…for the new Speaker of the House!

Oh, you thought it was going to be for a Liberal leadership candidate? Sorry about that.. but I’m a declared neutral in this race and will be for quite some time to come until I see all the candidates and all their positions - particularly on party reform. I may not endorse anyone, but there’s time to decide that yet.

Oh.. about the Speaker. I see James is putting up a spirited defence of Peter Milliken, who’s been the Speaker for a few years now. You can read his reasonings there. Personally, I don’t particularly have a pro or anti-Milliken bent. If he gets the job back, good for him, but I do wonder whether some “fresh blood” might not be a good thing to see if that person can change the tone of the House.

I obviously don’t think that will happen if one of the Conservative MP’s tries to get the job, so hopefully any of them get voted a resounding “no”, but I’ll have to wait and see who all the candidates are from the opposition benches.

UPDATE: Apparently, Olaf thinks I need to clarify my remarks since I didn’t do what I said I was going to do in the title of my post;so I’ll say that I changed my mind during the blogpost (which I reserve the right to do). I’m not declaring for anyone for that job either - until I see the candidates (which is what I more or less said in the last paragraph before this update).

..at least in Canada, because I’m not sure I get why all the guessing over what Liberal leadership candidate Warren is going to pick.

With all due respect to Warren, does it really matter THAT much who he endorses, Liberal bloggers? Because, I really am amused by some of the Liberal blogs folks and the attention being hung on every written word of his, trying to get a hint of who he might or might not endorse.

An interesting diary over at Talking Points Memo on this topic attempts such an analysis from reading the quotes of Harper in the media over the last week before and after talking to Obama:

Interestingly, on their conversation regarding climate change Harper said: “The new president has expressed a desire to participate fully in global efforts to fix the problems of greenhouse gases.” I stress “global” since it appears to be a subtle shift from statements made by the Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon earlier in the week that indicated the Canadian desire to pursue a “North American” approach. My initial concern was that Harper would use some regional scheme to try and rope Obama into following the obstructionist stance he pursued at last year’s UN meetings in Bali. Is Harper’s characterization of Obama’s commitment to “global efforts” an indication that he was cool to the Prime Minister’s position?

That’s a very good question. We probably won’t really know until President-elect Obama is sworn in on January, though as I said, his picks for the EPA and whether or not he decides to add Al Gore in an environmental role in his administration will be telling hints whether he thinks Harper is trying to play games with the environment. Under no circumstances does Harper want Big Oil losing a bit of their multi-billion dollar profits to, you know, actually having to do something substantial to cut down on GHG gases, and have Canada commit to fighting something that is a question still whether Harper actually believes is a problem or not (”so-called Greenhouse Gases”, as he has said).

Personally, I hope Obama and whoever he puts in there - be it Kennedy and/or Gore or others - tells Harper to stick it, and get back to them when you have a real climate change fighting plan, rather then the “complete and utter fraud” of one (quoting Al Gore) that he has put in place now.

UPDATE@ 4:28pm: Good point from my comment section about what Obama is proposing at his change.gov site for the environment:

You might want to take a look at President Elect Obama’a new web site..If Harper has he’s probably having conniption fits already. Not only does Obama’s plan propose a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits in order to give American families tax rebates, he also wants to enact serious cap and trade measures, end American reliance on imported oil (particularly “dirty oil”) and invest in green technologies. The program reads very much like the Green Shift

Those cap and trade measures are calling for GHG emissions to be reduced by 80% when 2050 rolls around. Those aren’t using “intensity targets”, I can tell you. Those are hard caps. I think Harper is going to have a pretty tough time convincing Obama and his administration to exclude the Tarsands from any new US tough climate change laws - when its responsible for a lot of the GHG emitted up here.

Barack Obama said this today at his first news conference as the President-elect said this about more grim figures for the US economy:

Obama said that, if the lame-duck Congress fails to pass a stimulus package before he takes office January 20, passing such a package will be his first move…He said the country must deal with several immediate challenges. Obama said a fiscal stimulus plan to jump-start economic growth is “long overdue.”…The president-elect also said he would make it a high priority to work on additional policy options to help the struggling auto industry.

Note the key phrases; stimulus package, assistance to the auto industry.

It we look at Harper by comparison, has anyone seen or heard him or his finance minister uttering similar phrases or commitments to help out the struggling auto industry specifically, and the manufacturing industry in general in Ontario? Of course you haven’t, other then berating Ontario for not cutting taxes, and belittling Ontario as “the worst place to invest”. On the other hand, the slightest hint that the Alberta tarsands might be punished by potential tough new US climate-change plans and rules, and he’s got half the cabinet working on that (or working to try and get the tarsands exempted from such rules).

I said the same thing yesterday as Excited Delirium does: Obama should tell him “thanks but no thanks” - at least until Canada produces a credible plan that fights climate-change and gets the GHG emitted by the tarsands under control - and intensity targets don’t cut it, as Al Gore once said famously up here.

By the way, I saw on CNN there were/are rumours that Al Gore might be in line for a new “Environmental Czar” position in the Cabinet. If that were to occur, combined with Robert F. Kennedy’s rumoured position at the Environmental Protection Agency, I think Harper would have a pretty tough sell to the Obama administration to exempt the tarsands from any meaningful climate change rules or plans.

No surprise here, particularly under Harper’s do-nothing approach, that we’re one of the world’s biggest ’slouches’ when it comes to protecting the environment:

Canada’s environmental record is among the worst in the industrialized world, due in part to its poor performance fighting global warming, according to a report from the Conference Board of Canada on Monday. Canada placed 15th among 17 peers, beating only Australia and the United States. Greenhouse gas emissions, high garbage production, and rampant overuse of fresh water were its biggest environmental problems.

Note that this isn’t some world study berating us, but the Conference Board of Canada. Last I looked, it wasn’t being run by any environmentalist types either. Of course, I don’t expect Harper to pay much heed to this report. Indeed, we read today he is trying to more or less bribe the new President-elect into exempting the Alberta Tarsands from any tough new environmental laws or restrictions in exchange for offering a “secure” North American supply - which I find a bit odd to be offering, since I don’t think what oil Canada is already offering to the US is an “insecure” supply. We’re bound by the NAFTA agreement to supply oil to the US no matter what, so this just seems to be nothing more then an attractive phrasing of words designed to play on Obama’s pledge to stop depending on insecure sources of oil such as the Middle East.

Of course, Obama also doesn’t want to depend on “dirty oil” either, and the Alberta Tarsands have specifically been pointed to as an example of this by Obama’s advisers. I’d take a guess as well that if Robert Kennedy Jr is offered the post of the Environmental Protection Agency, based on his past environmental record, you won’t find him advising Obama to take Harper up on his offer, which more or less gives the Tarsands a free pass, which is what Harper wants.

I would urge Obama not to fall for this Trojan Horse of an offer. Under Harper, Canada is shirking its world environmental responsibilities, and until we get rid of this government, it’s going to stay that way. It will take external pressure - like our biggest oil customer refusing to buy oil from a source that has no credible climate change fighting plan - to force Harper to deal with this and to put forth a credible GHG emissions plan.

UPDATE: The Jurist has similar thoughts.

Yesterday, I wrote a blogpost lambasting the Liberal caucus leaders for reportedly considering giving up one of their committee seats without a whimper and handing defacto majority party status on those committees to a minority Conservative government, merely because the Conservatives were being loud and blustery about it. So, today, I’m going to write a post giving credit where it’s due; I’m applauding the Liberals for appearing to not be willing to back down over the Conservatives threatening to make their draconian new crime bills a confidence motion:

Opposition MPs, including Liberals who have worked on justice issues, say they would plunge the country into another federal election before agreeing to a slate of Conservative proposals that would see convicted criminals treated more harshly..The Conservatives are not backing down from threats to make the measures matters of confidence.

My praise is conditional of course; if they say all this tough talk now, only to back down later. I’ll be even tougher on them for following a strategy that failed them last Parliament. But, it appears for now, some of them have found some spine:

Brian Murphy, a Liberal from New Brunswick, said it would be wrong to oppose bills that have not yet been seen by Parliament and they could be crafted in a way that the Liberals support. “But I would say very clearly that abstaining as we did was not helpful in this election for me,” he said. “And I would be very reluctant - given that I ran on the idea of being a fighter, being very strident, and having 16 years of always standing up for people - I would be very reluctant to abstain.” Larry Bagnell, a Liberal MP from the Yukon, said the question for both his party and the Conservative government will be whether these issues are serious enough to fight another election over. “I can say that we will be making a strong case in our caucus against this bill, for sure,” Mr. Bagnell said. Derek Lee, a Toronto-area Liberal, said “there is no way I am going to sit on my hands. There is no way that these guys are going to get their way…I couldn’t allow myself to vote in favour of such ill-advised legislation, whether they call it confidence or not.”

I am willing to bet The Governor-General would not accede to an election request in the first few months of this new minority. If Harper wants to take the gamble over whether she would accept an election request, or reject it in order to ask other parties to see if they can form the government or not by making thes crime bills a confidence motion and falling over it, (when there’s no need to make it a confidence motion - these aren’t money or supply bills) I say let him roll the dice, and I say to the Liberals, make the onus of supporting the government fall on the other opposition parties.

The Liberals and the rest of the opposition parties are right not to back down on this bullying. It is going to keep occurring until it’s shown by the other parties - particularly the Liberals - that it isn’t going to be tolerated any more.

..and Liberal leaders of the caucus:

Turtling Abstaining from votes and giving the Conservatives a free hand in the House the last Parliamentary Session didn’t work out very well this past election; so why in the world are you thinking of trying it again by being willing to consider giving up one of your seats on the House committees and handing the Conservatives defacto majority status on said Committees?

As Kady O’Malley said about this apparent surrendering a committee seat without a fight tactic:

Did you learn nothing from the last leadership race? Just because a half dozen or so of your MPs may be out on the party party circuit hustling for support doesn’t mean that you can just abandon your responsibilities as the Official Opposition. You talked a good game about the dangers of a Conservative majority during the election campaign - now show some spine and make sure that they don’t end up with a de facto majority in the committee room just because you don’t have the gumption to hold your ground. This isn’t just about one of your seats - it’s about the combined power of the opposition parties, and you owe it to the rest of them - and the people who voted for you, for that matter - not to cede it out because you’re distracted by the glimmer of something shiny off the Hill.

It’s pretty sad that we’re willing to concede this with nary a whimper,  while the NDP has vowed to fight the Conservatives and prevent them from having a majority on the Committees when they ddnt earn that privilege in the first place with another minority government. My attitude toward this is the same as Eugene Forsey Liberal is saying  over at their blog: “This is crazy! Have we gone completely nuts?! WTF!!!

- As Calgary Grit says, this is very interesting, and its musings are backed up somewhat by this. My only thoughts are that if Kennedy is musing on running again -this time as a “Liberal Renewal - 308 riding candidate”, the proof will be in the pudding, the devil will be in the details, etc.

- The 2008 Canadian Blog Awards start up again (with still a month to go before 2008 is over. Heh.) Head on over and nominate your favourite blog in the categories listed.

UPDATE @ 3:39 pm: Ouch. NBC Correspondent Lawrence O’Donnell, in the aftermath of Sarah Palin getting prank called by a couple of Canadian comedians pretending to be President Nicolas Sarkozy, calls Palin’s staff the worst in campaign history.

..leadership candidates for the liberal Party that is.

Rae to run for Liberal leadership

That makes Rae and Dominic Leblanc the only official 2 candidates for the Liberal leadership so far. Apparently, the Globe and Mail story today that claimed Rae had told friends he was thinking of NOT running probably tipped his hand.

UPDATE: Just heard from someone I know in Quebec that Rae went on RDI and confirmed he was running. Not the best time in the news cycle on a Friday to be announcing your candidacy, but he probably felt he had no choice with the “not running” rumours swirling around.

I’ve met Mr. Rae before at a Liberal fundraiser in Woodstock a couple of months ago and had a chit chat with him. He’s a very outgoing and articulate guy. Is he the guy to lead the Liberal Party? That remains to be seen.

I suppose I should comment on the new Harper Cabinet that was sworn in today. My first impressions are this:

The good points of this shuffle - more women in Cabinet. As an aside, you kind of had the feeling that Lisa Raitt would get rewarded by Harper for removing the thorn in his side Garth Turner. Besides, I’m sure she made it clear she wasn’t getting into politics to be a backbencher, after being the former head of the Toronto Port Authority. More good points - Baird out of the Environment slot, and Clement out of Health.

The bad points are Flaherty staying Finance Minister, Gerry Ritz staying Agriculture after his stupid remarks, and Jason Kenney, never one to pass up a good smear job, being in Immigration.

The amusing points: Stephen Taylor (or his Conservative source that often feeds him their spin)  being wrong that a Liberal from Quebec would cross the floor to join Cabinet, be that Irwin Cotler or someone else. Either Stephen and/or his source was trying to create mischief in Liberal-land, or else some folks up in Cons HQ were being overly optimistic of their PM’s power to persuade someone to cross the floor.

All in all, a reshuffle with a few new faces. I expect more of the same from this bunch which means parroting Harper and the PMO talking points. I’d hope Harper would let his ministers have more freedom to actually display an independent thought or 2, but don’t be surprised if nothing changes.

No more cutting corners please, Liberals

Speaking of “same old, same old”, I’m rather ticked to see some in the Liberal Party thinking that there really doesn’t need to be any major overhaul, and that all the Liberal Party has to do is let the presumed economic downturn take care of Harper, and presto, everyone will want us back in government. I heard far too much “hoping” this past election campaign from some Liberals that something would knock Harper down in the polls and out of government, and this sounds distressingly like the same thing - pick a new leader, look for external events to knock Harper and the Cons dowm, and we’ll be voted back in. That is unacceptable - it should be apparent that strategy has failed us, and we really need to do a re-think and stop trying to cut corners.