I read an interesting post on Twitter today by Kirk LaPointe (@kirklapointe), managing editor for the Vancouver Sun and Adjunct Professor at the UBC School of Journalism, regarding Barack Obama’s visit to Canada later this week:

When Obama visits Cda on frist[sic] intl trek, no speeches, six hours, see ya. We’re the foreign policy equivalent of an O’Hare layover.

Despite what Canadians might feel about Obama choosing Canada as his first country to visit as the newly minted US president, with more details emerging regarding his trip to our country, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that this is more a dress rehearsal than a legitimate start to his foreign affairs platform. Indeed, many news reports have the Obama team admitting that Canada was chosen because of the easier logistics of arranging a trip to Ottawa than say Brussels or Paris. Also, notice how there’s been little if any attention in Washington in regards to Obama’s impending trip to the Great White North. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s Press Secretary, only bothered mentioning this visit at the end of his daily briefing on January 28th with this rather perfunctory remark – Click here to continue reading »”Obama To Canada – Sorry, But I’m Just Not That Into You”

Well, it seems there are some interesting times ahead for Canadian politics following the tabling of Stephen Harper’s new budget. As expected, the budget features many concessions to sway the opposition parties to support the Conservative budget and allow them to remain in the seat of government. And while the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have held steadfast to their plans of bringing Harper’s government down by rejecting this budget, it would appear that Michael Ignatieff has other plans in mind despite his earlier support for this opposition-led coalition. Following the release of the full budget, Ignatieff has changed his position to express conditional support for this budget – the condition being the inclusion of an amendment that would require the Conservatives to submit three economic reports to follow-up on whether this economic stimulus package is indeed having the desired effect or whether it is simply pulling Canada into debt.

It’s certainly a bold move, one that will be closely watched to see what impact it will have down the road on Harper’s Conservatives, that is should Harper agree to this amendment. After all, Harper has already made numerous concessions to the opposition parties; despite whatever spin Flaherty and Harper try to put on their budget, I don’t think anyone sees this as being Click here to continue reading »”Ignatieff’s Budgetary Gambit – Win, Lose, or Draw?”

With the start of the new session in Parliament yesterday, and the much anticipated release of the federal budget today, all eyes are once again on Stephen Harper’s Conservative government for clues as to just how far they will go to acquiesce the opposition parties in another attempt to maintain their weakened hold as the ruling government of Canada.

So far, the orchestrated leaks of certain details from today’s budget indicate a significant shift from Harper’s initial position that Canada would post a budget surplus this year as well his party’s stubbornness in not willing to acknowledge that Canada has indeed entered into a recession. The spin doctors will undoubtedly try to present this as being indicative of Harper’s ability to adjust his position and policies to reflect changes in the economy and the acquisition of new data or information. However, the simple fact is that Harper’s change in position has less to do with a recognition of the Click here to continue reading »”How Long Can Harper’s Government Last?”

Yesterday, Canadians were reminded of just how much power they have as voters in a democratic society. At the beginning of the day, the news broke out that two national parties – specifically the PC and NDP parties – were forcing television networks to exclude Green Party leader Elizabeth May from the upcoming leadership debates for this year’s federal election. The reason provided by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton was that the arrangement between May and Liberal Party leader Stephan Dion to not run candidates in each other’s riding amounted to May being a closet Liberal supporter and her presence at the leadership debates would give the Liberal party two voices for their platform. The PC and NDP leaders went so far as to threaten to boycott these debates if the networks dared to include May. As such, the consortium of networks that carry the debates had no choice but to tell May that she would not be given a place in the leadership debates to present her party’s platform to the voting public.

As the day progressed and news of this exclusion of May from the debates seeped into the public conscious, something wonderful happened – the public got angry. Very angry. And with good reason – Click here to continue reading »”A Great Example Of The Power of Citizens in Democracy”