Angry in the Great White North

So Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff won't push for an election this summer as long as Prime Minister Stephen Harper provides some answers:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he won't introduce a non-confidence motion that could trigger an election, so long as the Conservatives give in to some key demands.

Ignatieff said Prime Minister Stephen Harper must provide answers about Employment Insurance, stimulus spending and the growing deficit, and share his plans for dealing with the shortage of medical isotopes.

He said he wants to co-operate and make Parliament work, but it's ultimately up to Harper.

"That's the choice of the prime minister in my view. We've asked some questions that require an answer. If he wants Parliament to work it's very easy for him to answer positively. But he must understand that I am prepared to vote against him," Ignatieff said.

Now in a quick scan of the coverage, there seems to be some confusion.  Some reports suggest that Michael Ignatieff is demanding action here.  That he is demanding changes.

He isn't.  He just wants answers.

Question: Are eligibility requirements for Employment Insurance going to be lowered to 360 hours across the country?

Answer: No.

Question: How much infrastructure funding is being spent, not just announced?

Answer: 30% (just a number I guesstimated from this Toronto Star report)

Question: What is the plan to dig us out of deficit?

Answer: Keep infrastructure spending under control (see previous answer) and grow the economy and so increase tax revenues without raising taxes.  Oh, and not to break the bank with crazy spending schemes like a 360 hour threshold for EI benefits.

Question: What is the plan to deal with the isotope crisis?

Answer: Fix the reactor and work with international partners.

Here's the thing.  All these questions have been asked and answered, with the possible exception of the second one, but then maybe it has too, just buried somewhere in a budget update.

Is Michael Ignatieff going to force an election if he doesn't like the answers?

He doesn't actually say that. [Update: In the Q&A that followed, he does say he would vote down the budget bill or move a motion of non-confidence, but judging by the number of times he is asked the same question, the media is skeptical.]

Is Michael Ignatieff demanding particular actions?

Not at all.  He just wants answers.

Does Michael Ignatieff even have a timeline for these answers?

No!

If Harper needs more time to provide those answers, Ignatieff said he would go along with extending the current session of Parliament, which is scheduled to end for summer break this Friday.

So all Stephen Harper has to do refer Michael Ignatieff to the appropriate sections in Hansard, and we're done?

Maybe I'm being too literal here, but then I think the Michael Ignatieff is a very precise guy.  If he wanted to, he could have said that he wanted very specific actions to happen.

But he has left it open-ended.  No specific actions, just "positive answers".

Whatever that means.

My guess it means whatever it has to mean to avoid an election.

We've seen this before.  Michael Ignatieff is falling back on the report-card/probation position. 

My prediction?  Stephen Harper gives the same answers he's given before. 

Nag nag nag: Just a thought, but didn't Michael Ignatieff set the conditions for supporting the government already?  The quarterly reports, right?  Well, he got it.  Now he wants another report.  And if the Conservatives blow him off, then an addendum, then an appendix, then a supplementary tract, followed by a brochure.

For crying out loud, just vote down the budget bill or go home already!