Then Why Did You Sign The Agreement Iggy?

From the Globe and Mail: Coalition would have deeply divided Canadians: Ignatieff

“I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”

The power sharing deal between the Liberals and New Democrats, with support from the Bloc Quebecois, was not undemocratic, Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd of some 150 Montrealers gathered in a downtown theatre, but it would nonetheless have given Canadians the feeling that the parties had “in some sense or another stolen power.”

In their report the Globe and Mail failed to mention that Iggy put his signature on the Coalition agreement. It really doesn't matter what he thought, if he signed on supporting it. If he had questions, and doubts, it shows that he didn't have the courage of his convictions to stand up at the time, against it. Seems he's getting a free pass from the press about it.

Saturdays With Rex Murphy's Column

Bacon, eggs, Rex Murphy's column. It's not Saturday in Canada without them. When I read it, I always hear his Newfie voice in my head. He hits a home run today. (Read)

Unfortunately even the most glassy-eyed idealism can be confronted by reality, and such was the case with Carbon Neutral's expedition. They hit a bad patch of weather. Their poor boat was thrice capsized. And the fickle Gods of Global Warming must have been taking a siesta, for in one of those incidents one of the team "hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht." I can only imagine them at this moment, staring soulfully into the hurricane-whipped sky, and pleadingly imploring: "Al Gore, Al Gore, why has thou forsaken us?"

They were in a powerless pickle. Solar and sail had failed them and green intentions will not float your boat - they were not so much "carbon neutral" as carbon deprived. Bobbing around the North Atlantic in a gale without motor power of any kind is not the most soothing experience. Fortunately, Providence, in one of its most artful facsimiles, was on hand in the shape of the Overseas Yellowstone - a ship that was, to put it mildly, not relying on solar power or a wind turbine.

It was a 113,000-ton oil tanker, carrying 680,000 barrels of crude oil. We may reach for many adjectives to describe the Overseas Yellowstone but "carbon neutral" will not be among them. Indeed, the Overseas Yellowstone, looked at from a carbon-neutral perspective, is the Life Raft from Hell. Nonetheless the oil tanker picked up the eco-people.

I'll be back blogging later tomorrow. Have a good weekend.

Free Trade Between Canada and the EU?

The Globe and Mail had a story that the Canadian government is brokering a deal to bring free trade with the EU. Great! What does this mean for the Canadian consumer? Great wines and beer at a cheaper price? French cheese? No tariffs on German cars? I had to get far down into the article to see what it would mean:

It is hoped that the free trade deal, which will seek agreements in areas including labour mobility, customs procedures, trades in services investment, food safety, sustainable development and goods, could be signed within a year.

Oh. Labour mobility is great but I have a feeling those European goods that people want will be as expensive and difficult to obtain as ever.

It's like NAFTA. Our northern climate in BC is not great for growing certain foods. But try getting anything other than a BC grown tomato, which are awful. Why can't I get California tomatoes, the best in the world? Protectionism for the few hothouse tomato farmers in the province.

For that matter, you can't buy freshly squeezed orange juice in Canada. It's all frozen concentrate. Pick up any orange juice carton in Canada and it will say product of Markham, Ont. or some such place. Why doesn't it say Florida? You can buy freshly squeezed anywhere in Seattle or Portland, not far from where I am. It's some kind of special interest scam to protect a few distributers in Canada.

Free trade, never means true free trade.

Tony Clement Talks Tough With CAW

I love hearing this: Ottawa willing to let GM, Chrysler collapse

When asked whether he would be willing to let Chrysler Canada Inc. or General Motors of Canada Ltd. go bankrupt if the unions do not agree to cut costs, Mr. Clement replied: “We have to examine every possibility.”

“I don't think it is in the interest of the Canadian public to have continued funding to a company if there is no deal with their union and if there is no outside investor, or no outside partner in the case of Fiat,” he said. “Those were our conditions.... So if you're asking me whether I'm willing to funnel Canadian government money, taxpayer money, when we do not have an acceptable plan on a go-forward basis, I cannot do that. I don't think it would be responsible.”

CAW president Ken Lewenza has called Fiat's proposal to cut labour costs at Chrysler Canada by $19 an hour an “unreasonable” demand and has said it is “not going to happen,” arguing the CAW is competitive with unionized environments in the United States.

CAW are so shameless. They refuse to negotiate down. Having a cut wage, is better than having no wage. It makes me hope these fat cats go bust and collapse. Ye shall reap, what ye sow. I think the Tories are reading public opinion on this one properly.

Irshad Manji No Longer Believes in the Afghan Mission

Reading this piece by Irshad Manji caught me by surprise. One of the great voices of women's rights in the Islamic world thinks it may be too difficult to reform Afghanistan:

There was a time when I believed. With every fibre of my feminist Muslim being, I believed in our Afghanistan mission. No longer.

On Sunday, the Taliban assassinated another Afghan women's rights activist. It happened only days after the world learned of yet one more anti-female statute that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had signed into law. Critics accused him of caving in to warlords ahead of the coming elections. Only when Western voices amplified the protests of liberal Afghans did Mr. Karzai put the law "under review." Human-rights advocates called it a triumph.

The victory, such as it is, will be short-lived. I'm increasingly convinced that Afghanistan's problem lies deeper than a recalcitrant Taliban or a gutless central government. It's a problem so profound that for the first time I have to ask: Should our troops just get out?

When somebody as optimistic as Manji thinks reform is impossible, then we have to conclude that she's right.

This leaves us only one reason to be in Afghanistan: To ensure that they don't build a base for world wide terrorism. This certainly is important but becomes moot when they have these bases right next door in Pakistan.

Why do we continue this mission over there when it's not working?

Globe and Mail Columnist Waxes Nostalgic about Communism

My goodness, how does Rick Salutin still have a column at the Mop and Pail? Disgruntled at the economic times, he marvels at the communist glories that have passed us by:

Another model existed during the last global depression, in the 1930s. The Soviet Union was socialist and the bloom wasn't yet off that rose. Visitors from the West often returned with accounts of how well it worked. That shook up enough powerful people to help make the New Deal possible. In Canada in those years, the leader of Canada's Communist Party, Tim Buck, could draw a bigger crowd anywhere than prime minister Mackenzie King.

During later crises, when the Soviet system had ossified and its stench was unavoidable, there were other models: huge China, little Cuba, all the ex-colonies in Africa and Asia with versions of socialism. They weren't just in the heads of Western protesters and dreamers; they were on a map. You could go and see (or project) the dream fulfilled.

Never mind the millions of innocent people slaughtered by these tyrannies. The confiscation of property, the totalitarianism, the squashing of free speech. The utter failure of their economies. They provided a good example, and helped shake up the Canadian political establishment back in the good old days? Is that what he's saying?

How is this kook employed by a major newspaper?

Utopian Project Doomed from the Beginning

Call me negative, call me a cynic but this new development on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside is going to fail. The Globe and Mail interviews the architect and it doesn't take long to see the failings.

There is a gargantuan new residential and commercial development on the site of the old Woodward's building in Canada's most troubled postal code, Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. The project is an exciting attempt to, in a single stroke, remake a depressed community. As it happens, for the past three years, the project has been going up just down the street from my office, and as it's climbed above the Gastown skyline, its ambitions have intrigued and inspired me.

Of the development's 536 suites, about 40 per cent are going to non-market housing, which means the place will be an admixture of the advantaged, less advantaged, students (the property will house Simon Fraser University's new Centre for the Contemporary Arts), shoppers and workers (at the drug and grocery stores, non-profits and other retail units).

Translation, almost half the building will be social housing. Do they really think this will be positive in the long term? Would you pay money to live in a building that's half social housing and knowing the crime and lower quality of life that comes with that?

The architect has lofty goals:

The future is in hybrid projects - where market, rental and affordable housing get merged into the normal fabric of our city. I think that if we embrace the philosophy, in one generation we could end the homelessness and affordability problem. We're such a wealthy country, the fact that we can't deal with this important issue just seems silly.

Again, I hate to be a cynic, but I'm willing to bet money that this will be a bust within 10 years. When people aren't paying to live in a place, they don't treat it well. Imagine if you've invested money to live in a condo and in the lobby there's surly young men, and grafitti? You would be begging to sell and nobody will be buying.

Hard Times in "The City"

Back in the 90's, a friend of mine worked in "The City," which is London's financial district. There was big money to be made and people were partying. He said in the summer everybody was half pissed by 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The Globe and Mail has a long piece on how far it has fallen.

There are no official figures, and the best anyone can come up with is a running tally done by the financial website Here Is The City. The figure is shocking: Between August, 2007, and February, 2009, 133,000 jobs were lost in investment banking, private banking and asset management. Topping the list of woe is Bank of America, the new owner of Merrill Lynch, with 29,260 jobs vaporized at the two companies.

As the downturn in the global financial services industry becomes dire, the futures of other big Canary Wharf names – Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, HSBC – at Europe's premier office development remain uncertain.

London partied like no other city in Europe during the boom years, which began in the mid-1990s and was driven by the massive influx of investment capital and jobs into the investment banking, asset management, underwriting, private equity and derivatives markets. By extension, business services soared. Throw in one of the hottest real estate markets on the planet and you had a recipe for extraordinary growth.

Now, London is falling as quickly as it rose. And there is little doubt things will get worse before they get better, for London is the victim of the bursting of a rare double-bubble: real estate and financial services.

This extraordinary place has vanished.

Grim Irony: Canadian Islamic Convert Woman Facing Beheading in Pakistan

Khadija Abdul Qahar, formerly know as Beverly Giesbrecht, was kidnapped by the Taliban in northern Pakistan. The Globe and Mail has the details, with hostage video:

BANNU, PAKISTAN and TORONTO — A Canadian held hostage after she travelled to the lawless tribal belt of northern Pakistan says the Taliban will behead her by the end of the month if a ransom isn't paid.

In a new video provided to The Globe and Mail, Beverly Giesbrecht expresses fear for her life if her captors aren't paid.

“I have been advised and asked to make this video. We have very short time now and I am going to be killed, as you can see,” she says, gesturing at the dagger on the wall behind her, pointed at her head.

(...)

Ms. Giesbrecht, who is also known as Khadija Abdul Qahaar, has been a captive for four months. The West Vancouver resident converted to Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and runs a website, Jihad Unspun, that says it provides information “devoid of the constraints of mainstream media.” Her visa application to Pakistan said she was a freelance journalist working on a documentary for the Al-Jazeera television network.

She was captured by gunmen last November, reportedly by the Taliban commander Gul Bahadur, who leads fighters in the volatile North Waziristan region.

“I need some kind, someone to help me, the Pakistani government and my own country and somebody must move now, because my life is going to be over. I want to go home. So, these people are serious. Please help me,” a wavering Ms. Giesbrecht says in her latest video.

I checked out her website, and it is unapologetically pro-jihad, including a sick musical video of a US personnel carrier being blown up. The site is jihadunspun.com. Sample:

Here is a new video release from the Islamic State of Iraq that shows Mujahideen detonating an IED at a US Bradley in Baghdad that completely destroys the vehicle. Please be patient as this Windows Media file downloads to your computer.

I hope she gets out of this and realizes the errors of her way and drops the jihad posturing.

Model the CBC After NPR

Jeffery Dvorkin in the Globe and Mail has a proposal for CBC, that makes the most sense. (read)

U.S. public broadcasting still receives some congressional funding, but at a much lower rate than the CBC gets. U.S. federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting averages less than 11 per cent of a public radio station's operating budget and just 30 per cent for television stations. More than half of the money comes from listeners and viewers, and the rest from donations from foundations and philanthropic organizations.

NPR listeners feel they have a direct stake in the operation precisely because their donations are so important. They are active participants and engaged in how the stations should run and what should be on the air.

The power of U.S. public broadcasting is based in its local context and connection to their communities. Canadians may mock the pledge drives, but they are an accurate, effective and vital contact between the stations and the communities that support them. A few years ago, NPR, working with member stations, decided that the pledge drives needed to be more like the most interesting programs. Redesigned and reinvigorated, the drives have become "must-listen" parts of the public radio offering.

Absolutely. In my opinion, NPR's product is far superior to CBC. I do 99% of my radio listening from online podcasts. I can't find anything on the CBC website, whereas NPR have a variety sites and plenty of programs, with interesting guests.

Let them do pledge drives. If people like the product, they will survive.

A Bad Idea

John Ibbitson has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail as to whether the US should have a "Truth Commission" to investigate abuses and crimes that the Bush administration committed during the war on terror. (read)

That's not nearly enough for a coalition of human-rights groups; it has called on Attorney-General Eric Holder in a petition "to appoint a non-partisan independent special counsel to immediately commence a prosecutorial investigation into the most serious alleged crimes" of Mr. Bush and his cronies. (Too much Latinate English there, too.)

The problem with hiring lawyers to investigate the government is that they can go rogue. Kenneth Starr was appointed to look into Bill Clinton's real-estate dealings and ended up submitting a report on his adultery.

Also, it becomes retaliatory. Because the Republicans sicced Mr. Starr on the Clinton administration, the Democrats forced the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Valerie Plame affair. (If you've forgotten it, let it stay forgotten.)

If the Democrats appoint a special counsel to investigate the Bush years, count on the Republicans to one day appoint a special counsel to investigate the Obama years. The only way to reverse this corrosive political culture is for one side to declare a ceasefire. Appointing a special counsel will simply make the war go on.

And a truth commission could be even worse, dragging on for years and conferring immunity on people who should have been charged.

I agree, you get to the point where you are criminalizing policy. The voters have decided. We have a new government. If real crimes are found then we should prosecute. Otherwise this will be partisan grandstanding.

We need to remember what the months after 9/11 were like. Everyone, including the most senior officials, believed another major attack was imminent. Anthrax was in the mail system. The American people demanded that their government go after the terrorists who had so savagely attacked them.

Things got authorized that should not have been authorized. Lawyers came up with opinions that were fig leaves. And a certain paranoia, already percolating through the White House, began to spread.

As fear of another attack subsided, people began having second thoughts. When the United States invaded Iraq on what turned out to be faulty or false pretenses, suspicion turned to anger. Mr. Bush ultimately lost all credibility in the eyes of the American people, the highest price a politician can pay. Unless someone knowingly committed a felony on government service, that's probably enough.

That's what we have to remember. At the time water boarding a terrorist for information that could halt an attack seemed reasonable. That's what they decided to do it at the time. The policy has been rescinded. Let's move on.

While the Central Bankers Played Sudoku

Here's a nice clean explanation of why the stimulus plan won't work, from Fabrice Taylor in the Globe and Mail today:

I'm sure some overpaid bank economist could put down his Beaujolais long enough to explain why a mushroom cloud of leverage is okay because of X, Y and Z. But remember we want common sense here, not propaganda. Too much debt is fatal – it's not debatable.

A perfect confluence of stupidity, greed and incompetence only made matters worse. Greedy people lent and dumb people borrowed, and in the meantime incompetent governments and central bankers played Sudoku instead of policing ratings agencies, hedge funds and even government-sponsored firms such as Fannie Mae. And in turn, this credit bubble propped up bad businesses. Here are your examples:

General Motors wants more money to avoid a Chapter 11 filing. General Motors' vice-chairman pooh-poohed hybrid cars as recently as a year ago.

Bank of America got handouts, which you could easily argue were used to help finance the purchase of Merrill Lynch, which you could argue made it easier for Merrill to pay almost $4-billion in bonuses to the executives who drove it to the brink of bankruptcy.

Citigroup gets bailed out as a reward for destroying billions of shareholder money.

General Electric massaged its earnings for years – and former CEO Jack Welch admits as much in his gripping tell-all book about how great he is – and it gets help.

Some homeowners who can't pay their mortgages will get money, while those who are servicing their debt get nothing.

Hat tip: Pat

Take Harper's Advice Obama

Obama worshippers and Harper haters must cringe while reading this op-ed from Lawrence Martin at the Globe & Mail:

On Afghanistan, where three more Canadian soldiers were killed on Tuesday, you get the feeling that our Prime Minister is being refreshingly candid while Barack Obama, he with the four-square reputation, is playing dangerous games.

Stephen Harper shocked more than a few observers with his recent statement that the Pakistan-abetted Taliban insurgency probably will never be defeated. Leaders seldom, if ever, say this kind of thing when their troops are on the battlefield. Usually, they just raise false hopes.

Mr. Obama is going the surge route in Afghanistan. The first big foreign policy act of his presidency is a major escalation of a war – 17,000 more troops. It makes him sound more like Lyndon Johnson than a peacemaker. And it looks suspiciously like an act of political counterbalance – I've got to look tough – for his planned exit from Iraq.

After you send in the troops, the problem is getting them out. Presidents don't like to leave without a claim to victory. Otherwise, they fear they'll be seen as sending a message to the world that America is weak.

Yes, that's right. Harper is looking like the decisive intellectual here while Obama looks weak. Liberals and Dippers are looking around for the script that Harper is a George Bush clone.

Kandahar on English Bay

I was chatting with a few people last night about all the gangland shootings in Vancouver, meanwhile outside the guns were blazing:

Vancouver — Gunfire across Metro Vancouver Tuesday night has left two dead, two injured and one home riddled with bullets following four separate incidents stretching from Vancouver to Burnaby and Surrey.

(...)

The incident comes as Greater Vancouver has recorded almost two dozen shootings in recent weeks, nine of them fatal, ...

Does anybody know where I can pick up a flack jacket on the cheap?

UPDATE: The Toronto Star reports that the violence in Vancouver is a spill over from the Mexican Drug Wars.

Almost all cocaine in Canada comes via Mexico, the hub for South American producers. Canadian-based organized crime groups buy the drug either directly from the cartels in Mexico, or from middlemen in Los Angeles and other American cities.

When the supply of cocaine is hampered by crackdowns and the price goes up, says Fogarty, competition for the remaining kilos gets tense in Canada. The bigger players with good links to the south prevail, leaving the smaller ones scrambling.

"People are running around trying to find other sources of cocaine. The price goes up and the guns come out," said Fogarty.

UPDATE II: CBC

The shooting followed the arrest of several people over the weekend with links to the Lower Mainland's notorious UN gang, which police allege is engaged in a violent tuff war with rival gangs for control of the region's illegal drug trade.

Saturday Morning, Pounding Your Fist on the Breakfast Table Article

As the Daily Salt Shaker has stated before, the Canadian government has a bizarre policy of paying groups to lobby them. Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail has an article on one of those groups:

Last week, Mr. Kenney bit back. He asked his bureaucrats to yank the CAF's $447,000 grant. "They can say what they want within the parameters of our laws, but they shouldn't expect a priori funding." Now the CAF is accusing Mr. Kenney of trying to stifle its right to democratic speech. According to executive director Mohamed Boudjenane, the government's real motive for punishing the CAF is most likely political. "They maybe decided to go after the Zionist vote, like Reisman and Schwartz and Tannenbaum - people who used to be Liberal."

With a budget of more than $1-million a year, the Canadian Arab Federation depends heavily for its existence on taxpayers' money. It claims this funding is used entirely for programs that help newcomers adjust to Canadian society, and to fight racism and Islamophobia. "Our activity as an advocacy group has nothing to do with our political activity," Mr. Boudjenane says.

But the CAF's website tells another story. The home page urges people to join protests against the "massacre on Gaza." It links to dozens of anti-Israel articles, and gives prominent play to the winners of a recent essay contest on "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine." The website was developed with a grant of $60,000 from the federal Department of Heritage.

The CAF is a prominent sponsor of anti-Israel demonstrations, which feature people waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags, and people calling for the state of Israel to be wiped off the planet. One video shows a woman pointing toward the camera and declaring: "Jewish child, you're going to f------ die. Hamas is coming for you."

(...)

On top of the money it gets from Ottawa, the CAF also gets money from Ontario, Quebec and even the cash-strapped city of Toronto, which recently gave it $25,000 for a public media campaign to address the "misrepresentation" of Arabs and Muslims in the media. It got another $75,000 from Ontario's government to help victims of crime and to conduct a survey on discrimination against Arabs and Muslims. It and other groups also get income from conducting anti-racism education; the Canadian Islamic Congress (which is ideologically identical to the CAF), for instance, was invited by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to give "sensitivity" training to the people whose job it is to keep terrorists off airplanes.

Your taxpayer money at work. We're paying for this. It's almost beyond comprehension. It's against the law for me to cheat taxes and this is what the money is going to.

Irony of the Day: Swedes Won't Bail Out Saab

The world has definitely gone whacky when the Swedes are more fiscally conservative than the United States:

It also represents decades of Swedish car-making history, and the Saab brand remains closely associated with the Scandinavian country, even after GM
took full control in 2000.

Would Mr. Reinfeldt's government allow all that to perish?

The answer, so far, has been "ja." The government insists that Saab's future is GM's responsibility and has rejected the U.S. auto maker's request for $600-million in loan guarantees.

I love how he rejects union whining as well.

"Saab needs a fresh start," metal workers union boss Stefan Lofven said. "If the government and GM choose to take their hands from Saab, it's an enormous treachery against all auto workers in Sweden."

Three cheers to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt!

Hat tip: Pat, who adds: What would Don Cherry think?

Good question. Next thing you know Swedes will show some grit and not float in the playoffs.

Debt Crisis

Good morning! Depressed about the economic climate? Neil Reynolds in the Globe and Mail reports on two economists that see a future debt crisis.

For one thing, Prof. Reinhart and Prof. Rogoff say, people should expect an enormous increase in national debt. How enormous? Would you believe -on average, around the world - an 86-per-cent increase? In a sobering scrutiny of past financial meltdowns, published as The Aftermath of Financial Crises, the pair conclude that banking-based crises always result in "an explosion of [national] debt."

(...)

U.S. national debt is now (as of Feb. 3) $10.7-trillion (U.S.). Expand this debt by 86 per cent and you get a debt of $19.9-trillion; expand it by 100 per cent and you get a debt of $21.4-trillion, equivalent to 170 per cent of GDP. By contrast, U.S. debt in the Second World War didn't exceeded 120 per cent of GDP. Based on the findings of Prof. Reinhart and Prof. Rogoff, the U.S. will end this recession with far more new debt than the $3-trillion that some economists now presume.

Hat tip: Pat

Downtown Eastside Blues

Back in the late 80's PJ O'Rourke toured some expensively built social housing complexes, in the Bronx and Newark, NJ. They were filthy and depressing. The neighbourhoods were full of gangs, criminals and drug addicts. The welfare systems, started up by Lyndon Johnson in the 60's were not alleviating poverty as designed, but making it worse. He wrote of the interesting paradox:

You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money.

I had this in mind while reading this long article that tables some of the huge expenses that have been poured into Vancouver's Downtown Eastside Slum. Since 2000, the Globe tallies it at $1.4 billion. And the place is still horrible:

An open-air drug market still thrives five minutes from a police station. The bathrooms of decrepit hotels still serve as shooting galleries for addicts. Prostitutes still offer their bodies from the curbside. Drug pushers still prey on the mentally diminished, multiplying the misery.

Every city election they promise more money to curb homelessness. More shelters, affordable housing, drug treatment facilities. And it always gets worse. Homelessness goes up, property crime goes up.

Obviously, they need some new thinking. Perhaps re-opening some space in mental institutions, and starting welfare to work programs. Many people down there have long rap sheets, so perhaps longer sentences for repeat offenders. Tougher anti-panhandling and vagrancy laws. More cops.

My wife and I have visited San Francisco many times, since we've lived on the west coast. In the early 2000's Mayor Brown loosened up welfare requirements, and eliminated tough anti-panhandling laws. Within two years the place had gone to hell. The last time we were there, 2005, you couldn't walk anywhere without aggressive, rough looking people asking for money.

Being nice, and spending the big bucks worsen, rather than alleviate the problem. We need a Guiliani type to come in and do the tough but necessasary work.

Globe and Mail Contortion Experts

These little headline gymnastics from the G & M gave me a laugh.

The headline: Duceppe trumpets coalition's strength

The sub-headline: Bloc Québécois Leader doubts Prime Minister will change tone and meet Liberal-NDP demands on budget

The opening of the article (A CP wire re-publication):

MONTREAL — Gilles Duceppe says his party's coalition with the Liberals and New Democrats is just as robust as it was before the Governor-General prorogued Parliament last month.

The Bloc Québécois Leader said he would be surprised if Prime Minister Stephen Harper changed his tone and met the coalition's demands in next week's federal budget.

I love how the G & M add in the sub-headline that these are "Liberal-NDP" budget demands, like its coming out of Duceppe's mouth. Like Duceppe and the Bloc don't have any demands and might not even be a part of the coalition. In the CP article it is quite clear that Duceppe is speaking as a member of the coalition.

Globe and Mail Pretends that the Bloc Quebecois Aren't Part of the Coalition Again

Iggy is threatening to vote down the new Tory budget. The Globe and Mail has the scoop.

“If the budget does not respond to the circumstances, if the budget is not up to the level of the crisis we are all facing, we must vote against it.”

Mr. Ignatieff did not mention the Liberal-NDP coalition, which is supposed to be waiting in the wings to take power if Mr. Harper's Conservatives are defeated in a budget vote.

Funny, the Globe and Mail didn't mention the other Coalition member, the Bloc Quebecois. I think we may have a complete rewind from the fall with the same talking points. I hope the Liberals try to force this no confidence vote again. If they try to seize power or force an election they are in big trouble.

Once again, what a rag the once proud Globe and Mail is for openly propagandizing for the Liberals. They pretend the Coalition does not contain the Bloc. Shame!

As I wrote back in December the Liberals (and their media backers), think we're so stupid, we don't notice that the Bloc are part of the deal. One day they have a public signing together, the next they say the Tories are out of order suggesting that the Bloc are part of it.