A PMO e-mail claims that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff flubbed it in a recent interview when asked why he wants to be Prime Minister. The PMO e-mail says “It was a lob question. Emmanuelle Latraverse (a Radio-Canada television journalist) asked Michael Ignatieff why he wants to be Prime Minister. An easy question for a man who wants the job so badly he tried to force an election in the middle of a recession – someone who returned from Harvard just so he could become Prime Minister.”

The PMO e-mail goes on to claim that Mr. Ignatieff couldn’t give a straight answer and that he stumbled and rambled. “He talked about everything and anything, except why he wants to become PM.” Which is true – he could not come up with anything but platitudes and rambling thoughts.

The Liberals have attacked the Conservatives for using government e-mail for such a partisan message. Which is a good point. But not the one that really matters to voters. The Conservatives are right. This should have been a gift question for a political leader of substance. Ignatieff should have been able with ease to respond with what he wants and hopes for Canada different from that offered by the Conservatives. That he could not do. The problem is that he comes to politics with one purpose only – to be Prime Minister. He has no compelling vision that drives him.

To make matters worse, in substance, he sees the world in almost exactly the same way that Harper does. He is unable to define an alternate direction for the country. Given that why should Canadians chose him?

This gets to the heart of the problem the Liberal face. There are a large number of Canadians who want the country to go in a different direction. Ignatieff neither understand nor embraces that view. People see that and are not impressed.

He has only one thing driving him – to be Prime Minister. That is not good enough. It undermines any argument for a change in leadership of the nation. Harper is doing quite a good job as a pro-business conservative. If Ignatieff offers no alternative to that, there is really no compelling reason to support him. Given the choice, most if not all of us will take the one who staked out that ground himself on his own. Harper actually has conviction driving him in that direction.

The Conservatives have hit upon the Liberals real achilles heel. As long as most people believe that Ignatieff has no other purpose then to occupy the office of Prime Minister, there is little reason for middle voters to support him. And he offers nothing to the progressive voters who will otherwise vote NDP.

Much has been said about Canada’s performance at Copenhagen, much of it negative. Many are disappointed that Canada did not take a stronger stand and provide greater leadership. Harper says it was a success and that the world followed Canada’s lead. However the government’s response has been seemingly halfhearted, seeming to confirm the critics’ view that the conference accomplished little and that Canada provided no leadership.

In terms of the substance of the negotiations, there are some reasons to support Harper’s claim. Before going he set out a number of goals for Canada in the international negotiations. First, Canada did not want a simple renewal of Kyoto. It insisted that Kyoto was a flawed deal, since it called for unrealistic reductions in carbon emissions, had no monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and was ignored by most countries. Second, Canada insisted that all major countries must be part of a deal, refusing to participate if the emerging industrial nations are not part of any deal. While the industrial countries currently contribute about 75% of the missions, he maintained that will change rapidly as Brazil, China, India and other emerging powers grow rapidly over the next few years. Third, Canada insisted that commitments must be “realistic” and achievable. Harper was not prepared to take part in a deal that was bound to fail because it does not include plans for implementation that will be followed. Fourth, Harper insists that Canada must follow the United States and its commitments, given the close integration of the Us and Canadian economies. To do otherwise he insists would put Canada’s economy at a large disadvantage and would not be sustainable.

On the first three points he certainly has a point. Kyoto was a failure. Canada is perhaps the best example of how ineffective Kyoto was. After making ambitious commitments, Canada proceeded to do very little. No progress was made on reducing emissions. In this respect it was little different from many countries, although to be fair European and Nordic countries showed real progress. However in abandoning Kyoto Canada (and the United States who took the same position) relieve themselves of having to make up for their failures to implement it, conisderably reducing any obligations they will have. On the second and third points, Harper’s views also are credible. If any deal is not broad, inclusive and binding and certain to he honoured, it is hard to see the point. As Harper’s press secretary stated, the global warming crisis is serious and the international effort must be more than just a political game played out for its optics.

Some hard questions remain about Canada’s claims coming out of Copenhagen however. One is the claim that the conference was a success. As many critics have stated, so far we have no more than an agreement on principles and targets. A binding agreement must still be hammered out. This is much less than many had hoped for. However, it is not likely that Canada played much of a role in this outcome. Rather, the complexity of the issues and the negotiations, and the highly complex strategies of the major players, made a hard agreement impossible. The need to proceed in steps toward a hoped for concrete agreement reflects the realities of the situation rather than any leadership by Canada.

The second and more important question is whether Canada should have acted as a leader or follower in setting directions and content of climate policies. Harper says we must follow the United States. That is in many ways what informed Harper’s positions. Others including the opposition party leaders and the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec say this is as abrogation of Canada’s responsibilities both domestically and internationally. This is a credible criticism. There is a real danger that Canada’s interests could be subverted by those of the US if we just blindly follow. There is also a danger that Canada will fail to address problems of regional equity and efficiency if it simply follows the US model.

However the idea that Canada can or should devise broad policy instruments and outcomes sufficiently different from the US is not all that credible. Harper is right in saying that Canada must operate on a generally level playing field with the US. To do otherwise would impose huge costs on Canada with few corresponding benefits. To work Canada’s approach must be an integral part of a larger North American effort. It is a stretch to argue that Canada can or should come up with something that takes us in a different direction from that of the US. And of course as a Conservative leader supported by many business and core right wing voters deeply skeptical about global warming, it is not surprise that Harper sees no virtue in exceeding the US effort.

The real concerns coming out of Copenhagen are threefold. One is the question of whether the US can find a way to commit to a major effort. The majority in Congress seem unlikely to take bold action. If the US flags, the world wide effort will be minor in scale. The next few months are needed to move the weight of opinion there. In that sense a delay is not a bad thing.

Second, Canada must sort out its internal problems. As the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario have pointed out, domestic policy will determine how the burden of any carbon reductions are to be distributed by region and industry. Charest and Migiunty fear that the relatively lower per capita carbon contributions of their provinces will be used to relieve demands on other regions to take substantive action. The most controversial question here is whether carbon dirty heavy oil production in Alberta will be given a break simply because other industries which are doing much better. The Premier of Alberta expressed great anger at these two Premiers over their positioning in the issue just prior to Christmas, giving credence to this argument.

This may very well be the biggest failure on Harper’s part to date. A break for the oil sands at the expense of much cleaner industries in central Canada could make Trudeau’s national energy policy look like a minor irritant. Delay in working out the internal framework for Canada’s policy within Canada could very well be the prelude to a much larger national conflict pitting Central Canada against the West. Harper must find a way to diffuse that. Otherwise Canada could be in paralysis when the time comes to act with the rest of the world. It is still likely that the US and the rest of the world will follow Copenhagen with negotiations leading to a deal later this year. Canada needs to get its act together in the interim.

The third concern is the affect delay has in providing the ground rules of industries to make investments in carbon reductions. If 2020 goals are to be met, each year of delay imposes larger annual reductions than would otherwise be the case. It is critical that Canada act on the assumption that a binding deal will come in 2010, that that it start providing a framework for action for key industrial sectors. There is a desperate need for basic ground rules now. This more that the outcome of Copenhagen puts real pressure on Canada to get a policy framework in place on the expectation that an international accord is coming soon.

The blow-up in Parliament over the testimony of a former Canadian intelligence agent in Afghanistan is fraught with errors and missed opportunities. The agent, Richard Colvin, testified that from May 2006 through to the end of 2007 he frequently informed officials and politicians that Taliban prisoners transferred by Canadian forces to Afghani jails were being tortured by their Afghan jailers. While politically dangerous for the government if not handled well, few people were particularly surprised by the testimony.

What has been surprising is the way the government and many of its critics have responded. The government appears to have been overtaken by hysteria immediately upon hearing the reports of what Colvin said. In a classic case of ill-considered political management, Ministers shrilly denounced Colvin, making him out to be an unreliable fool and liar. His character has been trashed, his motives questioned and his competence denounced. As to the substance of the charge, the strategy has been simple – deny, deny, deny. Nothing was done wrong, brave soldiers just did their jobs and it is unpatriotic to raise any questions of this sort. Even the senior military officers and the Prime Minister have leaped into the fray.

The result has been a disaster for the government. Why has the government responded the way it has? Anyone with any skill in managing difficult political issues could have see immediately that this is a losing strategy. The government should have immediately done a few basic things. First it should have given the appearance of listening to what was said and of examining the situation seriously. Second, it should have set out its narrative about the challenges of taking Taliban prisoners and jailing them in a country where the government and the justice system are fragile and underdeveloped. Third, it should never have attacked Colvin’s character and believability. No-one will side with the government in that kind of attack. Fourth, it should have left room for the fact that mistakes and screw-ups could well have occurred over that time, but that the system has been fixed and can now be relied upon. As for response style, it should be cool, not red hot; considered, not fight or flight. And the Prime Minister should never become an attack-dog in these kinds of situations. Leave that to Ministers. And they should only engage in attacks on politicians, and then only when it is credible to do so.

This government looked until this week as if it has gained some maturity and skill in handling hard political issues. All of that has been undermined in less than a week. It is amazing to watch a government make so many huge missteps in a weeks time. One wonders who is responsible for this strategy. Are there no senior people who have the power and smarts to prevent these kinds of things from happening? Is there no adult supervision in the Cabinet Office?

Meanwhile on the other side there has been a unseemly number of people lighting their hair on fire with claims that war crime charges will, or should be, proceeded with immediately. They may be right. But for the moment they way overshoot the mark with this claim. The extremity of the claim, with so little evidence yet available, is almost as off-putting as the defenses of the government. It has undermined their credibility almost as much as the government has undermined its own credibility. I have no doubt that prisoners were tortured. But we know next to nothing about the circumstances. There are any number of extenuating circumstances that make charges unlikely – the fact that these are actions of a democratic nation, the circumstances of the transfers, the environment within which they took place, are all factors . There is considerable discretion for prosecutors in such case. It is very unlikely that any Canadian is going to stand trial on this matter whatever the evidence. They may have screwed up, but it is not credible that a federal minister or Canadian General deliberately subjected prisoners to torture as a strategy. But torture is wrong. We live in a democracy that officially proscribes it. The issue must be addressed by Canadians holding the government politically accountable. Answers must be provided and if anyone is fount guilty of wrong-doing they must be dealt with through exposure and dismissal.

It is time for cooler heads to prevail. The committee should continue its work. MP’s and Cabinet, including the Prime Minister should keep cool. They should answer questions. They should avoid extreme opinions. They should not attack public officials like Mr. Colvin. He is more believable to the public than they are right now, which is always the case in these kinds of situations. They will lose that fight politically. Someone needs to tell Mr. Harper and MacKay this, since they seem not to get it themselves.

And they should prepare to open the lid on what has been happening in Afghanistan with prisoner exchanges. They should explain the challenges and difficulties. And they should be open to admitting that things have not and perhaps could not be perfect. They need to stop attacking and begin to look reasonable and responsible. Above all they need to bring the temperature a way down. When in trouble a little humility can go a long way.