than a couple months of patch work to try and piece this party back together. But, if Ignatieff can actually manage to do it, and show Canadians an alternative government, we might just be on to something here. Until then, though, the only thing that might take the spotlight off Ignatieff is a conservative slip-up. And we might not have to wait very long for that.

Every economist in the country is, naturally, screaming the government of the day will eventually need to either raise taxes or cut spending if the intention is to balance the books by 2016. Makes sense, considering the toilet the economy is slowly climbing out of. Logic does say eventually, something’s gotta give. But, both parties say no to raising taxes, and one party says wait and see, or not a whole lot different than no, to cutting spending. If either one of these gentlemen has a hidden trick up their sleves that they’re not sharing with the rest of the class, it might be a halfway smart choice to do that. Before folks start to clue in and make things interesting–I’ve never seen the NDP leading in the polls. If they don’t, then Stephen Harper should just get on with the business of raising our taxes and just shut up about it, and Michael Ignatieff should really just shut up about it.

Just one minor little niggling problem. There’s about a 68% difference between what the liberals say is being spent and what the conservatives, in the media and on their website, say is being spent. Somebody’s lying, and with a shortfall of fifty-six billion dollars and probably climbing, it’s a lie that really needs to be stepped on, and extremely quickly–by whichever of the two is doing it. And, Stephen? Do yourself a favour and announce everything. Not just the projects scheduled for construction in 2010. If it’s on the table, put it on the website. It’ll save you a hell of a headache. Oh, and, Michael? If you’re going to criticise spending, do it from somewhere that isn’t already scheduled to be torn up to have something else built there. You’ve managed to make yourself look rather like an idiot instead. Which might actually be what you were going for–I don’t know, but that would be consistent.

Neverminding the fact he hasn’t really produced anything concrete yet, he’s been in office nine months. His troops are still in Afghanistan. His troops are still in Iraq. And his last attempt at peace talks didn’t go so well, so on Israel grounds it’s shockingly premature. I’m ignoring the Iran thing for obvious reasons.

Even prime minister Stephen Harper acknowledges the prise’s award is for what he hopes to do, not what he’s done already, in his congratulations to Obama. Congratulations that, and rightfully so, are on behalf of Canada. What does Michael Ignatieff have to gain from issuing his own, also smacking of being on behalf of Canadians? Folks, I have no idea.

Let’s see. Maybe not jumping on Health Canada for something that was requested by a first nations reservation? Or, perhaps, appologising when you do and the truth is realized. Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Have you learned nothing from crackergate? Really? How about from the newspaper who later had a healthy feast of crow after printing it? No? Didn’t think so. Keep on workin’ sir. And while you’re at it, work on your flip-floppery at the same time, You were a little quick.

The National Post points out two reasons why Ignatieff might have a tiny little problem with having this ultra serious adult conversation. Firstly, he’s never really been able to actually deliver on any kind of serious conversation re: economic policy, or… well… anything else to this point. Most of his adult conversations have been focused on what the government’s not doing, or not doing right–leaving us to wonder, and rightly so, exactly who it is we’re dealing with here. Secondly, and probably more importantly, Canadians have absolutely no trust left for a liberal government. Particularly given the episodes of the last liberal government are still fresh in the minds of many voters. That may be the biggest mountain for Ignatieff to try climbing. And, he’ll have to do it while trying to keep his own party from promptly imploding behind him.

There is also the matter of exactly how it is he would get Canada’s budget back on an even tilt, and which programs he’d cut to do so–something we still don’t have a clue about when it comes to sir Ignatieff. But, given the liberals of old, Canadians probably already have their expectations. When you talk about the possibility of a liberal government, most people’s instinctive reaction will be to brace themselves for slashes to either health care or education spending in times when budgets need to be balanced. Add to that an almost certainty of some variation of tax increase–although, look for Ignatieff to argue Stephen Harper’s already done that with employment insurance premiums, and you have a not good environment for Ignatieff to sit down and talk money. Now, that having been said, it’d be nice to actually see a platform from the liberal leader. I like reading things that aren’t criticisms of Canada’s current government. And then mocking them where applicable.

A one-two punch that probably should have been aimed at the conservatives landed squarely on the noses of several members of Ignatieff’s own party, with first a private members’ bill that would shorten the residency period required for seniors to claim partial payments from old age security from 10 years to 3 being publicly opposed by seniors critic Judy Sgro on behalf of Ignatieff, and then while getting his feet under him after that, having his majority of the senate kick them away again by weakening criminal legislation that had passed, with the support of Michael Ignatieff as is, through the house of commons. In the face of all this, it’s difficult to see how Ignatieff can still profess to be uniting his party.

Add to that, there’s a growing murmer among party loyalists that suggest perhaps Ignatieff should reconsider his newly adopted “oppose the government no matter what” position. If it’s a dog eat dog world in Ottawa, the various liberal factions are getting a head start. And they wonder why it is they’re down below 30% in the polls. Well, while bob Rae and his supporters ready another volley for the Ignatieff camp, and while Ignatieff’s supporters keep looking for the answer to that question–hey, guys, try googling “liberal comedy act”–Ignatieff will continue the never ending search for that elusive party unity. I just hope for his sake the good ship liberal can actually stay afloat long enough. I do see a crack or 3 in her, though.

On top of the fact we still have absolutely no idea what this man’s about, this oppose everything mentality that he’s apparently got going for him may or may not actually be in question. It should be questioned, considering the only thing it’s gotten the liberals to this point is 13 points behind the conservatives. The National Post suggests that, even if Ignatieff himself isn’t contemplating no longer taking over the NDP’s role as the party of not conservative, certain persons inside his party might be.

The Globe puts out yet another valid point on the side of why that is, suggesting–and rightly so–that the reason for such a wide gap between the two parties is retaliation for his failed attempts to bring down Stephen Harper’s government. It wasn’t any secret that was his intent–one didn’t have to pay much attention to the headlines to see that. And the move’s popularity is reflected in where the liberals now sit in relation to everyone else. Not that the liberals need any more proof that Canadian voters quite simply do not want to have to vote for a second time in a year, but just in case they did, this should satisfy that need. If Ignatieff hated having to threaten another election, as he said he did, he has to be hating it now with the party he’s opposing–or maybe not–on prinsiple on the verge of majority territory. Personally, the opinionated fool looks for the NDP and liberals to shore up support for the conservatives in coming months, leaving the Blocke Quebecois the only party to provide any opposition–and, with that, the only party with something to lose who’s at risk of actually losing it.

Oh, they can talk it up as though they have plenty–they’ve been doing that for a few months. But Ignatieff was given a golden opportunity to explain what it is he would do were he sitting where Stephen Harper is right now. Instead, he fell back on his old habbits. Failing grade on this, didn’t get that done, lost controll of that other thing. We’re not seeing anything new here. And he’s still trying to trigger an election? I get the distinct feeling, and it’s a sad thing to say–much like his employment insurance gripes, Ignatieff just doesn’t get it. Or, if he does, he’s choosing instead to ignore it. Which actually might turn out to be slightly worse. Worse than standing in the house of commons without a real alternative form of government? You be the judge.

Harper engineered the arangement in such a way that the provincial premiers were the ones to announce the tax. He engineered it in such a way that the implementation of the proposed tax change, which is scheduled to take effect in July of 2010, would be left up to the provinces in question. And, and this is what might hand a heart attack to any purely liberal riding in Ontario or BC, it’s a tactic not any different than what the federal liberals did in atlantic Canada in 1997–a tax change that, to my knowledge at least, none of their governments since have tried to repeal.

While there’s no denying legislation of this variety would be damaging, it still remains fuzzy, at least to the Globe and Mail, as to exactly who it would be damaging to. Let’s try to recap it.

• The HST was announced just after Ontario’s budget last January. Criticism started almost immediately after information was released regarding exactly how popular a move that would be.
• NDP leader Jack Layton championed the cause federally, slamming Harper for daring to proceed with the measure.
• “Hey, the provinces said yes to it. Back off.” Latest defense from the conservatives’ Jim Flaherty, who promptly sidestepped the HST issue.
• Federal liberal leader Michael Ignatieff shoots himself in the foot, saying if an election is called and he wins, he won’t axe the tax. Oops.

And through it all, the federal conservatives just keep going up in the polls, while federal and provincial liberals keep going down. Coincidence? If you’re the Globe and Mail and you’re writing the article linked in the first paragraph, yes–most asuredly a coincidence. But if you’ve been watching how things have been playing out, you have to question just where that speculation comes from. Contrary to what most liberal party loyalists would have us believe, Stephen Harper isn’t a blithering idiot with no idea what he do. Neither, I would argue, is Michael Ignatieff–except we haven’t seen that side of him yet. Harper, though, and with Ignatieff’s unwitting help, has just managed to handcuff the liberals. By setting it up so that the liberal party in Ontario and BC takes the fall for it, with Ontario being one of the two provinces Harper needs to make a dramatic improvement in if he expects to gain a majority, he all but guarantees anyone not fond of the HST doesn’t vote liberal in the next election, whenever that might happen to be. As it stands now he’s called 4 bielections in order to fill vacant seats in the house of commons–this can’t be good for the liberals either. Best case, Harper walks away from all this with a majority. Worst case, another minority government, likely conservative. In either case, any seats lost in the coming election will more than likely wind up going to the NDP if anyone at all. And the NDP could certainly use them.

Harper is definitely engineering someone’s defeat. Whether his or Ignatieff’s it’s really hard to say at this point. But, if he ends up taking it on the nose, look for him to drag Ignatieff down with him. And Ignatieff would have walked himself right into it.

It’s interesting to note, though, that the liberals are circling overhead like vultures, waiting to pounce on the HST proposal in an attempt to flatten the conservatives in a possible election, at least in Ontario and BC. There’s just one problem. The conservatives’ poison pill, if it actually goes through before the next election–not likely unless the liberals or NDP do the flip flop dance again, would not be axed by the liberals should they come out on top. Which begs the question. Just who is this poison pill for?

Ignatieff will no doubt criticise Harper for its introduction–he’s already called it the Harper sales tax. And he will probably continue to do so in an election campaign. But if it’s known he’d keep it in place were he made prime minister, I have a real hard time seeing how it makes the liberal campaign on that issue any degree of effective. Best case, it becomes a non-starter for both the liberals and conservatives come election time. Worst case? The NDP, who have opposed it from the get go–and just about everything else on principle, fire at both parties on the issue and gain ground on both of them. On the up side, if you’re the type to look for up sides, if Harper goes, look for him to try and take Ignatieff down with him. If the liberals decide to make it a campaign issue, that’s very likely going to happen.

Ignatieff is stuck in “we can do better mode”, which is getting him all of nowhere in the polls. Stephen Harper, on the other hand? Well, he’s been accused, albeit not by the Globe, of talking like a conservative and spending like a liberal–not good in the eyes of folks who’ve voted exclusively conservative. The Globe goes into a whole paragraph or two on Harper’s addressing of Quebecers, and Ignatieff’s lack of any real sticking point of his own. But it’s a lot simpler than that–if the article’s author would have just looked at the last 6 months or so in a little more detail.

In a lot of ways, as much as they know about Stephen Harper, Canadians still don’t have any idea what they’d be getting with a Stephen Harper majority. Quite the contrary, actually. They do, though, know what they’d be getting with a liberal majority–which is escentially what they’ve been getting throughout almost all of the previous session of parliament. Harper wanted to keep the national debt lower than it is, his arm was twisted by the opposition to throw money at a global recession. He says he wants to reform the senate, but with the liberals, NDP and Blocke Quebecois controlling the majority of seats in the house and the liberals with a majority in the senate, any attempt to push that bill through now would be dead on arival. He wants to scrap the gun registry–just one example of liberal overspending in and of itself, same result in a minority government.

Simply put, Canadians don’t trust the Stephen Harper they’re looking at. And, enter the cold ear of common sense, if they don’t trust him they aren’t about to blindly hand him a majority. What might keep him in minority territory, though, is Canadians’ equal distrust of Michael Ignatieff.

Again, the Globe and Mail misses the mark a little on the liberals’ crowned king. Oh, sure, the “we can do better” adds are actually doing nothing. And, while that means they’re not really hurting Ignatieff, they’re not really helping him either. What’s hurting him, though, and hurting him badly, is what he’s saying in the media. Which tends to change on a daily basis. He mocked the liberals publicly, then turned around and wanted to lead them to an electoral victory. He flopped on employment insurance most recently, as well as being both for and against just about everything that happens to be a political hot button. Oh yeah, and there’s still the small little detail of Canadians not really knowing him to begin with. But we’ll ignore that for his benefit.

If politics was a sport, we would be in the throws of sudden death overtime between two very closely guarded teams. In other words, I’d have probably fled the stadium by now out of boredom. Neither side’s taking risks, neither side’s really putting forth what they would do if Canadians would only grant them the mandate to do so. The difference? One side’s giving us something. As for the other? They’re giving us we can do better. Well, at least they’re right about that. Problem is, they’re not.