News

Three weeks ago, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "I am not writing a blank cheque on $3-billion. No Canadian would respect me if I did."

But on Tuesday, the minority Conservative government won support to quickly start pumping $3-billion into Canada's sputtering economy after Liberals backed off their demand for details on how the money will be spent.

The recession, meanwhile, is getting more personal for Canadians, with both jobless claims and consumer bankruptcies up more than 20 per cent substantially from a year ago.

The government is spending an additional $60-million to hire backup for swamped Service Canada employees who dole out employment insurance money as a result, but the opposition is calling for more sweeping changes to the welfare system.

And on Wednesday, in an appreance before the Commons finance committee, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page issued a dire forecast , saying any stimulus from increased government spending will be swamped by lower economic growth.

All of this has polls suggesting the Conservatives and Liberals are in a dead heat nationally, with the Tories losing ground among women and in Quebec.

So what can Mr. Harper do to reassure Canadians that his government will the keep the country on the right track? And how will Mr. Ignatieff react as he continues his bid to fill party coffers ahead of the Liberals' spring  policy convention and summer of election speculation?

To answer those questions, and any others you might have about the national political scene, we welcomed Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief Brian Laghi online Thursday for a reader discussion.

Your questions and Mr. Laghi's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Laghi began his journalistic career 25 years ago as a reporter for a small daily newspaper in Fort McMurray, Alta., and also worked as a reporter in Saskatoon before moving to The Edmonton Journal, where he covered politics and served as that paper's legislative bureau chief.

He moved to The Globe and Mail in 1995, covering Alberta and the Arctic for the paper until 1998, when he moved to Ottawa.

Mr. Laghi spent much of the next six years covering the conservative movement in Canada and the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance. He became The Globe's bureau chief in Ottawa in October, 2004.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Stephen Wicary, globeandmail.com: Brian, thanks for taking the time today talk to our readers about what's going on here in Ottawa.  Let's get straight to their questions.

George Smiley writes: Unless I am misreading human nature, there is little glory to be had being PM during difficult times. Therefore, do the Liberals deliberately stall an election until they think they see an economic recovery on the horizon?

Brian Laghi, Ottawa bureau chief: Hi George. That might be tempting for Michael Ignatieff, but my guess the Liberals would be more likely to try to force an election while the economy is still sputtering than when it's starting to recover. Pulling the pin when things are getting rosier would allow the Tories to take credit for a recovery, and that's the last thing an opposition wants to have happen. Better to tag them with the problems, win an election, and then take credit yourself when things improve. By the way, this PM really does like being PM, and has said so during the beginning of his term. I'm not sure whether he still feels that way.

Mike from Waterloo writes: Personally, as a young Canadian I am uncomfortable with the current situation: stimulating the economy, with deficit spending, that my generation will have to deal with. With little income, the previous tax cuts have had little effect on my life, yet it limited the government's ability to keep my future debt load low. The current crisis will have a big effect on the baby boomers, who are depending on their nest eggs for future survival. However it will also affect my generation's job prospects and careers.

I am curious on your thoughts on this situation. I suspect that the current government is not on our side. Now that we are going to start feeling the pressure, we will be more politically active, yet not in support of the current party. Do you think this will be a strong dynamic in the near future? If so, what politically party is best positioned to represent the needs of the future generation, and what are they proposing?

Brian Laghi: That's a great question and, although I'm no economist, I think young Canadians face huge potential challenges. The Boomer generation — of which I include myself as a member —  had a fairly good time of things in the 1990s and the current decade, benefitting from low interest rates and inflation, easy access to credit, cheap travel etc.

Now, huge debt loads — not as big in Canada — threaten to hem governments in, perhaps forcing reductions in social programs designed to protect Canadians from difficulties like those we're currently experiencing. Moreover, as huge numbers of boomers move into retirement, they will depend on youth, like yourself, to pay their health care costs and government pensions. Some argue we have purchased our prosperity upon the backs of our kids.

I think it's a little too early to say which political ideology has the best handle on how to deal with the situation. I do think, however, that the recent troubles will mean that voters look a little less favourably at businesspersons in leadership positions. It also seems to me that parties who argue that government should be a partner in helping young people seek education and careers may do better than those that do not. I expect we may be entering an era of more government intervention and probably,  regulation of the corporate world.

Thomas Harris from London writes: Brian, in your extensive coverage over the years of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party, and your intimate knowledge of Stephen Harper the man, I was wondering if you could reflect on this question. 

With the Conservative government's fortunes seemingly on the wane while in this economic meltdown, the implosion of support in Quebec, along with eroding support in Ontario and among women across the country, and with bleak forecasts economically and in unemployment numbers for at least the immediate future, do you think Mr. Harper, if faced with worsening poll numbers in early June, would submit his resignation as Prime Minister rather than face the opposition in a pending confidence vote that, should he lose, would go into an ensuing election that he knows he could not win?

Brian Laghi: That's a nice compliment. Thanks.

I suspect that some of your question stems from the belief that Mr. Harper will occasionally shut himself off and — in the words of some of his friends and former advisers — will go to a "dark place" when faced with difficulties. Many thought this to be true during the 2004 election campaign when, after a bright start, the election turned against him and the PM begin restricting access to the media.

But, as I said earlier, this PM has not been shy about saying he likes his work and it's difficult to fathom how anyone would give up the best job in the country. Moreover, submitting his resignation when faced with the circumstances you just described would open him up to criticism as a quitter. I'm not sure he would want to be remembered as a guy who walked away when the chips were down. And even in his darkest days, Mr. Harper was always able to regroup and fight on through.

I do think, though, that if Mr. Harper were to quit he would have some significant legacies to point to, the most significant one being the reunification of the party.

Arthur Klassen from Aldergrove, B.C., writes: To your knowledge, does it ever enter the minds of today's Liberal Party of Canada strategists that their messages have essentially no traction west of Lloydminster outside of Edmonton and urban areas of British Columbia?  Have they got any idea of how to change that? Is there any likelihood that future iterations of the LPC will face the negative legacy in the west of Trudeau, Chrétien and even Dion and repudiate parts of it?

Brian Laghi: Yes, I think the new leadership of the Liberal Party does realize that its message and support base is too narrow and that it needs to broaden. I think you have already seen Mr. Ignatieff downplay issues like Mr. Dion's idea for a Green Tax and he is willing to be more interventionist on the world stage than Trudeau was in areas like Afghanistan. Mr. Ignatieff is also a fairly strong free market supporter and has spoken favourably about the oil sands. Also look for the Liberals to try to spend more money in rural ridings if for no other reason than to ensure the Conservative candidates have to at least spend cash in their home ridings. 

Ernest Semple from Montreal writes: What if an election were called? If an election were precipitated by the Liberals, would the electorate be too annoyed to give them improved standing? It seems obvious that the Bloc, the NDP and the previous leader of the Liberals did themselves much damage with the coalition adventure. How much of this rubs off on the present Liberal leader?

The Bloc is in a far less benign posture with the electorate than it was previously, and the NDP has demonstrated frivolity in its position of opposing the government no matter what the issue or legislation. It seems the people of Quebec deserve better representation than so far obtained, or obtainable in the future from either the Bloc or the NDP. They must soon resent the free-loading position of the Bloc in being supported by legislated donations from all of Canada, and the Bloc's inability to do anything substantial in Parliament. So then, how many seats will be lost by the Bloc and be replaced by Liberals and Conservatives, if an election were called?

Similarly, in Ontario the NDP seems to have lost credibility to do anything productive to aid the failing manufacturing industry. What would be your prognostications in the event of an election, say in six months time?

Brian Laghi: That's a lengthy one, Ernest.
 
First, I don't think the coalition issue will harm the Liberals too much because Mr. Ignatieff has essentially pulled it off the table. He also smartly happened to be the last MP to sign the deal and was always seen to be reticent about it. Finally, the coalition, while unpopular in many quarters, still brought light to what many believe was a cynical effort by the government to use the economic crisis to punish the opposition.

The Bloc, for its part, continues to ride relatively high in Quebec, perhaps helped by the Tory efforts to demonize the Bloc during the coalition talks. A lot of Quebeckers believe the Bloc has been good for their province and not all Bloc voters are separatists. Furthermore, some voters felt that Mr. Harper's attack on the Bloc was tantamount to an attack on Quebec. If there is a change in Quebec in the next election, I expect it will see the Tories lose seats and the Liberals become the federalist option. A lot of people keep predicting the death of Bloc, but it's been almost a generation since the party joined the political scene, so I wouldn't write them off.

So, given the fact that the Liberals will likely win seats in Quebec and the Tories drop a little bit, I'd guess that the election is already set up to be closer than the last one. The Conservatives will start to pitch a stronger message to Ontario and their fate likely rests in that province's hands  A key question will be how Ontarians respond to the Conservatives problems in Quebec. In other words, will the Tories be seen as a less-than-a-national party because of their Quebec problems, and will that harm Mr. Harper in Ontario.

Catherine Wilkie writes: Mr. Laghi, I appreciate the opportunity to ask for your insight into two responses that we hear daily from the Harper Conservatives. Firstly, job sharing. Diane Finley trumpets job sharing as an adaptive response taken by her government to keep more Canadians working.  How is it different from the Ra' days, or social contract, when Bob Rae's government was facing a recession in Ontario?

And second, whom did the Conservatives consult in their consultations before the budget?  I did not see any opportunities to meet with Harper's team in our area.  Yet, they talk about these 'consultations' as rationale for policy.  Should they not produce the names of folks they consulted with? Or, did they simply consult with business and bankers?

Brian Laghi: You're right, Mr. Rae ran into deep amounts of trouble when he pushed forward with Rae days. It may be that, because he pioneered the idea, Canadians are now ready to be a little receptive. The levels of anxiety also seem, to me at least, to be significantly higher in 2009 than they were in early to mid-1990s. Perhaps Canadians are more ready for this idea than they were at the time.

On your second point — and in fairness — the Conservatives were fairly open with the media about who they consulted with, and we in the media did hear of some the consultations beforehand. This probably wasn't all benevolent. To avoid continued accusations of secretiveness, it was truly necessary for them to consult. The groups they consulted included the provinces, native groups, business persons and non-governmental organizations, among others.

Stephen Wicary, globeandmail.com: And with that, we're out of time.  Thanks to Brian and our readers for taking the time to discuss the current political climate.  I'd encourage those of you interested in continuing the debate to do so using our comment function.