Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Greetings, sir or madam! Here is your new hockey arena! You're welcome!

by Paul Wells on Monday, September 13, 2010 4:26pm - 0 Comments

Here at Maclean’s Prime Ministerial Semiotics Control (“Eighty-Seven Days on the Job Without a Workplace Parsing Accident”), we’ve taken out the calipers and the slide rules to attempt a proper de-codification of the Prime Minister’s latest pronouncements on the matter of a Quebec City hockey arena. The comments, and any account I can find, appear to have been made in French. But that’s not a challenge to the crack team of analysts here at MPMSC™. Let’s break it down.

• Professional sports is “the responsability, above all, of the private sector,” says the PM. Not entirely persuasive. I’m told he has raised the Nordiques file with Gary Bettman, so his eagerness to keep the public sector out of the file is limited.

• “If there is federal involvement, it must be equitable across the country and affordable, recognizing that we are entering into a period of economic restructuring.” Well. This is an awfully elaborate list of criteria, coming from a guy who could have said, “Not going to do it. Ask someone else.” If there is federal involvement, it needs to be (1) equitable (2) affordable (3) here’s what “affordable” means.

• The PM “in the same breath recalled the large number of infrastructure financing demands his government must analyze,” the reporter writes. Um. Why must the government analyze them? Why can’t it refuse them outright?

The only reason I can think of is that the analysis is a prelude to acceptance. But — but the economy! Not a problem, methinks: a stereotypical Anonymous Conservative had coffee with me last week and said (a) the super-highest priority this autumn for the government is the economy; and (b) that doesn’t mean anything. There is no need to rush into deficit reduction. On the contrary: Deficit reduction undertaken too briskly could come as a damaging shock to the economy. The proper way to do this is to ease into it. Say, by financing hockey arenas and football fields from coast to coast to coast.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    Of course they're going to fund it. First they just need to find something–is that a burka ban I see on the horizon?–to distract their rube base.

    • Dave

      You're right, I think that IS a burka ban.

  • wsam

    Paul. Why do hate hockey?

  • Stewart_Smith

    Actually I think the last paragraph is both accurate and more damning than the arena nonsense. Harper and Flaherty have gotten away without even a hint of a plan for the economy other than really, really hoping things go well.

    On the fun side, perhaps Harper is also a fan of the flying circus and this latest gambit is performance art. If so, it is brilliantly done!

    • Jan

      Harper is definitely working without a net.

    • Bob Arctor

      Harper and Flaherty had a plan, It was called "keep interest rates low and hope consumers continue to buy overinflated assets with borrowed money". They might even follow it themselves and be the proud part owner's of an arena or three.

    • Tceh

      This arena drama will make a great chapter in "The Hockey Book" by S. Harper.

  • Step5555

    This is basically the Harper "small, easily-digestible not-well-thought-out policy" plan applied to something a lot more visible.

    The overall level of the folly may not be that much worse (well, aside from the fact that, much like Hamilton 30 years earlier, they're building an arena on the hopes that a team might just play there… and ask Hamilton how that worked out), but in the end it's the same too-simple level of government thinking.

    I'm still baffled how everyone involved assumes that it'll be easy to land a team. Even assuming Phoenix moves back to the Peg (and then leaves again the second the dollar drops below ninety cents US), the next team to move is very likely heading for the already-completed building in Kansas City that's been waiting for a tenant for half a decade. Not to mention other preferable options like Seattle, Portland (arena just waiting)

    Oh, and let's not forget that Bettman is unusually good at finding ways to avoid moving teams by finding owners for flagging enterprises. Tampa's the latest example of a team that found an owner, found stability, and given their top-notch front office, will likely be stable for years.

    • Sea Otter

      You are right about Bettman's ability to find ownership in tough situations. Good thing, because the options for moving teams are limited indeed.

      Quebec City? No arena, and no owner as yet. Seattle doesn't have an NHL calibre arena right now. As for Portland, Paul Allen and the Trail Blazers own the arena. Until the day Paul Allen demonstrates an interest in NHL hockey in Portland, it isn't going there, plain and simple. Vegas? Again, plenty of promises, but no shovel in the ground for an arena as yet. If Kansas City was that great a market, the New York Islanders would have moved there already.

      The only guaranteed, no brainer market the NHL has not yet fully tapped is Southern Ontario, the one place they seem most determined to avoid going. Go figure…

      • Step5555

        The Islanders' failure to move is because the entire value of the team is tied into their insanely lucrative TV contract. They could move to Hamilton and would have a hard time generating the same revenue as they do merely off their local TV deal. That's why so many arena proposals have come and gone; even a half-filled arena and a 0.500 team makes the Isles profitable.

        I agree that Vegas isn't an option, but don't count Portland out. It's a decent market, and Allen has been looking for a co-tenant practically since it opened. For a straight relocation – not a purchase-and-move a la the Nords – it's certainly a viable market given a favourable lease. The bigger catch is that Portland's economy has been hit very hard, making it not the greatest seat-selling market in the world. Frankly, the best option is to grin and bear it in Seattle, which is such a wide open sports market now that they established a massive MLS fanbase seemingly overnight.

        (Stats put KeyArena at a little over 15K for hockey. If Winnipeg's arena is viable with that amount, so's a bigger, much more economically successful city like Seattle)

        Southern Ontario is and always will be out of the picture because both the Sabres and the Leafs would scream holy murder if another team was dropped in there. And while Tim Horton's can have a franchise every two blocks, it doesn't work the same way in hockey when dealing with his two former teams.

  • http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Pato31

    The only question I have is… would a new arena in Québec affect Winnipeg's chances of getting back the Jets? If so, I cannot agree with it!

  • Crit_Reasoning

    The only reason I can think of is that the analysis is a prelude to acceptance.

    Maybe, but it's also possible that "analysis" is code for a "soft no". As in: "We're sympathetic to your desires, and we've studied the issue carefully, but after many months of painstaking research, by which time you've hopefully forgotten about it, we've concluded that the proposal under review doesn't meet our funding criteria."

    • madeyoulook

      Yeah, like Ottawa's no will meet a confused populace trying to recall what their question was.

      That dangerously presupposes there is a principle left with Harper, and that Ottawa will actually say no. I've got good odds against that.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        On a related note, I assume you've read Bernier's latest blog post?
        http://www.maximebernier.com

        • madeyoulook

          In both official languages. I stand up for him here:
          http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/maxime-bernier…

          and promise to join any party he runs starting here:
          http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/why-buy-the-co…

        • http://atomicrobot.wordpress.com R. Mowat

          Should I be worried that Maxime Bernier makes sense 3 out of 4 times? (Makes me wonder if *I'm* the one who's wrong that 4th time).

          • madeyoulook

            Which time was that fourth time? I am sure the commenters around here would be only to happy to help you sort it out.

        • RunningGag

          On ne peut pas continuer ainsi de transmettre à nos enfants la facture de projets qu'on ne peut pas se payer.

          This.

        • JustinWordswrth

          I am quickly falling in love.

      • RayK

        I don't think so, actually. The reaction to this deal has been so severe that I'm starting to think that Harper eventually feel forced to back down for political reasons, but having gone so far down the road already he needs to back out quitely without pissing anyone off.

        • DeLongTime

          Much like the Census ordeal?

          • harrylimelives

            Much like the national anthem reversal?

          • RunningGag

            The Anthem was was a smokescreen for a budget that did nothing. There's a difference between that, and trying to pander to Quebec.

        • Kaplan

          There's no road Harper's ever gone so far down that he won't turn around on. Question is, how stubborn of an ass does he want to be?

    • Moe_Mentum

      I'd agree with CR. Harper will have to finesse his 'no' to make it more palatable. The government can't actually agree to fund this. Whatever the economic arguments, the Peladeau connection should make it too toxic to even consider seriously.

    • tedbetts

      I suspect you are mostly right that it is a soft now, but your "as in" is decidedly wrong since what he means really is "We want your votes. We really really want your votes. We want to keep the Quebec MPs we've got. We really really want to keep ‘em. I just finally learned all their names now so it’d be a real waste. But if I say no, they’re toast and all that stimulus favouratism will have been for naught. Also, if I am too quick, the Liberals will simply take the opposite position so I think I'll let them dangle so they wear this as much as I will, or at least don't get any benefit from it. Right now, though, what I want more than that, and frankly even more than your not-good-enough-for-a-majority vote, is to bury this thing as long as possible. There’s the barest hint that my goffers (i.e. caucus) are divided on this and it’s FREAKIN’ ME OUT. As usual, I'm undecided and struggling for a way to blame the Liberals or delay so that no one notices I can't make tough, vote-costing decisions. I'm much more likely to complete a book on hockey (and we know what chance there is of that). So please, Iggy, do something again to get everyone focused on something else, like you usually do. Please?"

      • Cats

        Liberals are 100% to support wasteful spending.
        Conservatives are a maybe ?

        As a fiscal conservative i'm going to go with the CPC, much better odds.

        But wait!! Its Ted Betts! In his world this is how things go down:

        The CPC isn't fiscally conservative enough therefore we should vote for the horribly wasteful Liberals!

        Basic logic escaping hopeless birds, careless fish, lost lost mice.

        • tedbetts

          Only in the minds of devoted conservatives are the Conservatives less wasteful and smaller spenders than Liberals. The historical record shows just the opposite. Them the facts, Cats. Sorry to spoil your imaginings.

          • harrylimelives

            Cats don't do math. They do like to poop in sand and lick their own hi-knees…

          • Cats

            The historical record lol.

            That's the one where Harper gets stuck with a once in a century recession and the Liberals have a tech boom followed by a resource boom ?

            Yeah ok. Just checking. Keep at it Ted!

            Cats!

          • Stewart_Smith

            There was no recession in Canada…. Harper explained to us during the election why Canada would not have a recession. He also explained that because Canada would not have a recession there would be no deficit in the federal budget. Were you not paying attention?

          • RunningGag

            And, no consequence to losing billions in revenue from the GST.

          • D.D.S

            you know what Cats(ridiculous name……….childish….and a pretty good indication just how far the Old Progressive Conservative Party has fallen)……….Harper's support out west is softening……I read papers from all over the country and the comments sections are a real eye opener………of course you will now mention adscam?……..LOL

          • tedbetts

            Not quite, Cats.

            I'm talking about the historical record that has two back-to-back Harpo budgets that broke spending records before the recession. The historical record that shows Harper increasing the PMO budget to record highs which has nothing to do with the recession, as well as spending records on polling and on the Canadian Human Rights Commission.And the historical record that has every federal government in my lifetime in Canada and the US leaving their respective countries deeper in debt and with a greater deficit than when they first arrived.

            The Liberals have a mixed record, certainly, but Trudeau was PM over a quarter century ago and the Libs clearly are far better with our finances: the Chretien years benefitted from a good economy and Conservative tax increases under Mulroney, sure, but they also made the kind of hard vote-losing decisions on spending cuts that Harper is too afraid to do.

            That historical record. Nice try, Cats. Keep at it Cats!

  • http://www.tvo.org/fifthcolumn Mike Miner

    I'd settle for a batting cage. Don't say I'm not willing to do my part.

  • Criacow

    Two other possibilities come to mind: (1) he's hoping Ignatieff or other senior Liberals say something much dumber first, and the press jumps on that (see also: Sun's mistreatment of Bob Rae this morning); or (2) insert pointless election speculation here. (Not that he'd go to an election over this, but I could see wanting to try to push off the question until after.)

  • wellwell

    Go for it, Stephen. You know you want to. That fiscal diet can wait until next year – and your Western base will love it!

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    They're actually going to do this aren't they?

    Amazing.

    I spent a good deal of time defending the Tories, and wondering why everyone was just assuming that they were going to fund this thing (and not, say, tell these people to take a height) when the story first broke. Unfortunately, as I was typing the words "Has anyone from the government even said ANYTHING about this request??? Why are we all assuming they'll be on board, contrary to common sense and everything they seem to have ever stood for?" a bunch of MPs were dressing up in Nordiques sweaters, and suddenly all kinds of people from the CPC were suggesting that they're TOTALLY going to do it.

    Amazing.

    • ZestyMordant

      I'm still not convinced they're going to do it.

      • ColdStanding

        All those opposed to the elephanti candidus in Quebec City are Les Non-diques.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      There's a good chance that they won't do it. The caucus is split on the issue, and the western base is mostly opposed. As Wells points out, the government hasn't ruled out arena funding, but I still think there's a good chance that the final answer will be "no". The question is far from being settled.

      • Thwim

        It rather depends on how "for-granted" the CPC currently takes it's Western base, and how that compares to the probability of votes out of Quebec if it goes through. My estimates on both those issues are "Extremely high"

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I agree that there's a good chance they won't do it. In fact, I still don't think they're going to do it.

        What I find truly amazing though is that, ultimately, I think the reason they won't do it is because they'll finally realize how much everyone's going to freak out if they do. In other words, they'll get right to the edge of doing it, and then hear the nation collectively gasp "Wait, they're going to do WHAT with WHO's money?!?!?" just in time to stop themselves. Just like the Liberals did everything but sign the cheques before realizing that subsidizing NHL hockey teams is a non-starter.

    • madeyoulook

      I spent a good deal of time defending the Tories

      Join the Club of the Jilted, brother…

      • ColdStanding

        What makes you think Bernier will be any different? He is just making the right noises to appeal to the jilted in his bid to garner enough support for power. The now jilted will still be jilted when, having achieved power, he tosses the conservative base away like a used paper cup. Suckered again.

        I don't mean to be rhetorical. Genuine Question: What makes him different? Is this difference enough?

        • madeyoulook

          Well, we'll see whether Bernier wags the dog (no funding), the dog wags Bernier (he goes along with funding), or they split (funding happens with Bernier voting no or abstaining or just plain AWOL at vote time).

          He has made his position pretty clear, and he has earned major cred for it. Backing down later may not be an option.

  • Tony

    The outdoor rink down my street already has a paved surface – proper boards, and a zamboni to boot – So I am good

    • Dave

      But does it have an NHL team?

      • tedbetts

        Toronto doesn't, so why should Quebec (or Tony) get one?

        • Richard_S_Argent

          That joke *never* gets old! :)

    • madeyoulook

      Zamboni, you say? What's mucking around with neck veins got to do with anything?

  • Style

    "There is no need to rush into deficit reduction. On the contrary: Deficit reduction undertaken too briskly could come as a damaging shock to the economy. The proper way to do this is to ease into it. "

    Not to quibble, but isn't this exactly what the OECD and Paul Krugman are saying? Are they typically seen as cynical Conservative shills?

    • peter

      Paul Krugman Conservative??!! It would seem yer stylin doesn't include any reading of economics..Krugman would fit in very comfortably in Iggy's big red tent…with the other socalists.

      • tedbetts

        I think that is his point.

        And ultimately, I think it is Wells' point too.

        • Greg

          Not exactly what Paul Krugman is saying, no. True, he is calling for more stimulus, but importantly, he isn't also calling for tighter budgets at the same time, like the Harperites appear to be.

          • Style

            I think if you're not rushing into deficit reduction, and you're continuing some stimulus, you're also not rushing into tighter budgets, Unless you're thinking we should expect another round of tax cuts soon.

  • John D

    Why do we need to play hockey inside? We don't believe in global warming do we? Let an NHL team play outside all season on the never-melting ice!

  • RayK

    Harper's ministers and MPs have already come out in support of the Sponsorship Stadium.

    The only way we can possibly be expected to believe that Harper is not planning to deliver on this $200 million payout to his billionaire friend Pierre Karl Peladeau is if he categorically states that the federal government will not fund this arena.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Well, if this really is Harper being chessmaster, expect an election sooner rather than later.

    • AJR79

      It takes a true master to put yourself in checkmate.

      • JoeC

        Actually, what you've suggested is technically impossible.

        : p

        • AJR79

          That's why it takes a true master.
          ; )

          And it is possible… if you are playing against yourself.

          • Stewart_Smith

            or with yourself…. different sort of master

          • A_logician

            You're baiting us. . . .

          • Phil

            …I'm waiting, with baited breath….

            PS yeah yeah, the proper term is bated breath, as per this source.

          • http://onelinecritic.wordpress.com/ DirtyOldTown

            Careful now. I hear that sort of thing can make you go blind.

          • danby

            Calm down Phil…… get a grip

          • AJR79

            Gotta polish the old bishop once in a while. It gets soooooooo dirty.

  • tedbetts

    I'm kinda surprised no one has picked up on the statement "recognizing that we are entering into a period of economic restructuring.”

    Didn't we already enter it? Wasn't the budget over half a year ago called an "austerity budget"? (Remember the one? The one that increased spending and even set a record for the PMO's own budget?) Haven't Harper and Flaherty been promising, committing, suggesting, warning of the upcoming belt tightening for years? in the original Conservative election platform in 2005, half a decade ago? and certainly in earnest since last fall?

    It's like the end of the rainbow, this "fiscal restraint" is always just over the next horizon… or just after next vote-buying opportunity, as the case may be.

    • Cats

      Yeah Ok nice spin but I get annoyed when people purposely spread economic illiteracy.

      The 2010-2011 fiscal year is the second year of stimulus which ends in March 2011.
      The 2010-11 budget laid out a deficit reduction plan over five years beginning in fiscal year 2011-12.

      It holds the rate of spending growth to inflation, which is less then GDP/revenue growth, so the deficit closes.

      OECD just said today that are structural deficit is $0.

      Are you really, really uninformed about Economics Ted ?

      Cats wants to know.

      • Cats

        *our structural deficit

        Grammar Cats.

      • tedbetts

        Given what you just wrote, Cats, it is clearly not me who is the economic illiterate.

        Leaving aside the silly reference to "economic" illiteracy when we are talking about finances, the budget was a dud on delivery. There was very little believable in it and, as expected, it was only zero growth on paper with much typical Conservative-style fudging and accounting to make it seem like a plan.

        Since then, we had their explosive waste and brain-dead budgeting on G8/G20, sole sourcing major military purchases that were not in the budget and even now not budgeting the full cost of the planes, and pretending that going on a spending spree on prisons for "unreported crime" doesn't cost anything. Now they are musing and many are pushing for hundreds of millions of unspent dollars on arenas which Harper won't rule out.

        Are you really THAT uninformed about our finances, Cats?

        Don't worry about answering my question (not that you ever bother to answer).

        No one wants to know.

        • Cats

          Wow. You just don't know a thing about our finances do you ?

          Actually according to the PBO we're probably going to be able to close the deficit in four years instead of five.

          The G8/G20 WERE budgeted. And the ramp up of prison spending starts small in the first few years, we're talking a five year time frame here buddy.

          Those planes aren't going to be delivered within the five year time frame either.

          Way to take big ticket items coming down the pike in a decade and try to say that discredits a five year economic plan that all the experts agree is credible.

          Victorious Cats!

          • Cats

            (Correcting the facts.

            Calling out Ted Betts. Correcting Ted Betts when he always (always!) gets his facts wrong.

            Its pretty much what Cats does around here.)

  • Zam

    But the money that would cost for the arena is a lot we should save some for economy and other stuff just in case we need it but like I said in my other comment its a great idea but it cost lots of money

  • hollinm

    Instead of trying to speculate, guess or whatever word you want to use why not wait until the decision comes down. Oh, that would not do because we must make sure the people of Canada have already taken positions and more division has been caused in the country.
    You know there is nothing wrong with waiting until some particular action has actually happened before arguing pro or con on an issue.

    • Orson Bean

      Good point. The "Fox News North" dialogue is a classic example of that kind of idiocy — attacking a TV network that does not yet exist.

      • Mulletaur

        Yeah, but they're getting a hell of a lot of free publicity out of it, n'est-ce pas ?

    • Reverend_Blair

      Of course if Harper would make a clear pronouncement we wouldn't have to guess.

      • madeyoulook

        Bingo. If these buggers remembered they are the conservatives in Parliament, maybe things would come into a bit more focus.

        • Reverend_Blair

          I don't think it's a partisan issue at all. The NDP have laid out their criteria pretty clearly. The Liberals have been less clear, but have laid out their criteria. Now if the Conservatives would lay out their criteria, we could have an intelligent political discussion about it.

          My criteria are that if a pro team is involved, they can build their own damned arena, but I'm not a hockey fan and despise arena concerts because the sound invariably sucks. I'd rather see some quality music/arts venues built with the money.

          I think there is room in true conservatism beyond not spending money on anything beyond the military and prisons though, and if there's a case to be made it should be heard. Harper should make a clear case for or against.

          • madeyoulook

            I think there is room in true conservatism beyond not spending money on anything beyond the military and prisons though, and if there's a case to be made it should be heard.

            CASE 1: Sure-fire winner. Government help unneeded.

            CASE 2: Sure-fire loser. Government help undeserved.

            Got any other case to make, Reverend?

          • Reverend_Blair

            It's not my case to make. As I said my feeling is that if there's a pro team involved they can build their own damned stadium.

            There may be a case to be made by somebody who feels differently though. Let them make the case and we can judge it on its merits. All the Conservatives have said…and Flaherty said it again today…is that they are looking at it. Since they've laid out no criteria, my guess is that they are looking at this from a purely political point of view. If it can win them a seat or two in Quebec without costing them more seats elsewhere, they'll go for it.

            That's no way to make policy.

          • madeyoulook

            As I said my feeling is that if there's a pro team involved they can build their own damned stadium.

            Yup. But then if there is no pro team involved there is no need to build the damned stadium. And please don't bring up the Olympic Games; you would have to hold an extreme and vicious hatred for people in Quebec to encourage them to go through that fiasco again.

          • Reverend_Blair

            I see what you're saying, and I had the horrid experience of seeing the Expos in the big O after having seen them several times at Gerry Park, and I wouldn't risk putting anybody through something that soul-destroying.

            Still though, Harper, or his pro-arena Quebec contingent, need to be making their case publicly.

          • Style

            What's wrong with the criteria Harper's laid out? It should be primarily the private sector's responsibility and any federal involvement should be equitable across the country and affordable. All I've heard from the Liberals is that the decision should be made with caution. I haven't seen the New Democrats' criteria anywhere (Aaron and Paul are reluctant to quote New Democratic politicians).

          • madeyoulook

            Then try Geddes.

          • Style

            Thanks, I hadn't seen his piece. How outrageous that all three parties have the same fairly reasonable criteria…

          • tedbetts

            Actually the Liberals made their position clear on this a year ago (Garneau for example reiterated it the other day) and it is along the same lines but a little clearer than what Harper said.

            The difference is that for the Liberals it is just a policy and an approach. For Harper, it is a question on his desk now that needs an answer and he is not providing the answer.

            So there is nothing wrong with Harper's criteria except that he is not saying how he would apply it to his buddy at Sun's specific request.

          • Reverend_Blair

            What's wrong with it? That he seems reluctant to follow it, at least publicly. "We're looking at it," is not the same as saying "It's not meeting the private sector criteria," which it isn't, at least according to media reports.

          • xiv

            CASE 3: Likely loser. But viewed as a worthwhile public asset. Not about to say the quebec arena falls into this category, as they do already have an arena and noone's made the case for why they need a new one other than the old one can't house an NHL team (is the old arena not capable of carrying all the events they want to stuff in the new arena? will the old arena have any use whatsoever after the new arena is constructed?) – so whether or not they need one as a matter of municipal infrastructure is debatable. If the quebec arena is to fall into this category though, the largest share should come from the municipal level, not a token contribution from the municipal level with the provincial and federal levels paying the bulk.

            Also would it really be so hard for the city of quebec to pick SOME international event to attempt to host to justify it? I mean between all the different sorts of games, expos, etc surely there must be something to bid for and incorporate "new arena" as part of the facilities for and not need to create annoying new precedents where provincial and federal governments are pressured into coughing up pork coast to coast in an effort to be 'fair'.

          • Jan

            I'm still waiting for Harper to make a clear case for sabotaging the census. He doesn't seem to feel the need to do that.

    • Inkless

      Right Merv. You want me to wait for the decision, and then announce I'm in favour of it.

      • madeyoulook

        Wow. You'd do that? What a pal…

      • hollinm

        Paul I would rather you and the rest of the lame street media not speculate at all. However, that leaves the problem of having to try to find something else to write about. Once the decision comes down then you are free like the rest in the media hoard to criticize whatever the decision is. I frankly could care less whether you are in favor of it or not. My life will go on.

        • danby

          lame street media

          Name calling.
          By your own criteria, I guess that makes you a typical leftie on these boards, eh?

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          I don't see how waiting for the wrong decision to be made, and then complaining that the wrong decision was made is somehow superior to arguing that the government should avoid making the wrong decision in the first place. If we were talking about the government mulling a request that Canada begin a mass slaughter of kittens, would you really want the media to wait until the government formally announced the start date for the slaughter before they began arguing that, hey, maybe we shouldn't kill all the kittens!!!

    • NorthernPoV

      there you go again Mr hollinm
      always trying to tell us to move on

      these discussions that center on the vacuous activities of your heroes seem to bother you

    • tedbetts

      Yes, because the Conservatives would never do such a thing, never, for example claim that the Liberals were going to increase taxes because they said it is irresponsible for anyone to say never.

      But seriously: if Harper is trying to fudge here, it is critical that we speak out about what we think. We're his boss. We should absolutely not be sitting back and meekly let him tell us what he will do with our money.

    • burlivespipe

      But who's the decisive decider here? As is his wont, Harper is tossing out a lame thought and then hiding under the furniture, hoping no one notices the smell. His qualifying of his own party's speculative jersey-pulling leads in all sorts of directions but nothing definitive — no doubt just enough to give ol' hollowm a chubby, tho.

  • Zam

    I agree with hollinm about what he said we should not guess

  • danby

    The money (over)spent on G20 security would build the rink, stack the team and cover the losses until the franchise moves to a Bettman approved NHL hot spot like Idaho.

  • Peter

    I doubt many Libertarian Harper supporters cared that much about the census either way. But spending hundreds of millions of federal dollars on arena building? Come the hell on.

    This is basically the Harper "small, easily-digestible not-well-thought-out policy" plan applied to something a lot more visible.

    Yep, except the GST cut and other stuff were small time compared to this. The libertarian/economist wing might have griped over the GST tax cuts vs. the payroll tax cuts, but in the end they got a tax cut. They might have griped over baby-bonus tax credits, but they're better than a national daycare plan.

    But spending public money on sports arenas for a private business? I don't know who Giorno's temporary replacement is, but he's not much better.

    • Kaplan

      "I don't know who Giorno's temporary replacement is, but he's not much better."

      I get the distinct impression Harper was pulling double duty on this file…

  • Lizz

    He interests Quebec with the idea of a new arena and never actually says he wont fund it, so they give him the majority he craves, and he builds them an arena.

  • chet

    Thank you for "decoding" Harper's hidden (hockey) agenda.

    He's not traversing a very touchy subject as a leader of a country with varying interests. It's so much more than than. So sinister.

    And of course, public financing of arenas and stadiums hasn't been widely and commenly debated every time this or that new stadium is demanded…not like this.

    Like the 105th after 104 previous prorouges, this time, after umpteen times this issue comes up, the debate is a reflection of darker forces…on the part of the conservatives that is.

    Our intreped media is onto something here. Something bigger than all of us.

    • JustinWordswrth

      A Fireside Chet?

      • chet

        It doesn't refer to me as feces, so on that score alone, your suggestion is a home run.

    • danby

      Could also be an intricate promotional strategy for Mr Harper's soon to be published book on hockey, no?

    • Step5555

      It's far worse than previous public-funding stadium debates because THERE ISN'T ANY TEAM IN QUEBEC.

      Publicly fund SkyDome? Dumb idea, but the Jays and Argos were both lined up as tenants.
      The Big O? An Olympics already arranged, plus the Expos and Als.

      This is a ludicrous price for an arena – to the best of my knowledge, no arena in Canada has ever topped $300M, let alone the pre-construction estimate of $400M (which, given Quebec union efficiency, probably means $450M.

  • DerekPearce

    How can Harper supporters ever protest against other politicos porking out ever again, without saying "when my guy does it, it's somehow right"? Thus making a mockery of Taxpayer Federation/Fraser Institute/Reform Party dogma. Welcome "In," the West. Welcome to the club.

  • westmalle

    As PM you don't say a flat out no to something being supported by both Mayor of Quebec City and the Premier of the province. Otherwise you get another "arts-funding" gaffe disaster (Duceppe already tried to set the stage for one with his press conference last week demanding fed $$ for Quebec arena).

    Politically it has to be a soft no and others have to say it. That's Maxime Bernier's job.

From Macleans