• Ross Barros v. Her Majesty the Queen: The private investigator from Alberta is appealing his obstruction of justice and extortion charges for trying to identify an informant outside of court who helped police lay drug and gun charges against Barros’s client. To be heard on Jan. 25.
• Bernard Gerardus, Maria Berendsen et. al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario: A farming family is taking the Ontario government to court for dumping waste asphalt on an area that, 20 years later, the family claims contaminated drinking water for their cows, and for which the provincial government claims it is not responsible. To be heard on Jan. 28.
• Robert Katigbak v. Her Majesty the Queen: Mr. Katigbak was convicted on child pornography charges, but he claims he kept over 650 photos and videos of child pornography — some depicting actual abuse — on the basis of “artistic merit” because they were background information for an art gallery exhibit. To be heard on Feb. 21.
• Richard C. Breeden, et al. v. Conrad Black: The case raises the issue of jurisdiction when it comes to Internet defamation. Lord Black claims he was libelled online and his reputation was subsequently damaged in Ontario, which is where he has brought forward his lawsuit. To be heard on March 22.
• Gilles Doré v. Pierre Bernard and Barreau du Quebec: Mr. Doré was disbarred for 21 days after he wrote a strongly-worded letter to a case judge — which effectively translates into Dore calling him arrogant, hateful, mean and an “odious being” — but said it was a personal, not professional, opinion. How does the code of ethics limit what a lawyer can do? To be heard Jan. 26.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Social+costs+smoking+busy+Supreme+Court+calendar/4087748/story.html#ixzz1AtEJdXt2
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
RCMP slash its air marshals program providing security on airplanes ! : This is NOT GOOD
The RCMP is expecting international criticism in the wake of its decision to dramatically slash its air marshals program providing security on airplanes and it has already been warned by pilots that the move will jeopardize the safety of passengers from radical terrorists, Postmedia News has learned.
The program, established in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, involves specially trained covert Mounties who blend in with regular passengers on selected domestic and international flights.
Known as "inflight security officers," they carry semi-automatic handguns, are trained for fighting in closed quarters, and are seen as the last line of defence against suicidal hijackers or bombers.
The plainclothes air marshals are part of the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program, and news leaked out through the RCMP's union last October that the program was about to be hit with a 25% budget cut in the wake of a "strategic review" by the government's Treasury Board.
Documents obtained by Postmedia News through the Access to Information Act reveal internal memos describing how the cuts will occur, how the Mounties are briefing Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, and how the police and cabinet ministers are receiving some dire warnings about the consequences of the cutbacks.
The Mounties' briefing note to Toews explains that the air marshals program is seen as a "world leader" of its type and that it has been successful through a "combination of operation, intelligence and analysis activities."
"International partners were made aware of the funding reduction to the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program," Toews was advised. "The RCMP anticipates a negative response from American and international partners."
In late October, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott received a strongly worded letter from the Air Line Pilots Association (International), urging him to halt the cuts to the air marshals program. The pilots wrote that since its inception, the program has proven to be one of Canada's most effective deterrents in countering the threat posed by "radical terrorists."
They added that the cuts are "difficult to comprehend" because global intelligence reports continue to indicate that aviation remains a primary target for terrorists.
"Because terrorists are intelligent, adaptive adversaries who are known to repeat their success and to be persistent in correcting their failures, the decision is even more puzzling," says the letter, also sent to Toews and Transport Minister Chuck Strahl.
"It is our opinion that the decision to make these CACPP staffing reductions is not only highly inadvisable, but is, in fact, a serious mistake that significantly jeopardizes the security and safety of airline travellers in particular and public safety in general, not only in Canada, but in other countries as well."
According to the documents obtained by Postmedia News, Greg Browning, the RCMP officer in charge of the program, informed fellow staff of the change through an e-mail last September that acknowledged the cuts would have an effect on the "morale" of those within the program, which was being cut by $12.1 million as of April 1, 2011.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/RCMP+expects+criticism+marshal+cuts/4091982/story.html#ixzz1Al2Fm8IO
The program, established in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, involves specially trained covert Mounties who blend in with regular passengers on selected domestic and international flights.
Known as "inflight security officers," they carry semi-automatic handguns, are trained for fighting in closed quarters, and are seen as the last line of defence against suicidal hijackers or bombers.
The plainclothes air marshals are part of the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program, and news leaked out through the RCMP's union last October that the program was about to be hit with a 25% budget cut in the wake of a "strategic review" by the government's Treasury Board.
Documents obtained by Postmedia News through the Access to Information Act reveal internal memos describing how the cuts will occur, how the Mounties are briefing Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, and how the police and cabinet ministers are receiving some dire warnings about the consequences of the cutbacks.
The Mounties' briefing note to Toews explains that the air marshals program is seen as a "world leader" of its type and that it has been successful through a "combination of operation, intelligence and analysis activities."
"International partners were made aware of the funding reduction to the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program," Toews was advised. "The RCMP anticipates a negative response from American and international partners."
In late October, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott received a strongly worded letter from the Air Line Pilots Association (International), urging him to halt the cuts to the air marshals program. The pilots wrote that since its inception, the program has proven to be one of Canada's most effective deterrents in countering the threat posed by "radical terrorists."
They added that the cuts are "difficult to comprehend" because global intelligence reports continue to indicate that aviation remains a primary target for terrorists.
"Because terrorists are intelligent, adaptive adversaries who are known to repeat their success and to be persistent in correcting their failures, the decision is even more puzzling," says the letter, also sent to Toews and Transport Minister Chuck Strahl.
"It is our opinion that the decision to make these CACPP staffing reductions is not only highly inadvisable, but is, in fact, a serious mistake that significantly jeopardizes the security and safety of airline travellers in particular and public safety in general, not only in Canada, but in other countries as well."
According to the documents obtained by Postmedia News, Greg Browning, the RCMP officer in charge of the program, informed fellow staff of the change through an e-mail last September that acknowledged the cuts would have an effect on the "morale" of those within the program, which was being cut by $12.1 million as of April 1, 2011.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/RCMP+expects+criticism+marshal+cuts/4091982/story.html#ixzz1Al2Fm8IO
Marriage Commissioners Reference, 2011 SKCA 3 : The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has released its decision in the “Marriage Commissioners Reference”.
Case commentaries provided by the Saskatchewan Courts]
January 10, 2011
Marriage Commissioners Reference, 2011 SKCA 3
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has released its decision in the “Marriage Commissioners Reference”. The case concerns the constitutional validity of possible legislative amendments that would allow marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
In 2005, Parliament enacted a law redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. This led some marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan to refuse to solemnize such marriages on religious grounds. As a result, there were various proceedings under The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and a civil action in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Against this background, the provincial government requested the Court of Appeal’s opinion on the constitutional validity of two possible amendments to The Marriage Act, 1995. Both would allow a commissioner to decline to solemnize a marriage if performing the ceremony would be contrary to his or her religious beliefs. In its reasons for decision, the Court said either option, if enacted, would be unconstitutional because it would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals and would not be a reasonable and justifiable breach of those rights.
The reasoning of the Court is grounded in section 15(1) of the Charter. This provision prohibits discrimination based on various characteristics including sexual orientation. The Court ruled that a law empowering marriage commissioners to deny their services to gay and lesbian individuals would clearly violate section 15(1) as it would treat them differently than other people and would do so in a discriminatory fashion based on their sexual orientation.
The key issue in the case, according to the Court, was whether this violation of rights could be justified as being reasonable within the special meaning of that term as it is used in section 1 of the Charter. In this regard, the Court held that accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners could not justify discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. The Court emphasized that marriage commissioners act as government officials, not private individuals, when they perform marriage ceremonies. It also pointed out that the obligation to solemnize same-sex marriages does not affect or interfere with the core elements of a commissioner’s religious freedom: the freedom to hold beliefs and the freedom to worship. In addition, the Court underlined that allowing marriage commissioners to withhold their services because of personal religious convictions would undercut the fundamental principle that government services must be provided to all members of the public on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.
For further information contact Lian Schwann, Q.C., Registrar of the Court of Appeal at (306) 787-5382.
January 10, 2011
Marriage Commissioners Reference, 2011 SKCA 3
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has released its decision in the “Marriage Commissioners Reference”. The case concerns the constitutional validity of possible legislative amendments that would allow marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
In 2005, Parliament enacted a law redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. This led some marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan to refuse to solemnize such marriages on religious grounds. As a result, there were various proceedings under The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and a civil action in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Against this background, the provincial government requested the Court of Appeal’s opinion on the constitutional validity of two possible amendments to The Marriage Act, 1995. Both would allow a commissioner to decline to solemnize a marriage if performing the ceremony would be contrary to his or her religious beliefs. In its reasons for decision, the Court said either option, if enacted, would be unconstitutional because it would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals and would not be a reasonable and justifiable breach of those rights.
The reasoning of the Court is grounded in section 15(1) of the Charter. This provision prohibits discrimination based on various characteristics including sexual orientation. The Court ruled that a law empowering marriage commissioners to deny their services to gay and lesbian individuals would clearly violate section 15(1) as it would treat them differently than other people and would do so in a discriminatory fashion based on their sexual orientation.
The key issue in the case, according to the Court, was whether this violation of rights could be justified as being reasonable within the special meaning of that term as it is used in section 1 of the Charter. In this regard, the Court held that accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners could not justify discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. The Court emphasized that marriage commissioners act as government officials, not private individuals, when they perform marriage ceremonies. It also pointed out that the obligation to solemnize same-sex marriages does not affect or interfere with the core elements of a commissioner’s religious freedom: the freedom to hold beliefs and the freedom to worship. In addition, the Court underlined that allowing marriage commissioners to withhold their services because of personal religious convictions would undercut the fundamental principle that government services must be provided to all members of the public on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.
For further information contact Lian Schwann, Q.C., Registrar of the Court of Appeal at (306) 787-5382.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Good News!! LGBT Canada! : Marriage officials can't refuse gays: Sask. court.
Saskatchewan's highest court has ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.
The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.
The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.
But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.
Lawyers appointed to argue that the proposals were constitutional said that if anyone was refused a marriage service, it would be easy to find another commissioner who would perform the same service. The court of appeal said the proposals were "contrary to fundamental principles of equality in a democratic society" and rejected both options.
"Both of the possible amendments offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals," Justice Robert Richards said in the ruling, supported by justices John Klebuc, Ralph Ottenbreit, Gene Ann Smith and William Vancise.
Implications cited
Richards also expressed concern that if marriage commissioners were allowed to opt out of services, they might also do so because they object to interfaith marriages or interracial marriages.
The case has its roots in a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision affirming the validity of same-sex marriages.
That decision and subsequent legal changes led some marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages, saying it was a violation of their personal religious beliefs.
One of those commissioners, Orville Nichols, had a human rights complaint filed against him by a same-sex couple. A tribunal under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission upheld the complaint.
Among those praising Monday's decision was the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, one of the interveners in the case.
"This is a very important decision," Donna Smith, a member of the SFL's solidarity and pride committee, said in a release. "An important precedent has now been set that will help to deter discrimination against same-sex couples that wish to marry."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/10/sk-marriage-commissioners-1101.html#socialcomments#ixzz1Af5spYKG
The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.
The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.
But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.
Lawyers appointed to argue that the proposals were constitutional said that if anyone was refused a marriage service, it would be easy to find another commissioner who would perform the same service. The court of appeal said the proposals were "contrary to fundamental principles of equality in a democratic society" and rejected both options.
"Both of the possible amendments offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals," Justice Robert Richards said in the ruling, supported by justices John Klebuc, Ralph Ottenbreit, Gene Ann Smith and William Vancise.
Implications cited
Richards also expressed concern that if marriage commissioners were allowed to opt out of services, they might also do so because they object to interfaith marriages or interracial marriages.
The case has its roots in a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision affirming the validity of same-sex marriages.
That decision and subsequent legal changes led some marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages, saying it was a violation of their personal religious beliefs.
One of those commissioners, Orville Nichols, had a human rights complaint filed against him by a same-sex couple. A tribunal under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission upheld the complaint.
Among those praising Monday's decision was the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, one of the interveners in the case.
"This is a very important decision," Donna Smith, a member of the SFL's solidarity and pride committee, said in a release. "An important precedent has now been set that will help to deter discrimination against same-sex couples that wish to marry."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/10/sk-marriage-commissioners-1101.html#socialcomments#ixzz1Af5spYKG
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is to release its opinion Monday on the thorny issue of what to do when a marriage commissioner says “I don’t” to gay couples seeking wedding .
REGINA — The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is to release its opinion Monday on the thorny issue of what to do when a marriage commissioner says “I don’t” to gay couples seeking wedding services.
Five judges of the province’s top court have been mulling over the constitutional question since May. Two days were spent hearing legal arguments examining the religious rights of marriage commissioners and the equality rights of same-sex couples.
“The case is significant on the very issue itself,” noted John Whyte, a constitutional expert and former provincial deputy justice minister, in a recent interview. “The case also opens the door — a much wider door — on the question of accommodation of religious needs.”
He suspects that if the court allows for accommodation of the marriage commissioners’ religious views, the decision will likely try to narrow the application to that specific situation.
“But it has some impact on the general question of accommodation of religious belief in public servants and public service generally. That’s what’s at stake here in a conceptual way, and so the case has that significance,” Whyte added.
The court was asked to wade into the contentious legal territory by the provincial government, seeking advice on two versions of a proposed law.
It’s the first time in 20 years the province has used the Constitutional Questions Act to seek an opinion from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the last being in 1990 on electoral boundaries.
Whyte explained that reference cases are advisory, so the province isn’t technically legally bound to follow the court’s advice. But he noted that from a more practical standpoint, such advice is often followed.
“I would be very surprised if the government didn’t just go along with the court’s decision,” Whyte said.
The government asked the court to consider two draft bills: One allowing all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs, and another that would grant the exemption only to those commissioners who held office when gay marriage was legalized in November 2004.
The Saskatchewan Party government is on record supporting a law that would accommodate marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs. However, Justice Minister Don Morgan told reporters in May, prior to the hearing, that if the court found both draft bills unconstitutional, the government would tell marriage commissioners they are obliged to perform same-sex marriages. There are some 300 marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan.
The government appointed Regina lawyer Mike Megaw to argue in favour of the draft laws and Saskatoon lawyer Reynold Robertson to argue against their constitutionality. In addition, 10 lawyers representing 18 groups and individuals — including the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, churches, unions, gay rights activists, and three marriage commissioners — were granted intervener status, so they too could give their position.
With the issue considered by five judges, a split by the court is possible.
If the court finds the proposed laws constitutional, Whyte suspects the judges will offer some suggestions about accommodating the marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs while still preventing insult to gay couples.
The issue came to the fore in 2008 when a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found longtime Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols violated the province’s human rights code by refusing to marry a gay couple.
Several other provinces are wrestling with the same issue. Although the Saskatchewan court’s decision could have some “persuasive impact,” it wouldn’t have any legal effect in the other provinces, Whyte said.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/life/Sask+Appeal+Court+reveal+opinion+refusing+couples/4083419/story.html#ixzz1Abb3vQdu
Five judges of the province’s top court have been mulling over the constitutional question since May. Two days were spent hearing legal arguments examining the religious rights of marriage commissioners and the equality rights of same-sex couples.
“The case is significant on the very issue itself,” noted John Whyte, a constitutional expert and former provincial deputy justice minister, in a recent interview. “The case also opens the door — a much wider door — on the question of accommodation of religious needs.”
He suspects that if the court allows for accommodation of the marriage commissioners’ religious views, the decision will likely try to narrow the application to that specific situation.
“But it has some impact on the general question of accommodation of religious belief in public servants and public service generally. That’s what’s at stake here in a conceptual way, and so the case has that significance,” Whyte added.
The court was asked to wade into the contentious legal territory by the provincial government, seeking advice on two versions of a proposed law.
It’s the first time in 20 years the province has used the Constitutional Questions Act to seek an opinion from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the last being in 1990 on electoral boundaries.
Whyte explained that reference cases are advisory, so the province isn’t technically legally bound to follow the court’s advice. But he noted that from a more practical standpoint, such advice is often followed.
“I would be very surprised if the government didn’t just go along with the court’s decision,” Whyte said.
The government asked the court to consider two draft bills: One allowing all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs, and another that would grant the exemption only to those commissioners who held office when gay marriage was legalized in November 2004.
The Saskatchewan Party government is on record supporting a law that would accommodate marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs. However, Justice Minister Don Morgan told reporters in May, prior to the hearing, that if the court found both draft bills unconstitutional, the government would tell marriage commissioners they are obliged to perform same-sex marriages. There are some 300 marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan.
The government appointed Regina lawyer Mike Megaw to argue in favour of the draft laws and Saskatoon lawyer Reynold Robertson to argue against their constitutionality. In addition, 10 lawyers representing 18 groups and individuals — including the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, churches, unions, gay rights activists, and three marriage commissioners — were granted intervener status, so they too could give their position.
With the issue considered by five judges, a split by the court is possible.
If the court finds the proposed laws constitutional, Whyte suspects the judges will offer some suggestions about accommodating the marriage commissioners’ religious beliefs while still preventing insult to gay couples.
The issue came to the fore in 2008 when a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found longtime Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols violated the province’s human rights code by refusing to marry a gay couple.
Several other provinces are wrestling with the same issue. Although the Saskatchewan court’s decision could have some “persuasive impact,” it wouldn’t have any legal effect in the other provinces, Whyte said.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/life/Sask+Appeal+Court+reveal+opinion+refusing+couples/4083419/story.html#ixzz1Abb3vQdu
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Internet usage costs to rise in Canada.!
Surfing and downloading from the internet is about to get more expensive for many Canadians as internet companies Shaw and Primus have announced plans to impose new fees and caps on internet usage.
Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. The growing demand for live-streaming and online movies gobbles up huge chunks of bandwidth on the World Wide Web.
Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them.
"It's an economic disincentive for internet use," said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. "It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it."
Hugh Thompson, who runs the website Digital Home, said he's been hearing growing consumer complaints.
He said more people say they are receiving bills of $5 to $10 a month in penalties — with some complaining their penalties are running as high as $100 — all for their use of iTunes, YouTube and Netflix.
"Their bandwidth has skyrocketed from maybe a gigabyte or two a month to some cases of 200 to 300 gigabytes per month," said Thompson.
"So now that people are using so much bandwidth, the companies are crying foul. They're saying: 'We can't make money off this. We need to charge more.'"
Currently, only a small percentage of users download enough data to hit these new caps. But many fear these fees will soon apply to everyone as the internet becomes more video based.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/07/internet-expensive-surfing-canadians.html#ixzz1AVx0AscI
Over the past year, the CRTC, Canada's communication regulator, let Bell and Rogers start charging extra for customers who download a lot of data. The growing demand for live-streaming and online movies gobbles up huge chunks of bandwidth on the World Wide Web.
Primus and Shaw have said they will begin passing on higher fees to their customers beginning Feb. 1. Primus, for example, rents bandwidth on Bell's networks and said Bell is inflating the costs for everyone, including them.
"It's an economic disincentive for internet use," said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. "It's not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it."
Hugh Thompson, who runs the website Digital Home, said he's been hearing growing consumer complaints.
He said more people say they are receiving bills of $5 to $10 a month in penalties — with some complaining their penalties are running as high as $100 — all for their use of iTunes, YouTube and Netflix.
"Their bandwidth has skyrocketed from maybe a gigabyte or two a month to some cases of 200 to 300 gigabytes per month," said Thompson.
"So now that people are using so much bandwidth, the companies are crying foul. They're saying: 'We can't make money off this. We need to charge more.'"
Currently, only a small percentage of users download enough data to hit these new caps. But many fear these fees will soon apply to everyone as the internet becomes more video based.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/07/internet-expensive-surfing-canadians.html#ixzz1AVx0AscI
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Ignatieff’s absence .
Back in the summer, when the long-form census was burning, RCMP senior staff were rebelling, Omar Khadr was languishing, and the head of CSIS was alleging Manchurian candidates were everywhere, a prominent Conservative sighed that some days it felt as though the government was reduced to reacting to events rather than controlling them.
.Those days are fading. This first week of January proved the Conservatives are firmly on top of the political agenda. Under the circumstances, it’s just as well there was no sign of Michael Ignatieff.
Consider this bit of evidence: The Tories may or may not truly believe they can take seats in the Greater Toronto Area from the Liberals in the next election. But the national media believe it, and that’s more important. Pundits universally agreed that Tuesday’s petite cabinet shuffle, elevating Peter Kent to Environment Minister and putting Julian Fantino in the seniors portfolio, proved that the Conservatives are on the warpath in the 905.
This reasoning, which could wildly inflate the Tories’ real prospects in the region, nonetheless puts the Liberals on the defensive by making them look vulnerable. The Grits aren’t really dominant anywhere in the country other than Toronto and environs. If those walls fall, then what’s left?
The Liberals indignantly reply that those walls won’t fall, that it’s the Conservatives who should be worried about swing seats the Liberals will be taking from them in Southern Ontario. But right now, the argument doesn’t sound convincing. It isn’t so much a question of polls; it’s more intangible than that. In August the Liberals had a bounce in their step. These days, it’s the Conservatives who whistle as they walk.
Mr. Ignatieff is on holidays, and no one should blame him for taking some time off. He’ll be back out on the road next week, his handlers say. It wasn’t necessary he be around; his shadow cabinet is stacked with talent.
But finance critic Scott Brison will get little ink when he rails against Tory fiscal waste and incompetence Friday morning. The Conservatives have entrenched the idea in voters’ minds that they successfully managed the recession and have the deficit under control. The Liberals will not defeat the Conservatives on the question of who best will manage the economy, no matter what Mr. Brison says.
To win, the Liberals have to move voters’ minds off the economy, the way they succeeded a year ago this month in making people angry at the government for proroguing Parliament. That was another time – from prorogation through detainee documents to the Helena Guergis affair – when the Conservatives reacted more than acted.
Right now, though, they own the story. It’s just as well that Michael Ignatieff is not around. There’s not much he could say.
.Those days are fading. This first week of January proved the Conservatives are firmly on top of the political agenda. Under the circumstances, it’s just as well there was no sign of Michael Ignatieff.
Consider this bit of evidence: The Tories may or may not truly believe they can take seats in the Greater Toronto Area from the Liberals in the next election. But the national media believe it, and that’s more important. Pundits universally agreed that Tuesday’s petite cabinet shuffle, elevating Peter Kent to Environment Minister and putting Julian Fantino in the seniors portfolio, proved that the Conservatives are on the warpath in the 905.
This reasoning, which could wildly inflate the Tories’ real prospects in the region, nonetheless puts the Liberals on the defensive by making them look vulnerable. The Grits aren’t really dominant anywhere in the country other than Toronto and environs. If those walls fall, then what’s left?
The Liberals indignantly reply that those walls won’t fall, that it’s the Conservatives who should be worried about swing seats the Liberals will be taking from them in Southern Ontario. But right now, the argument doesn’t sound convincing. It isn’t so much a question of polls; it’s more intangible than that. In August the Liberals had a bounce in their step. These days, it’s the Conservatives who whistle as they walk.
Mr. Ignatieff is on holidays, and no one should blame him for taking some time off. He’ll be back out on the road next week, his handlers say. It wasn’t necessary he be around; his shadow cabinet is stacked with talent.
But finance critic Scott Brison will get little ink when he rails against Tory fiscal waste and incompetence Friday morning. The Conservatives have entrenched the idea in voters’ minds that they successfully managed the recession and have the deficit under control. The Liberals will not defeat the Conservatives on the question of who best will manage the economy, no matter what Mr. Brison says.
To win, the Liberals have to move voters’ minds off the economy, the way they succeeded a year ago this month in making people angry at the government for proroguing Parliament. That was another time – from prorogation through detainee documents to the Helena Guergis affair – when the Conservatives reacted more than acted.
Right now, though, they own the story. It’s just as well that Michael Ignatieff is not around. There’s not much he could say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)