A very Ignatieff holiday party - Macleans.ca

A very Ignatieff holiday party



Interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff held his holiday party at Toronto’s hip C Lounge.


Toronto MP Ken Dryden and his wife Lynda.


Toronto MP Mario Silva (right) with partner Martin Forget.


Ignatieff’s wife Zsuzsanna Zsohar.


Newly elected Toronto MP Kirsty Duncan.


Former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, who was defeated in the last election, sports one of two Christmas ties he owns.


Toronto MP Rob Oliphant.


Liberal “spin doctor” Warren Kinsella.


Newly elected MP Bonnie Crombie and former MP Paul Zed, who was defeated in the last election.


Igantieff organizer Lindsay Doyle.


Young Liberal Michelle Oliel, one of the MCs for the evening.


Young Liberal Andrew Block, the other MC.


Toronto writer Bert Archer.


Anetta Jewell of Great Lakes Brewery, which is located in Ignatieff’s riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The beer served at the party was from her brewery.


Young Liberal Marko Trivun (left) shows off the local brew.


Toronto MP Carolyn Bennett and husband Peter O’Brian, Chairman of TVOntario.


Jason Cherniak who runs liblogs.com. He has retired his own blog “Cherniak on Politics.”


Maclean’s National Editor Andrew Coyne.


Dan Arnold of www.calgarygrit.ca, who now lives in Toronto.



Toronto MP Derek Lee.


Eric Hoskins, a former Liberal candidate and founder of War Child Canada.


Young Liberal Jay Telegdi.


Ontario Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla.


Liberal supporter Scott Johnston.


Senator David Smith.


Old Iggy items were brought out like this scarf from the 2006 Leadership Convention.


Liberal staffer Trevor Harris tries to block the shot.




A very Ignatieff holiday party

  1. What the!?! Coyne’s smiling? He must have the inside scoop that Santa’s cancelled Christmas…

  2. What the hell is Coyne doing at a holiday party hosted by Ignatieff?
    I thought he hated the man.

    • Well, now that Mike Duffy has been neutralized by his Senate appointment, the last hops for the Conservatives has gone, with Coyne joining Ignatieff. Now there is not one journalist left to suuport the government party. At least the West, all four of us now what our opponents have cooked up for us. It would be nice to get some favorale pubility from the Ottawa-Toronto-Montrela media, but that is too much to expect. From here on in, we GO IT ALONE- but with three western provinces, and maybe Manitoba we can make it work.

  3. “Interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff…”

    I stand corrected but I thought Mr. Ignatieff was crowned the actual Liberal leader earlier this month. A perfectly understandable error on Mr. Raphael’s part given that in most 21st century democracies political leaders are chosen by some form of elected means as opposed to being installed in a monarchical manner.

    • Any Liberal leader must be elected at a convention that is why he is interim Liberal leader for now.

      • Thanks Mr. Raphael, I stand corrected.

        In effect what we have is the Liberal Party of Canada has to have a charade of a convention to give its official blessing to its installed leader. Sort of like what they did in the former Soviet Union and still do in present day Russia, and other democratic bastions like North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

        • exactly like that. what a tribute to what the people of those countries have gone through to make such an insipid comparison.

  4. Glad to know I still make the cut! Thanks.

  5. “that in most 21st century democracies political leaders are chosen by some form of elected means as opposed to being installed in a monarchical manner.”


  6. Andrew Coyne- Liberal spin doctor!!!!!!!!!

  7. For your yawning pleasure:

    “And his grandfather, Count Paul Ignatieff, was a minister in the government of the last Russian czar.”

    – December 10th Canadian Press

    “Just before the creation of the Duma [ the Russian Parliament ] in May 1906, the tzar issued the Fundamental Laws. It stated in part that Tsar’s ministers could not be appointed by, and were not responsible to, the Duma, thus denying responsible government at the executive level.”

    – December 10th Globe and Mail

    At least Iggy has the aristocratic pedigree to be appointed in this regal manner. And frankly, who can blame the Liberals for refraining from relying on lowly democratic means to choose their leader this time around after what the plebes delivered at the 2006 convention in Montreal. Once burnt, twice shy.

    • Interestingly, the Fundamental Laws were seen as a coup by the Emperor and led to a completely unworkable Duma. Nicholas II eventually had to change (illegally) the electoral law so that a Duma could be elected that supported the government. In effect, even Nicholas II realized that he could not have a government that was not supported by the legislature, so he just stacked the legislature.

      I’ve long been interested in this question of whether the imposition of responsible government in 1906 could have prevented the long Soviet nightmare. I’m personally inclined to think it might have, but much of it would have depended on how successful land reform and such would have been by the time of the Great War. At the very least, there probably would not have been a situation where the monarch abdicated in the middle of a war – instead, it would likely have been the prime minister being sacked.

      • My Christmas gift to the many Liberals here: Iggy’s grandad Count Pavel, speaking at the Empire club, 1931:

        speeches. empireclub. org/details.asp? SpeechID=2815&FT=yes

        “The reforms of Tolstoy could not stem the tide of pedagogical progress. A strong current of thought would not acquiesce in the idea of a school torn away from life. But it was only in 1908 that it was possible for the Duma to achieve great improvements in the schools, both quantitatively and qualitatively. An extensive network of primary schools was started all over Russia; with the reforms of 1915-16 a school was introduced that made possible the co-ordination of general education with vocational preparation. Those reforms answered so well the needs of the time that even the outburst of the revolution has not changed their trend, although it changed some of the fundamentals of the curricula. Time alone will reveal the relative values of the courses.

        After the liberation of the peasants in 1861, when more than half the arable land was given to then, the policy of the Russian Government was to democratize the ownership of the land, taking from big land owners and giving to the peasants. Two State Land Banks were instituted-one for land owners for mortgage purposes, and one for the peasants-to buy land and resell to the peasant on a liberal installment plan. By 1914 only 25°0 of land was in possession of the land owners, the rest being in the hands of the peasants, the small holders.”

        Interesting to contrast with the Iggy’s recent speech at the Empire club.

  8. I should be clear here, the manner in which the Liberals chose their leader was undemocratic, retrograde and a missed opportunity for party renewal. It was a completely indefensible process.

    That said, I do beleive that Michael Ignatieff will restore some semblance of seriousness to a Liberal party that has lost its way. The Liberal Party has become arrogant, set in its ways, closed to new ideas, ossified if you will. (In fact, someone like Ti-guy to me epitomizes the Liberal Party of Canada in 2009.)

    Adscam demonstrated the height of its arrogance. The Liberal Party = The Canadian State, the people’s money, the Liberal Party’s money, same thing. It also has become, more than ever before, a party completely and utterly beholden to vested interests. Think Buzz Hargrove cradling Paul Martin in his arms in the 2006 campaign. Think Power Corp. and the Canadian corporate elite, particularly the Toronto establishment.

    By anointing an outsider there is hope that the party can be set on a new course. Back in 2006 the Liberal Party establisment did not want this outsider so they rejected him. The Ti-guy’s of the Liberal Party were scathing about him then. Time will tell if Ignatieff can bring The Liberal Party into the 21st century.

  9. I’m sure the Liberal Party is interested in advice from not-too-bright 14 year-olds boys.

  10. The London paper (via Bourque) has an article up in which Iggy promises to keep Harper on a short leash.

    Condescending and demeaning language aside, I wonder what he’ll use to back up the rhetoric.

    The party is nearly broke. They’re languishing in the 20 percent support range. The public overwhelminly trusts Harper to handle the economic instability. The coalition idea was roundly hated by the vast majority of Canadians.

    Me thinks the all bluster-no action ways of the past year will continue on. Gee, a condescending academic who doesn’t intend to back up his tough rhetoric?

    Meet the new Liberal leader, same as the old Liberal leader.

    • Puahahaha~!

      He-man Harper v 3.0 is just not as tough as He-man Ignatieff v 1.0 with kung-fu grip. Don’t cry too much about it, kody, the envy is unbecoming.

      Like I says to my kids “you get what you get, and don’t get upset”.


    • Maybe in your world or outer space the population trusts Mr. Harper. Many of the people I know, who live on earth, believe he is a liar, a bully, a coward and a bone head. And you can’t fix STUPID.

  11. Kody-Biff, what did I tell you about lying?

  12. I see the right wing trolls if misinformation and attacks are out in full. Sigh……what a bunch of children.

    • Yeah. Their controller doesn’t even give them Christmas off….. that’s cold.

      Clearly they need a union.

  13. Jarrid’s yawner: “I should be clear here, the manner in which the Liberals chose their leader was undemocratic, retrograde and a missed opportunity for party renewal. It was a completely indefensible process.”

    So he’s got a crush on a leader who never revealed who paid for his leadership bills (or the bills of those who supported him) and who once in office ignores the electoral process he serves (a parliamentary system), who doesn’t allow his minions to speak their minds, who prevails to cause political instability among the minions with racuous threats of mob rule. That’s your kind of party Jarrid. Misusing and purposely spreading fires to deflect the heat off so-called leader seems entirely apropos, I suppose.

  14. Jarrid, the Liberal leader was chosen exactly as written in the Liberal constitution, as voted by liberal party members at their last get-together.

    What exactly is undemocratic about the process the party members TOLD them to follow? Why do you have such a big problem with it–your vote wasn’t going to count no matter how the Liberals did it. Otherwise, you’d have to be a Liberal, and we all know you aren’t.

    I fail to see what business it is of yours–unless you deem it democratic for other political party members to choose the leader of rival parties. If so, please remove Harper IMMEDIATELY. I’m pretty safe in guaranteeing he won’t pass the vote.

  15. It really seems the only people upset by Ignatieff’s rise to Interim Leader are Conservative party stalwarts. Maybe they’re nervous that their boy didn’t get to have Stephane Dion to kick around for another six months and than Harper may actually have to act like a grownup.

  16. Well being a Conservative supporter I am not unhappy at all that Iggy has been crowned prince of the LPC as now the real fighting can begin, let’s face it folks half of evil meanie stevies rep has been because anyone delivering a political blow to Dion looked like a meanie as the guy was the single most ineffective political leader since hmmmm .. maybe just ever! Now when Stevie boy pokes Iggy in the eye and removes the rug it will be seen as a fair battle and the Igster himself is aready looking like a braggart who needs to be taken down a few notches but that is an arrow I am sure is in the quiver and waiting. The only only thing bigger than unibrows (Iggy) mouth is his ego and if there ever was a real political fight shaping up then it is this one. I can’t wait for the budget – I can see it all now – The Igster will stand up and rail against the gov’t and then Steve will throw him a bone and before you know it all you will see standing up and voting against the gov’t will be just the right amount of members to make it look good Oh it is great time to be a conservative in canada and that’s for sure. Hey what happened to the coalition of the unwilling doesn’t seen to be much talk of it of late.

  17. Wayne are you talking about the alleged governing coalition that would have the confidence of the House of Commons that only includes the Liberals and the NDP but has 163 members as Mr. Dryden, a lawyer who apparently can’t count, informs us. The Bloc is part of the coalition as far as numbers go, but not as far as membership goes. Makes sense to you? No, I didn’t think so.

    The reason The Coalition is talked about in the past tense is because the Liberals have seen the polls that show that English Canada is outraged at having the Bloc Quebecois, whose primary goal and purpose is the break up of Canada, have a iron-clad veto on Canadian government policy.

    Duceppe has previously taken the position that he would not participate in the governance of the country, but since he was offered power on a silver platter how could he refuse? He could henceforth have a direct hand in dismantling of the federation. Can you blame hIm? The fox running the henhouse as it were.

    That truly had to be the lowest point ever in the history of the vaunted Liberal Party of Canada- partners with the separatists – I thought I’d never see the day.

    • Could you possibly have a more partisan and narrow a focus to your take? Since you weren’t there when the negotiations for the coalition happened, and can’t possibily know Dions’ motive, why even bother. I don’t. It invariably reveals the uninformed as just partisan hacks.

    • That truly had to be the lowest point ever in the history of the vaunted Liberal Party of Canada- partners with the separatists – I thought I’d never see the day.

      Why? Harper’s partnered with the separatists many, many, many times.

      Seriously, get a new talking point, you brainless shill.

  18. Merry Christmas and best of the season to all!

    In the spirit of the season, let me generously offer my Liberal friends some sage advice:

    It was not a wise thing to make an agreement with the Separatists to govern the country. The Separatists need the Canadian state to fail in order to acheive their goals. They need to foment disunity to achieve the goal that to them is the be all and end all: the politically independent State of Quebec.

    Never in the history of Canada has a federal party attempted to govern this country with the formal co-operation of the Separatists. Never. The Dion-Layton-Duceppe failed attempt earlier this month was the first time that this has ever occured. Ever.

    Mr. Ignatieff was apparently the last Liberal to sign on. But sign on he did. He should now say that he won’t consider that option ever again. He should add that it was a serious error to have considered and acted upon it in the first place.

    The Canadian state cannot be held hostage by Gilles Duceppe’s perverted goal of breaking up Canada.

    That Jean Chretien participated in this utter nonsense is a source of astonishment to me. Is the man not well? That Dion did does not surprise me, he never had any political judgment whatsoever.

    Again, Merry Christmas and best of the season to all! We live in the best country in the world! (Let’s keep it that way.)

  19. That was the most insulting Christmas wish I’ve ever seen.

    Conservatives truly are morally bankrupt.

    • It was actually a Christmas present Ti-guy. The gift of my political acumen. When you don’t like a Christmas present you’re not supposed to let it show, otherwise you come across as an ingrate.

      • It was actually a Christmas present Ti-guy.

        No, it wasn’t.

        There’s something very wrong with you. Seek help.

        • Is Ti-guy the nom de plume of Ebenezer Scrooge?

          • I’m a very giving, generous person. Give me your coordinates and I’ll set you up with social services to get your rehabilitation started. That’s what I pay taxes for, after all.

        • Sir, you and all the other sour grapes lefties have already lost the argument when all you can do is name call and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you. I just picture you on Chistmas morning(when you wrote your last reply),bitterly cursing everyone and everything because you didn’t get your way. Sir, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are conservative “shills”. This is what you do on Chistmas morning? I was enjoying a wonderful time with my family. (For the record I am responing here on the 29th). And your telling everyone else to “get help”. If anyone might need help here, Sir, it’s most likely you. Have a happy New Year, if you can tear yourself away from here. You must be a ball to be around at a party.

  20. Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Ignatieff, tear up that agreement!

  21. Being a descendant of someone in the czar’s government ain’t something to be part of. The Russian mentality, be it tsarist or soviet, subjugated its own people and especially those of other nations, who were unwilling subjects. Some of that has rubbed off on Iggy.

    • I meant “not to be proud of” — d’uh, too much punch

      • Too much amanita muscaria.

  22. I can’t believe that anyone seriously thinks that the Bloc Quebecois is dedicated to the break-up of Canada. It is the Parti Quebecois that has, in the past, made this a central plank in their platform, and even they acknowledge that there isn’t all that much support for the idea at present.

    What the Bloc is committed to is representing their province’s interests on the federal stage, and it has to be acknowledged that they do so effectively, far more effectively, say, than the Conservatives represent the particular interests of Albertans, British Columbians, Manitobans, etc. on the federal stage.

    The Bloc came about because Lucien Bouchard and others realized that Mulroney’s commitment to Quebecois issues was lukewarm at best, and watered down in any case because of the national party’s necessity of promoting NATIONAL platforms, programs and policies. The Bloc faces no such restrictions as a “regional” party; they unabashedly support Quebec’s interests.

    It should be noted that Quebec’s interests have ALWAYS been pandered to, to a certain extent, even before the emergence of the Bloc. You just can’t ignore the wishes of 24 % of Canada’s population, and both the Liberals and Conservatives (and Progressive Conservatives before them) always considered, to varying degrees, the interests of Quebec when formulating policies and programs.

    They still have to do so, but the current situation with an explicitly “Quebec first” Bloc is arguably more honest and open with less “back room brokerage”; if a deal with the Bloc fails, it more often becomes a matter of public record and debate than in the past. For example, we’ll never really know for sure what deals Trudeau may or may not have made with Rene Levesque on “The Night of the Long Knives” prior to the patriation of the British North American Act in ’82. Both men were pursuing their own agendae, and discussion of the deal(s) made took on the air of “He said, no, he said”.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Quebec, as a predominantly francophone society, is “distinct” from the ROC. Anybody who has ever learned a second language will appreciate that language itself creates thought patterns different from their first language. These thought patterns, or organization of thoughts, expresses itself in all forms of art, in business practices, and, yes, in politics.

    I’ve always thought that people who refuse to acknowledge Quebec’s “distinct” nature may be conflating “distinct” to mean “distinctive”, which (in popular usage anyway) implies superiority. I don’t think that’s what Quebecois mean by their use of the word; I think they mean “notably different”, or even “apart from”, in the same way that an ostrich egg is distinct from a hen’s egg. I don’t believe that they mean “better” or “superior” in the same way that anglophones use “distinct” (actually, distinctive) to describe fine wines, watches, hotels, houses, cars, etcetera. So, in some ways, the issue of “distinct” may be one of semantic confusion arising from translation.

    Quebec has always been an important partner in Canada, and can be defined as “different, but equal”, in much the same way as men and women are (putatively at least), different but equal. The role of the Bloc Quebecois is to ensure that Parliament respects that difference, but still treats Quebec as an equal on its own terms. I really don’t see a problem with that. Fundamentally, I think the quebecois recognize that they’re better off (not just materially, btw) as part of Canada than apart from it, but they will use the “threat” of separation to further their goals. That’s just smart, if not especially palatable, politics.

    • You might want to stop using Quebec and Quebecois almost as synonyms, clearly they are not. If Quebec is ‘different, but equal’ then by definition, so is any other Province. As for Quebec or the Quebecois, for that matter, beng distinct, so are others within ROC.[ First nations, Newfoundland or Alberta, just for starters] i can see no real solution, other than autonomy of some description. I do know that blackmail is no solution, either for Quebecersor the ROC.

  23. I met Michael Ignatieff, for the first time, earlier that day… He didn’t say anything about a party… ;-)

  24. Martin Levenson: you are as naive as Margaret Atwood.

    Quebec nationalism is a positive force. However Quebec nationalism that is intent on the break-up of Canada is not. Your distinction between the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois is a figment of your imagination. These folks work in tandem my friend and they have the single-mindedness that is characteristic of true believers and fanatics. The beady-eyed Gilles Duceppe truly beleives that an independent Quebec will be like a paradise found, but then again this nutbar was a maoist well into the 1980’s so it’s not so surprising. As a typical leftist radical, nirvana is just around the corner just as soon as the proletariat is in control, Quebec is independent etc…, we “cure” global warming, pick your issue.

    A serious national party should not enter into a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois: it’s a deal with a devil. You may not get it, but I can assure, most Canadians do.

    • There is nothing a Quebec nationalist party can do within the Parliament of Canada to cause the separation of Quebec from Canada. The other parties in Parliament can do more to foster that end than the BQ can.

      • this is avery good point. And i would bet that they don’t hold any meaningful veto over the coalition. That said perception is reality, at least for many.

        • “There is nothing a Quebec nationalist party can do within the Parliament of Canada to cause the separation of Quebec from Canada.” Keep trying Sisyphus, keep trying but you’re wasting your time.

          The Bloc Quebecois’s role is to facilitate the conditions under which Quebec separation will come about. Remember the Bloc founder’s infamous reason to delay calling a Quebec referendum? I do. Lucien Bouchard said they had to be patient and wait until the circumstances would result in “winning conditions” If Sisyphus’ thinking is the new way of thinking of the Liberal Party of Canada, this is truly frightening. Jean Chretien knew the separatist mindset which is why I am surprised he supported this coalition deal with the devil. The only thing that seems to explain it is an apparently insatiable Liberal thirst for political power. I can honestly think of no other explanation.

          People, a basic rule of war and politics is know thy enemy.

          • Chretien and the liberal party need no lessons from conservatives

  25. Just out of curiosity, Jarrid, how is any distinction between the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois any different than that between the federal Conservatives and Liberals and their provincial counterparts? Of COURSE they work together, but I don’t think separation is really on their agenda now, and both parties have pretty much stated as much. I just object to the demonization of the Bloc as a purely separtist party, although I will conceed they are sovereignist, and in my view are acting as such in Parliament, and are totally within their rights to do so.

    As Sisyphus suggested, it is the other supposedly “national” parties that are doing more to foster separation than the Bloc are able to do within Parliament. It is our national parties that are reducing national programs by withdrawing financial support (downloading to the provinces) in areas that are of national concern (even if they’re strictly speaking provincial jurisdictions, which in my view, education, advanced education, resource development, and health care…strategic elements of the economy… should NOT be in a modern industrialized nation).

    The Bloc has merely recognized the decentralizing impulse of the national parties and run with the ball.

    • But surely the feds lose all ways. If they suggest national programmes, then they are interferring in provincial affairs, if they don’t, then this is taken as evidence that Canada doesn’t work . how the hell did we get to this pass? No one in my opinion has tried to call the bluff of the separitists since Trudeau. I don’t know if we have just lost the will but it sickens me.

  26. “…but I don’t think separation is really on their agenda now, and both parties have pretty much stated as much”

    Martin, I think I’ve given you my answer in the comment to Sisyphus above, but it does seem that you, kc and Sisyphus are demonstrating a complete lack of appreciation for the truly fanatical will of the Separatists to arrive at their goal. They haven’t disavowed the very goal of their political existence, they’re just waiting for Bouchard’s winning conditions. If you don’t beleive that then as I said earlier, you’re simply naive or wilfully bling. The Parti Quebecois has not renounced the number one statement of it’s founding principles which is to work to bring about the political independence of Quebec.

    • Jarrid – I wonder if you have lived in Quebec, have any knowledge of the culture or even speak French. If your answer is no to all of the above, then what fuels your moral and political certitudes? Life just doesn’t work this way. Even amongst the separitists there must be different strands of opinion and conviction about how to deal with the ROC; wha’ts just rhetoric, what’s ideaology? To simply lump everyone together as mindless fanatics says more about yr tendency for projection than any true picture of Quebec politics.
      Interestingly Trudeau, after his retirement, stated that Canada’s unity wasn’t necessarily sacred. If Quebec does decide to [democratically] depart, the world will not end. In other words, keep a perspective. That’s not the same as simply accept on any terms, and this from a man who fought like a tiger for the unity of this country.

      • I know the Quebec mindset, the culture and speak the language. I see Quebec nationalism as a potent force which, if properly channelled, can benefit both Quebec and Canada. I think Trudeau failled to respect the distinctiveness of Quebec society and I supported the Meech Lake accord, unlike Trudeau who was against it.

        That said, you absolutely cannot give political legitimacy to the Separatists by giving them political power to govern the country which is what the coalition will do.

        • If you do understand the Quebec mindset then you are well ahead of me. However some of yr reasoning escapes me. You use the word ‘distinctive’, which in english implies superiority; semantics maybe, but not acceptible to many westerners, like myself. Given yr posiion vs the coalition [ i have yet to hear, how exactly the coalition will enable the bloq to actually govern? It’s always a vague charge with those who argue as you do – never any factual evidence] i suggest a closer reading of the Meech episode [ i recommend Coynes article in the NP] Canadians [ROC] very clearly showed what they thought of that back-room deal that most of our elites, with the exception of a few, notably Trudeau, signed on to. A little ironic, don’t you think, that both deals don’t offend you equally? Actually this last pt is what really bothers me about the coalition. In both instances Canadians reject back-room deals. The difference is the coalition is perfectly constitutional and legal.

          • “…the coalition is perfectly constitutional and legal.”

            … and political poison. Look, I don’t know how I can say it any clearer: we cannot have the Separatists governing Canada. It is totally and completely abhorrent and beyond the pale to me.

            “I have yet to hear, how exactly the coalition will enable the bloq to actually govern?”

            The agreement states that upon formation of the coalition government, “THE GOVERNMENT WILL PUT IN PLACE A PERMANENT CONSULTATION MECHANISM WITH THE BLOC QUEBECOIS.” This is part of the agreement which will expire in June 30th, 2011 unless renewed. It’s on the Liberal Party web site.


            “• Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois
            Leader Gilles Duceppe today announced that an agreement has been reached among the
            three opposition parties to support a cooperative government to address the impact of the
            global economic crisis on Canadians.

            • The Bloc Québécois has agreed to support this government for a period of 18 months.”

            What on earth is going on? The Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois in cahoots, that’s what’s going on.

  27. Which brings me to my next point.

    If Michael Ignatieff continues to endorse his deal with Duceppe the devil he will have shown in one fell swoop that he doesn’t have the right stuff to govern this country.

    He will have shown to have what is the kiss of death in politics: bad political judgment.

    So I repeat my earlier exhortation: Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Ignatieff, tear up that agreement!

    Once upon a time the Liberal Party of Canada could be trusted to stand up to the Separatists. Now they shake hands and sign formal agreements to enter into formal governing coaltions with them. Why was Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry beaming earlier this month folks? The fox was invited to run the henhouse. If I was the fox I’d be beaming too!

    • *yawn*

  28. kc – I’m hardly a fan of Pierre Trudeau, his legacy was a mixed bag at best.

    That said, the thought of the Liberal Party of Canada in bed with the Separatists in a governing coalition would have had him rolling in his grave. He would have had no part of a coaltion with a party committed to the break-up of Canada.

    The man did have principles and he wouldn’t have been caught dead cavorting with the Separatists.

  29. Jarrid, are you sure they’re cavorting? Maybe they’re just gamboling.

    *sigh* Kids. Sure keep ya hoppin’…

    • It’s the sex thing. jarrid doesn’t approve of cavorting, gamboling is ok however; apparently that’s what SH was up to previously. It seems he may have been using protection, so it doesn’t count.

      • Sex per se is not the problem, sleeping with the enemy is the problem. That isn’t safe sex.

        • What would you know about sex?

  30. Jarid – consultation is not governance. The most serious aspect of this is the price of bloq cooperation – inevitably economic, which they would have received from Harper anyway. In the final analysis i don’t like the coalition for the same reason Meech stank – a back-room deal. I don’t like back-room deals on principle, you apparently only object when you don’t like the deal.

  31. kc- again, from the Liberal Party website, here’s the thin economic gruel offered up by this coalition with the devil. (The urgent infrastructure needs of the aboriginal peoples became urgent presumably after 13 years of Liberal negligence.)

    “• The top priority of the new Government is an economic stimulus package designed to boost
    the domestic economy including:

    • Accelerating existing infrastructure funding and substantial new investments,
    including municipal and inter-provincial projects (such as transit, clean energy, water,
    corridors and gateways). This would certainly include addressing the urgent
    infrastructure needs of First Nations, Métis and Inuit;

    • Housing construction and retrofitting; and

    • Investing in key sector strategies (like manufacturing, forestry and automotive)
    designed to create and save jobs, with any aid contingent on a plan to transform
    these industries and return them to profitability and sustainability.”

    • Jarrid – take off yr partisan hat for a moment. Thin gruel, you say. But almost any centrist party, given current conditions could support some or all of these proposals. Ask yourself why SH didn’t propose some of these measures in his update, instead of playing political games. Dion has already paid the price for his miscalculation and lack of judgement [ of any kind ] Harper has got off fairly lightly, so far. I believe the public will remember, when the time comes for apportioning blame, who, after his electoral victory told us that he had hear loud and clear that he should now seek to work with other parties. And promptly attempted to throttle the opposition.
      Yr attempt to lay the blame for the failure [ or maybe lack of success ] of canada’s Aboriginal policies solely at the feet of the libs is frankly moronic. You may need new talking points there.

  32. “here’s the thin economic gruel offered up by this coalition with the devil.”

    Give it a rest, drama queen.