On the campaign trail

Suprisingly, we are less than enthused about the upcoming Canadian election and it is taking real effort on our part to stay interested and informed. The Conservative Party's campaign slogans, "Dion - he's not worth the risk" seem to acknowledge implicitly that Harper himself is no catch, but is at least marginally better than Dion. Dion, for his part, is generating all of the ideas in the campaign, something ideally, ought to indicate that he should win - if, Canadians agree. Layton, meanwhile, appears to be tarred with fallout over Tony Blair, even though the two superficially have nothing to do with each other. However, Layton, like Blair, we suppose, is seen as a vigourous and well-spoken leader who's modern style is at odds with the blue-collar roots of his party, and after Blair, that is generating significant doubts. 

"Modern style" is an interesting term to crop up in the campaign as well. All three of the major leaders are from the same social generation and have many of the same foundational views on things, unlike a certain other presidential campaign south of the border. This is mostly a problem for Layton, as the world has changed and the NDP have yet to find a new position as a true left alternative (whatever that may mean, and it's clear that NDP doesn't know).

Who will win? Harper is fear-mongering in a time of economic uncertainty. Dion is suggesting solutions. How afraid of the future Canadians actually are will determine the winner. 

The G8 and the Future of Canada

We have spent the last two weeks or so watching and reading reports coming out of Germany predicting and the reporting on Canada's behaviour at the recent G8 meeting, asking ourselves, what need for commentary is there? The Harper government's position has been abundantly clear on the issue of climate change, and even the rumours that Canada was attempting to block or delay an aid package to Africa was not as surprising as it might have seen on the surface, given the government's own treatment of minorities and disadvantaged groups at home.

Upon reflection though, what is becoming increasingly surprising is the rapid change that the Harper government is bringing to the international Canadian identity. For quite some time now, Canada has been active in the international arena, acting as something of an intercessor, or go-between for developing nations seeking access to other members of the G8. That role, along with a host of other international roles that Canada has played, seem now to be over.

It is no longer surprising, but perhaps becoming alarming, the degree to which the international Canadian position is changing. If you consider the issues that dominated the last Canadian election, where Harper eked out his minority government in January 2006, there was very little debate over internationalism. There was discussion over the Canadian role in Afghanistan, which as moved now from a more "traditionallly Canadaian" peacekeeping role, to something more aggressive under NATO auspices, as well as debate over Kyoto which the majority of Canadians continue to report they agree with, at least in principle, and the Harper government has effectively walked away from. Now, to peacekeeping and a history of pushing environmental causes (the CFC ban in Montreal 1976, Mulroney's role at the Rio Summit), the Harper government is shifting Canada's role in the developing world.

Environmental Fallout

According to a recent Decima poll, the Federal Conservatives and Liberals are tied in the court of public opinion. Negative reaction to the Conservatives climate change plan has further distanced their more "liberal" wing, while the once-staunch supporters in Alberta are beginning to question their favourite party. What is more troubling for the ruling federal party is that their support in Quebec, among the most pro-Kyoto of the provinces has fallen to below 20% while the Liberals are cruising at 34%. Given that the Conservatives election success was the result of stealing seats from the Liberals in Quebec, the Conservatives are in real trouble should an election happen soon. The trouble could be especially dire if the Liberals were to steal a seat or two from the Conservatives in the Western provinces.

Elsewhere, the Premiers met to discuss "best practices" regarding climate change, and expressed their own disappointment with the Conservative Climate Change plan. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach was the lone voice to support the "intensity targets", but found himself in good company when he dismissed a potential suggestion for emission trading among the provinces. Stelmach said, "I’m not one that looks forward to issuing licenses allowing to pollute more," he told reporters. "Especially if we’re going to be trading with other countries."

We find the statement curious, given Stelmach's support for intensity targets, a strategy that would allow total emissions to rise. Perhaps Stelmach simply does not like to issue licenses - this would be consistent with his lack of desire to regulate the oil sands. Furthermore, in refering to other countries, perhaps Stelmach feels that it would be too difficult to devise a made-Canada plan that would be compatible with international standards which are often more strict than those suggested by both the Stelmach and Harper governments. Ultimately though, the biggest barrier to foreign trade in emissions is Environmental Minister Baird's own dismissal of the idea.

In a story that really ought to be getting more coverage than it is, the Alberta government is set to considered a motion to use nuclear energy in the oil sands. Currently, natural gas is used to convert three barrels of water to steam needed to produce one barrel of oil. In order to cut down emissions, the government wants to consider replacing the gas with emissions.

We are, quite frankly, aghast that our leaders would consider nuclear waste as a solution to help clean up the oil sands.

Yann Martel

After spending the weekend thinking about Guy Debord's statement that, in a society of the spectacle the economy has grown to encompass all spheres of daily life, it was quite refresing to stumble across the following quote by Yann Martel, author of The Life of Pi. Martel was explaining his rationale for vowing to deliver Prime Minister Harper a book every two weeks as long as Harper is in office to help raise awareness for the arts.

"It goes way beyond dollars and cents. It's a question of waking up the prime minister to the fact that we're not just economic beings, we're full beings. Quality of life is not just an economic matter — it has to do with the environment, with art and culture."

We also loved that the first book was Animal Farm. Read it for yourself online here.

For more on the story, click here.

A Tale of Two Governments

Both the Canadian Federal Government and the Alberta Provincial government made major announcements yesterday and the results could not have been more different from two Conservative governments.

First, provincial Premier Ed Stelmach announced his inaugural budget which contains $33B in spending. This is perhaps one of the largest public expenditures in Alberta for quite some time and sounds good to a public waiting to hear that the Tories are going to reinvest the provincial surplusses back into the social infrastructure. Granted, a significant amount of the money is simply a restatement of already declared projects, or cost-overrun allocations (themselves problematic and a seperate issue for the government to deal with). But in light of recent movesw to back away from such options as rent controls, releasing nearly half a billion dollars to deal with the housing crunch sounds like the governemnt is interested in solving the problem. What Albertans are looking for is evidence of a vision for the province that is going to reward the sacrifices of the 1990s. Stelmach's budget, while admittedly not containing a lot that is new, nevertheless represents significant spending and an indication that the governemnt is taking a small step in the right direction.

The Federal Government meanwhile, announced it's vision for the environment, or rather failed to do so, instead appeared content to offer a nightmarish interpretation of someone else's. Environment Minister Baird's comment's that Kyoto was a "risky" and "reckless" proposition that threatened 275,000 jobs jeapordizing the Canadian economy with recession. Several critics have pointed out some flaws with the underlying assumptions of the government's report, but at The Daily Wenzel we also noticed the difference between this report and the one the UK releases at the end of summer that attempted to calculate the relative costs of not doing anything regarding climate change. Admittedly this is a much harder task, but even conservative economic estimates would mitigate some of the costs projected by the government. For example, should provincial governments go through with tentative proposals to ban incadescent light bulbs, then certain jobs and revenues would be lost to the economy, however the increase in sales and demand for compact flourescent bulbs would lessen, if not surpass those numbers - certainly this is a very simplistic example, but recognizing the potential economic spin-offs of pro-Kyoto technologies and developments ought to have been incorporated, a feature not reported so far. Also, any projected costs associated with meeting or not meeting Kyoto measures woudl have to include estimations of the economic impact that changing conditions would have on crops and livestock patterns, it could very well be, as the UK report suggested, that the costs of not meeting Kyoto targets or some other significant cliamte change attempt, well outweigh the costs of doing nothing, or very little.

Waiting somewhere in limbo is the government's own Clean Air Bill, which is supposedly in the process of beign revised based on the earlier criticisms. Many Canadians support moves to deal with climate change effectively, and it is widely thought to be one of the leadding, if not the leading issue for the next election. Quebec, as a province, is pro-Kyoto, and yesterday's announcement is unlikely to earn the Conservatives more support in a provine that they need to either expand or maintain support in. Similarly, the disaffected Liberals who voted for the Conservatives in the last election are unlikely to be comforted either, this move simply yet another reminder of the ideological differences between the two parties.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Today marked the 25th Anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, a document that came into being with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. The Charter guaranteed Canadians freedom from persecution or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, and language. It has also been used to extend these rights in to many other realms by the courts, earning it the scorn of conservatives who have long felt that it has allowed the judiciary to make laws, instead of simply interpreting them. That this is still the feeling today was evidenced by the silence coming out of Stephen Harper's government today. Left-leaning and liberal Canadians will argue that it was the reluctance of conservatives to implement the Charter, or avoid dealing with its implications in areas such as sexual orientation that forced the Canadian courts into their current role.

The patriation of the constitution also saw Quebec remain aloof from Federation, creating a constitutional crisis that led to the failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, as well as the second Quebec Sovereignty Referendum. Ironically, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had envisioned the patriation of the constitution as the first step in taking the institutions of the Canadian government into the 20th century. Charter of Rights and Freedoms
was meant to deal with the lingering 19th century antagonisms between Canada's French and English populations. While individual rights have certainly flourished, Canada is no further down the road Trudeau and hoped for than we were twenty-five years ago.

Enviro Update

Longtime Daily Wenzel readers may have noticed that we've been rather quiet on the environmental front these last few weeks. Despite some major announcements by the federal government, and the official opposition party regarding their green policies, we have refrained from commenting. In large part it is because we do not consider this news. Very little substance is being discussed in these reports, and then policies themselves are merely consistent with established frameworks. Even what we would have considered the most interesting piece of news, which occurred some two weeks ago, namely Baird's announcement that Canada would not take part in any international carbon trading scheme - a proposal publicly mused over by his predecessor Rona Ambrose, is in keeping with the Conservative move to retreat from the international stage (peacekeeping not withstanding).

However, we would like to share the following newsbit, as it shows that our feelings are shared elsewhere. The failure to fund new research into climate change only supports the public perception that Stephen Harper and his government are not concerned with climate change, but are simply reacting to immediate developments, in much the same way Harper recognized the Quebec nation to stave off a similar BQ move. Similarly, just as that political powerplay is likely to come back to haunt Canadians, we can only imagine how these environmental moves (or lack thereof) will affect us down the road.

The Politics of Boredom

Alright, so perhaps not quite the posting that we would envision for the above title, and we promise we'll give it a much better go next time around. However, politics and boredom do seem to go hand in hand these days. Despite all of the excitement generated over the provincial elections in Quebec, we at The Daily Wenzel were not surprised in the least to find the Liberals ekeing out a narrow margin. This is perfectly in keeping with the way Canadian politics works. Separatist governments in Quebec only seem to thrive when the Liberals hold power in Ottawa. This is in part because Quebec, like most of Canada, is fundamentally Liberal, and having Liberals in office federally means that we agree on some many major issues that smaller issues can take a bigger stage. People only seem to want to debate separatism after health-care, social services, free trade, etc., have all been taken care of, issues that the Liberals seem to be much better at generating consensus around.

When the Conservatives are in power however, there are so many other issues that the electorate tend to disagree with, that the conversations rarely get to separatism. There is a weird idea floating here that an argument could be made that a Liberal government is bad for national unity, simply by being a victim of their own success.

Federally however, the success of the Liberals in Quebec does not necessarily mean an election is out of the question. The issue with the election is result is to see who made the biggest gains. In the last federal election, the Liberals lost significant ground, allowing the Conservatives to take the rest of Canada. The recent results most likely signifies that the Liberals would be triumphant in Quebec once more, causing Harper and Co. to have to wait for the Ontario numbers before calling an election.

Can we carry the burden of Climate Change?

Speaking in Belgium on proposed European plans for climate change, an EU official talked about challenging developed nations to tackle climate change in meaningful and significant ways. Not only has the EU proposed some large scale ideas, but is also actively pursuing smaller ventures aimed at encouraging the average citizen to take control of climate change initiatives. Recent moves have included tax measures to favour energy efficient appliances (a similar program in Canada was cut by the Harper government), increased use of biofuel mixtures (recently announced by Harper), and the banning of incandescent light bulbs (being considered in Nova Scotia, already underway in Australia, and Venezuela while Cuba accomplished this two years ago).

In Alberta, the big news is Ed Stelmach's decision to reduce "emission intensity" per barrel of oil from the oil sands, while allowing the overall number of barrels produced to expand. The other major announcement was a clever play on the idea of carbon capture and storage. According to British journalist George Monbiot, in his book Heat: How to stop the world from burning, the burial of carbon dioxide is an effective measure for the removal of the gas from the atmosphere, but it is also very useful for squeezing the last bits of oil out of abandoned oil reservoirs, Monbiot confides that this would be his nightmare scenario. Guess what the Alberta plan calls for?

Unfit to Lead

There's been quite a bit of political news focusing on environmental issues over the past ten days or so, and most of it has been quite embarrassing. Despite promises that they were constructing a "greener" perspective, the Federal Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, continue to talk about"reducing the intensity of emissions". Thus under current proposals, the Alberta Oil Sands projects, which is perhaps the single greatest engineering feat and environmental catastrophe of our time as Canadians, would be allowed to increasing the amount of emissions it generates. Granted, each barrel of oil would produce less pollutants, but the overall number of barrels allowed to be produced in the region is set to expand dramatically.

When asked about the plans, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach expressed his concern that the science behind climate change is not certain enough to risk jeopardizing the Albertan economy.

This in turn led to our favourite moment of the week, as David Suzuki, visiting Calgary on his "If I were Prime Minister" tour, called the Premier out publicly, saying he was unfit to lead.

In the beginning . . .

A decree went out from Harper Augustus. According to the decree every man was to go to his own city to be passported. (Adapted from the Book of Luke)

Granted our neighbours to the south may have a bit more of a role to play in the sudden passport requirements of Canadians, however, Harper must ultimately be front in centre in what could be a very personal experience for most Canadians with the federal government.

Some of us went to the Harry Hays building last week, the Federal outpost in downtown Calgary to renew our passports. Typically such a visit might take half an hour with a return trip ten days later to pick up passports. On New Year's we noticed the new requirements for visiting the United States on travel websites, and thought it best to wait a awhile, expecting a passport rush leading up to the Jan. 23 deadline. A month later we decided to go in.

From all accounts, ours was a typical day and the people lining up around us were somewhat resigned to fact that they would be waiting at minimum two hours before getting to the passport office with their papers. Two and a half hours later, we arrived at the pre-screening desk and were told that it would be an hour from this point. Officials had been moving throughout the line checking for signatures of guarantors, but it was at this second pre-screening station that people really started to be weeded out. Three of the seven people ahead of us had their photos turned away, most commonly for glare, but occassionally for size or too much smile on the face of a four year old. Luckily, the pre-screeners informed everyone, they still had an hour before their pre-drawn number was up, so they could hurry to one of the photoshops and get new pictures taken. After we made it into the Passport Office Proper, the security guard announced to everyone that from this point it would be at least an hour before we could approach the wicket for processing. He recommended that we all leave and get something to eat to prevent fainting.

Scanning the room, we saw that there were twelve wickets, only half of which were open. While we left to grab a bite, we discussed the Attorney General's press release stating that the Harper government had yet to act of any of her 2005 recommendations to fix security breaches and processing flaws within the Passport Office. We found it odd that a government so concerned over terrorism would be so blaise about security gaps at such a sensitive location. We also found it highly annoying, and somewhat arrogant, that the Harper government would allow the Passport Office to be half-staffed. Either they were unprepared for the numbers of passport applicants or else cared very little for the trouble to average citizens.

Our passports were finally processed after four and half hours of waiting. Instead of ten days, we were told it would be four to five weeks.

Jam-packed environmental action

sEven in this tech heavy era, it seems like we can't stay as informed as we would like, as fast as we would like. With all of the enviro-debates occurring this week we almost wish we could have several direct video feeds set-up to monitor everything. For starters, there seems to be some talk of a post-Kyoto protocol in the works amongst the G8 nations, but whether this turns out to be a Kyoto II, or some kind of watered down Kyoto, or even anything at all, although given recent political developments in Britain it seems likely that something positive will result.

The Canadian federal government meanwhile is gearing up to debate a private members' bill calling on the Harper government to hold itself to the Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Accord. While some view the bill as mostly meaningless, since it lacks any effective measures to hold the government accountable, it gives the political parties another chance to posture on their environmental platforms in advance of a general election.

A little closer to home, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is arguing for greater Clean Air funding for Alberta. Although this is most likely a political attempt to take advantage of federal money since a common complaint among Alberta premiers is the inequality among transfer payments, however there is an element of truth to Stelmach's position. Currently, federal funding is being released on a per capita basis, where Alberta would be entitled to roughly a tenth of the funds, but as the province is home to the pil and gas industry, it is responsible for a third of all the country's emissions and air borne pollutants.

All Quiet on the Western Front

While we would like to say that things have been quiet here at the Daily Wenzel since we've all been off in Paris at the climate change meetings, the truth is somewhat (alright much) more mundane. Readers waiting patiently for pronouncements or opinions on the recent parliamentery debates between Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition leader Stephane Dion over the environment will have to wait a while longer. Given the reporting in the media these energetic exchanges signify the jockeying for political positioning that accompanies and imminent election. Unfortunately an explanation, exploration, and evaluation of these different proposals has been sorely lacking. Readers familiar with the ideas of Guy Debord contained in his book The Society of the Spectacle (available at right) may recognize this as all-too-characteristic of corporate media coverage.

While we are attempting to find out more about these positions, we were surprised at the various levels of coverage presented to the Paris Climate Change conference report that human activitiy is "likely" (meaning 90% causal) to be the prime influence on global warming and climate change. What surprised us is that while it is difficult to find out information of Canadian political responses through the media, most major media include a direct link to the conference's 21 page report. Putting information in the hands of people is one of the most productive strategies to change opinions on climate change. Educating them however, is also a necessary next step. . .

On Leadership

There are two ways to exercise leadership. One is to arrive in a position of power with a vision and execute that vision without alienating those around you. The other is to be in a position of power during some sort of destabilizing event and navigate the ensuing chaos back to a degree of normalcy.

For the past few months, the Prime Minister Harper has shown a decided lack of what we would define as leadership. In fact, reactionary is a better word. Upon hearing that the Bloc Quebecois were about to introduce a motion regarding Quebec sovereignty, Harper beat them to the punch. With the election of former Liberal Environment Minister, Stephane Dion, Harper scrambles to replace the universally criticized Rona Ambrose. However, Harper's subsequent interview on who he considered to be part of the Quebecois nation reveal an astute lack of understanding. Similarly, his failure to name a significant caucaus member as Minister of the Environment, or to use the naming of a new minister as an opportunity to announce a new environmental policy, highlights the absence of vision here.

The environment is widely expected to play a large role in the upcoming federal election. Canadians recently named the environment their number one concern. Furthermore, in this week's edition of Fast Forward David Suzuki suggests that it is time to take a more integrated approach to environmental issues. Some media reports seemed to indicate that Harper would do just that, naming a high profile member of the Conservative Party who could hold his or her own with the Finance Minister to plan joint endeavours on behalf of the enviroment. Naming Baird, a junior MP, does not do this.

Marketers and public relations officials go to where the people are, leaders go to where they want the people to be.

Wheat Kings

Stephen Harper's turbulent relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board has given us an excuse to delve into the nebulous world of economic theory. Like any good Albertan, the Canadian Prime Minister believes that a free and open economy is beneficial to all, and that free trade in farm products will inevitably create a better agricultural industry. Perhaps he is taking a longer view, but it is not one shared by many farmers, particularly those in the West, outside of Alberta. In recent Wheat Board elections, farmers outside of Alberta chose to elect candidates who believed in upholding the Board's current policies. The sacking of the head of the Wheat Board for failing to introduce open market reforms provided a politically infused backdrop to the elctions.

What is at stake here is conflicting beliefs in the directions that the Wheat Board should go. Currently, farmers across Canada sell their wheat to the board, who then market it internationally. A small coterie of Albertan farmers have found that they can individually negotiate better deals with buyers than the price they receive through the Wheat Board. This may be true, and we at The Daily Wenzel do not pretend to understand fully how the Wheat Board arrives at its prices. However, we consider that by pooling wheat nationally, the Wheat Board limits the size of contracts that it would consider, a sort of minimum purchase requirement. This is in turn creates a scarcity and demand for wheat among small to medium-sized consumers. Under this model, indivudal farmers with much smaller stock sizes, would be able to meet the artifically high demand for wheat among this smaller class of consumer. Thus, evidence from the Alberta farmers' group would indicate they are correct in saying that laws requiring the sale of wheat directly to the Wheat Board prevent them from maximizing their profit.

However, as is typical perhaps in a conservative viewpoint, a wider perspective is traded for a much narrow individual focus. These few farmers are benefiting from the gaps created by a system they hope to abolish. Higher prices from small-to-medium sized consumers exist only as long as the Wheat Board is unable or unwilling to meet their demand while satisfying the demand of large-scale consumers. In the absence of the Wheat Board, the purchasing power would shift to the large-scale consumers, forcing small-to-medium sized producers into the reverse situation, competing against one another to fulfill large orders, giving the large-scale consumers the ability to drive prices down.

Nixon vs. Harper

Canadian Prime Minister Harper's recent move to recognize les Quebecois as a nation has sponsored some curious debate here in the Wenzel offices. Given our earlier post, "I Stand Not By My Country . . ." it would seem that this issue might not even surface on our radar. It is true, some of us feel that the quest for nationhood is a step backwards, or made meaningless in an era of increasing government decentralization and devolution. We recognize though, that speaking from the priveleged position of having your nationalist demands overly satisfied, it is quite easy to renounce them. We also recognize that our opinions on nationalism are not shared by the majority of Canadians.

Thus, let us grant that national identity is still a meaningful construct; where does that leave us? Bassano del Grappa cheerfully pointed out that the tension between English and French Canadians is precisely what defines us to the outside world. Where other ethnic groups would have long ago resorted to armed bloodshed, French Canadians maintain that they must leave, English Canadians argue that they want them to stay, but neither side appears to move much in either direction. With a smile and a toast, del Grappa concluded by saying that if we were ever to resolve this relationship we would cease to be Canadians, regardless of whether Quebec seceded.
The consensus however, appears that Trudeau's vision of a Canada containing no priveleged groups must prevail. If Quebec's identity is based on some two hundred years of being treated as English Canada's hinterland, how much different might this be from the views of Western or Atlantic Canada? Of course, Quebec would argue that it has a history of suffering cultural, linguistic, and religious discrimination at the hands of English Candians. True, but Trudeau neatly dealt with these issues in the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Furthermore, we can think of know claim to nation-status that has not ultimately led to a territorial one. Thus, Harper's decision to recognize les Quebecois only grants legitimacy in the long run to the seperatists. That it was a political decision, borne out of the need to make inroads in Quebec, to cut support for both the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals, without a view to Canada as a whole in the long term, reveals the fundamentally short-sightedness of Canadian conservatism.

Enter the ghost of Richard Mulhouse Nixon, who fragmented electoral voters in the United States, first by alienating specific social groups and then playing them off one another. The American voting public is perhaps only now recovering from Nixon. In the last year and a half, we have seen Harper aim directly at the Canadian middle-class, appealing to its basic self-interest, and now it is doing the same with Quebec. In each case Harper makes little to no argument for the consideration of Canada as a nation. Is Harper our Nixon?

That Cagey Harper

We were all somewhat shocked by the announcement today that the Harper government wants to recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. We haven't decided exactly what this means, and no doubt will consume more than a few espressos and early morning cappuccinos in the course of our debates. One thing appears certain however, that Harper has finally conceived of an idea that can draw him closer to Quebec. It also appears that Ignatieff, widely believed to emerge victorious in the Liberal Party's leadership elections next week, thought of it first, though Harper will beat him to the punch. Harper has done very little to win the potential votes of Quebec, while the Liberals are looking to regain seats lost to the block. In our minds, and a few pundits seem to agree, that in the last election the Paul Martin Liberals lost Quebec to the Bloc Quebecois, and in doing so lost Canada to the Conservatives.

The week ahead?

As Canadian Environmental Minister Rona Ambrose prepares to touch down in Kenya for this week's Global Environment summit amid international criticism of her personal role as head of the organization, and Canada's lucklustre commitment to the Kyoto protocol, the environment is looking like it could play a considerably larger role in any upcoming federal election. Last week, the CBC released the results of a survey showing the environment was now the second biggest issue amongst voters. With over seventy percent of Canadians feeling that the Harper government was not working hard enough on climate change, how will Canadians react if they feel that Harper is damaging the country's international credibility?

Furthermore, as the Liberals are preparing for the leadership convention at the end of the month, and Jack Layton already prepared to use the NDP to either extract concessions or topple the government, can the Conservatives hold out past the New Year? Paul Martin earned himself no favours by calling a winter election, will Harper do the same?