Countering Senator Peter Harder on Trudeau appointing 21 "independent" senators

 #cdnpoli #abpoli

Senator Peter Harder, who represents the government in the Senate, gives praise for Prime Minister Trudeau's new approach to senate reform by creating an "independent" "non-partisan" committee to recommend individuals for the prime minister to recommend to the governor general for appointment to the upper chamber.

Senate chamber image courtesy Library of Parliament

He says:

"But Canadians ought not to be misled by those who argue that appointing independent senators is somehow an affront to the foundational principles of Canada’s parliamentary system. In removing partisanship from the appointment process, the Prime Minister has actually gone back to the basics of Confederation."

"Misled"?  Oh, we are not misleading Canadians.  You are.  You somehow claim that this is better than everyday Canadians electing those who are supposed to represent them in their parliament.  You also completely fail to mention the gross imbalance of provincial representation--continuing the long-standing "tradition" of senate dominance of the East over West.

As you know, I've been blogging about the Canadian Senate for about 10 years and the machinations and proposals thereof, where I've been following and commenting on this issue since the late 1990's.  What I particularly point out is the lack of action and doubletalk by mostly Liberals.  I call this "insenaty", because doing and saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result regarding the senate is just that--insane.

Let's be real. Those who vote federally for a Member of Parliament, although we are voting for a candidate in our riding, tend to vote for the party, leader, and attached policies.  Doing so also gives accountability by the people and the party to that MP.  Any newly appointed senator now who claims they are non-partisan may be true for some, but not true for all as I'm sure they all vote.

Appointing senators, especially by a committee comprised of people Canadians don't have a clue about, is nowhere near a democracy.  In fact, it is further away than before because the accountability to elected members and the party in power has been removed.

At least with the process where the prime minister recommends the appointments, when a senator acts in a way that we don't like, whether committing crimes, overspending on expenses, or is absent, they are still tied at the hip to their party and the buck stops with the leader, the de facto official who is held to account when public or media outcry demand it.

Harper at least tried to limit their term and appointed senators elected by the people of Alberta. There was also a point there where he had not made any appointments for so long, I thought he was going to let it die off naturally and then only appoint those who were elected provincially.  That only lasted so long in trying to pass bills.



I'm not saying this wasn't an astute political chess move by Trudeau; it was a masterstroke.   After seeing how former and popular TV news personalities Mike Duffy/Pamela, as appointed to the senate by then PM Stephen Harper, all of their expense-scandal drama became directly associated with the prime minister.  It was so because he got involved to control the politics for his party.  It didn't work out well.  If they were independent, the Conservatives would have spilled no blood.

So after also seeing all the Liberal senators also abusing expenses, why in the hell would Trudeau want to have them associated with his party when shit like this happens and would likely happen in the future--damned the idea the Senate can manage itself.  The Senate is no longer his baby--from a hands-off view.

What is also hilarious about that article by Peter Harder, is while he claims to be so independent and non-partisan, blathers on how great this new process is, and says we who argue against this process have "misled", here he is giving partisan praise to Liberal Trudeau without looking at any of the merits of what has been proposed and somewhat implemented by other parties.  None. Zero. Nada.

Further, in his praise, he also claims Trudeau is going back to the basics of Confederation where appointments were to be non-partisan and independent.

Sure. Non-partisan and independent, fine, but we're not buying it. You'd think of all people, however, the government representative in the senate would know the actual history that an elected senate was proposed, but turned down by bigger provinces for reasons of the time regarding expenses of elections.  But this isn't that time.

As Justin Trudeau said after the last federal election regarding gender equality in his cabinet, "Because it's 2015."

He was right.  But it isn't 1867 either.

Equal?  Where is the provincial equality?

Accountable?  Now the senators are accountable to no one, no party, no leader, nor representative of the people.

Elected?  Looks like never.

The "insenaty" continues.

Conservatives to pick new leader on May 27, 2017

 #cpc #cdnpoli #cpcldr2017 #cpcldr
 It has been a long time since the CPC membership elected a leader. You'll have to go back to 2004 when Stephen Harper won the race, making this particular election 13 years since.  No different, really, then when Paul Martin took the reigns from Jean Chretien.

During Harper's time, the Liberals had six leaders:

1. Paul Martin (elected) - Prime Minister
2. Bill Graham (interim)
3. Stephane Dion (elected)
4. Michael Ignatieff (elected)
5. Bob Rae (interim)
6. Justin Trudeau (elected) - Prime Minister

Again, no different, really, than what Chretien faced against six different conservative opposition leaders:

1. Preston Manning (Reform, elected)
2. Deborah Grey (Canadian Alliance, interim)
3. Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance, elected)
4. John Reynolds (Canadian Alliance, interim)
5. Stephen Harper (Canadian Alliance, elected)
6. Grant Hill (Canadian Alliance, interim)
   Stephen Harper (Conservative, elected) - Prime Minister

For this new race, the feelers have been sent out.  With 16 months, that gives any hopeful enough time to build interest and momentum, fundraise, organize a national campaign team in every major city and region, and campaign.

However, if we are to consider the above pattern of opposition leaders, we could surmise, whomever wins this race, would not become prime minister, but would lose the next election in four years, spurring a new race, then again that leader not winning.  It would theoretically be on the third elected leader who would have a chance at becoming prime minister.

That is not to say those who are interested should make a run for it now to get their name out there and the beginnings of a very long-term campaign organization.

But to think that Trudeau is a one-term prime minister, for a Conservative, is overly optimistic.  The NDP leadership is in a vacuum and Trudeau will continue to pull from the left.   Further, Chretien and Harper won three elections with their party remaining in power for about 13 years.  It is not unreasonable to think history won't repeat itself and we'll see the following.

2017:  Elected Leader 1
2019:  Election loss
2019:  Elected Leader 1 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2021:  Elected Leader 2
2023:  Election loss
2023:  Elected Leader 2 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2025:  Elected Leader 3
2027:  Election WIN

What would be telling, and different is if the 2019 and/or 2023 elections had a minority government.  Then it's difficult to say how the rest of the pattern works out, because remember, Harper lost his first election to Martin, although Martin won with a minority.  Harper then won a minority.  This was a long transition period for Canadians to move from Liberal dominance to a newly merged Conservative Party.

My point is, whoever is running to be leader now or later, has to play the long game, as Stephen Harper was so brilliant to achieve for his electoral success.

Canadian Election 2015 - Harper will win

. #cdnelxn2015 #cdnpoli

Here is a smattering of my observations from the cheap seats on the campaign so far and then why I think Harper will win.

- Few are talking about this election or really paying attention to the policy announcements--especially Joe and Jane Frontporch.  When the kids go back to school, people will start paying more attention.  Look for the parties to reiterate their policy announcements, saving the big ones for the last few weeks.

- The Duffy trial has been in front of any other leaders' announcements, including Harper's.  Now that the trial has adjourned until November and after the election in October, the opposition leaders and media will continue to ask questions, but "It's before the courts" you will hear constantly.  The trial dragged on longer than expected as revelations from key witnesses put the whole thing into question.  The trial is being adjourned because the lawyers have other trials to tend to in the meantime--it's not some conspiracy.

- NDP supporters have gone completely batshit on social media.  Many, I know, are in unions and their postings bashing Harper are almost hourly, unjustified, and outright lies.  I say keep it up as you're all looking like a bunch of weenies. With the race this close, soft liberal progressives need to stick with Trudeau and not get lured into Mulcair's van.

- Where is retread Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe?  With no budget, I hear he was cycling.  I always liked him in the debates.

- There isn't any real main issue in this campaign that Mulcair or Trudeau have framed.  The Conservatives have made it about Justin not being ready.  While many are tired of it, it's working, as it's geared toward soft-Conservatives supporters and Blue Liberals who have voted Conservative lately and were thinking of going back.

On the debate... (cricket)... I finally watched the English debate.  Now?  No one remembers much except:
1. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was very good
2. NDP Uncle Tom Mulcair had an awkward smile like he was giving candy to kids (voters?) to lure them into his rainbow van
3. Harper held his own and was calm
4. Trudeau had some good and interesting moments.  When Mulcair asked him about the number for Quebec to separate, finally Trudeau swung back well with "9" in reference to the Supreme Court.  But his closing remarks started off fuzzy wuzzy and ended awkwardly. Some eyebrows were raised that's for sure.

On policy announcements, here's what I remember:
- NDP:  No deficit. Full door-to-door mail service will return. Tax incentives for manufacturing sector. $15 minimum wage for all!  Decriminalize ganja for small amounts.  $15/day daycare.
- Liberals:  Flexible work hours.  Not sure if they'll balance the budget.  Full pension for injured veterans.
- Conservatives:  No one's allowed to travel to Syria or Iraq.  Tax breaks for volunteer/service club memberships.  Raise the amount first-time home-buyers can use part their RSP for a downpayment from $25k to $35k.  Life sentences for serious crimes.

On scandals and odd things:

Conservatives:
- Duffy scandal has completely dominated this election so far.  It's currently resonating with voters, especially the undecided. But I predict the momentum on that will be lost with the trial adjourned until November, and as they turn their attention to Mulcair and Trudeau, they will be paying close attention to what they say.
- A picture of an Atlantic salmon was shown on a graphic talking about conservation of BC fish. Quickly changed.
- Angry old guy yells at media after Harper campaign stop.  Now now.

NDP:
- Alberta NDP Jobs Minister was out campaigning for the NDP in BC while Alberta's economy and jobs are in jeopardy.  Yeesh.
- NDP still haven't paid back the $2.7 million in taxpayer funds used for political offices. In fact, the parliamentary budget office isn't going to honour the campaign expenses until it is paid off.  Look at this to gain momentum, shooting down the credibility of Mulcair and voters thinking they need to kick Harper out by voting NDP.
- A video resurfaced of Mulcair praising British Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher

Liberals:
- Several Liberal nomination races aren't going well. One broke out in a fight.  Other Trudeau hand-picked candidates didn't win.  If you think Trudeau's Liberals are about openness, think again.
- A Calgary candidate had some old tweets about her hair making her look like a 'lesbo' and other things.  She apologized, Trudeau accepted, she resigned.  Moving on.
- Trudeau thinks the economy grows from the heart outward.  Wow.  While he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% (i.e. over $200k/year), and lower taxes for the middle class, maybe he doesn't realize that many middle class families combined incomes are over $200k/year.  They're hardly in the 1%.
- Trudeau's presser with Paul Martin was terrible.  He really has no clue how the economy actually works other than reiterating talking points.  He never really answered the media questions and just spouted middle class, jobs, grow, blah blah.  He has no idea what he's actually talking about and his bobble-head candidates behind him while nodding in unison, didn't actually seemed convinced either.
- Veterans angry with Harper are actually Liberals.

Advice for each campaign:

OVERALL:  It's about the economy, stupid.  It's not going well with oil low, the dollar down to its lowest since 2004, the China crash, etc.  This is what really affects families and jobs.  

Bloc:  Get some donations already.  While Duceppe doesn't have to cover as much ground, get a TV ad going saying that the NDP hasn't delivered.

Greens:  Everyone knows you're about the environment, get May talking about the real economy and balanced budgets--she's good at it.

NDP:  Talk middle class tax cuts like you know what you're talking about, unlike Trudeau.  Because a lot of the high-paying public sector and union families are making over $200k year, you might want to crank the tax increase amount to $200k PER PERSON if you're going to do that.  Talk more on the environment to trump the Greens in BC.  Be more anti-central Canada in Quebec to beat the Bloc.

Liberals:  Justin needs to learn how the economy operates and talk about small business tax cuts to thwart liberals from heading to the NDP who are dissatisfied with Harper.  Say how much you are cutting middle class taxes by (2%? 5%!?).  The "I am ready" ads are awful and your inexperience is showing because you've allowed another party to frame the debate for you.  Separate yourself from the Ontario Wynne Liberals.   The Liberal war room is the shits.

Conservatives:  Stop talking terrorism, ISIS, and crime.  Focus on investment in the economy and tout your comparative record to other G7 countries over and over again.  Remind voters of the tax cut policies already brought in and if they weren't done, families would be worse-off despite an unstable global economy.   Beat Trudeau by reiterating that the middle class has grown and is better off as a result.  Do not say you've cut taxes by millions of dollars--say what the average is that families and individuals have more in their pocket for ALL the policies (GST cut, child care, trade tools write-off, TFSA) and then say how much more they will have if you are re-elected. Beat the NDP by reiterating their shoddy provincial records in BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, and NS.  And wake up CPC war room--you're about two days behind.  Then again, so are voters right now.

My early predictions:

With the number of vote splits on the left, the long-haul campaign dollars totally favouring the Conservatives for TV ads, and that Ontario is still currently slightly favouring the Conservatives, the outcome will be a Conservative minority with a strong NDP opposition.

When the Duffy trial resumes in November, the NDP and Liberals will continue to fire questions and rhetoric at Harper to gauge what the public feeling is and ask him to resign, then potentially spark a vote of non-confidence after the trial is over.

Depending on how the trial goes, if it is too damaging, Harper may resign, but I get a feeling he wouldn't right away.  He'll do it in 1-2 year's time anyway and then watch Saskatchewan's premier Brad Wall take a stab at the leadership and win.

There you have it!  Stay tuned for more insight.

Abolishing the Senate to reform it

In a surprise but no-surprise pre-election move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall have had a leak that they will jointly announce on Saturday that they will move to abolish the Senate.

With the Conservatives surging ahead in a recent poll to 38% (majority territory), likely boosted by their child care benefit vote buying scheme (I call it like I see it), Canada being voted #1 in international reputation, and despite the thrust of social media vitriol coming from background union, NDP, and Liberal supporters, Harper announcing he would abolish the senate would negate any of bad press that the once popular but now shamed senators, Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, and Pamela Wallin have stained Harper's machine.

It's a brilliant tactical move and the timing couldn't be better.

And you can't say Harper didn't try to reform the upper chamber.  He did, in a legal backdoor way to promise to appoint the senators elected by the provinces.  But only one province, Alberta, did so.  In essence, that tactic, while noble, didn't work.  None of the other provinces went for it.

There was even a point where I thought Harper was holding back the appointments to naturally equalize the provinces.

Then there's Justin Trudeau, who in one of his first moves as heir leader, symbolically kicked out all of the Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus.  So, it appears the Liberals supposedly don't care about the senate anymore.  Trudeau, anyway.

While I still believe we need an upper house on a federal-scale, it must be elected and equal.  For about 25 years (yeesh!) I have advocated this with each province getting 6 senators for 6 year terms, 3 elected every provincial municipal cycle.  But I think 8 year terms with 3 elected every 4 years makes more logistical sense.  Or look at Australia's senate.  It's quite equal. While I'm not fond of proportional representation as seats are filled by unelected party hacks to make up the difference, a preferential ballot should be looked at and wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Many parties use this method already to elect their leaders.

All other means by which to reform the senate have not worked.  The Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords didn't work and helped spawn another wave of Quebec separatism.  Harper's plan didn't work either.

Oddly enough, one of the reasons Canada came into being in 1867 in Charlottetown, was that although the senate was to be elected and equal among the four provinces, the deal went down because it wasn't.

In essence, it's time to start over.  Abolish the senate so we can reform it.

It's the only way.  Harper and Wall are on the right track.

Alberta Election 2015 - Campaign ratings on Day 3

Just being a casual observer of this election on TV and online, here are my impressions of the various party campaigns thus far and their plus/minus rating.  Then I'll aggregate them at the end of each week and the campaign as a whole.

PC - Jim Prentice's election campaign launch basically insulted anyone as extremists who didn't support them.  He also said they are not the party of the status quo.  Uh, riiiight. And see below. 
PC -3.

Alberta Party - The slogan "Choose Alberta's Future" was displayed at Prentice's launch and the .ca and .com domain names were then quickly swiped up by the Alberta Party.
AP +1.

NDP - They just released their first major policy plank on providing 10% of funds up to $50k to businesses who hire an employee in Alberta.  This is the recently elapsed job's program implemented by...?  Harper.
NDP +2.

Wildrose - I haven't heard or seen anything.  Maybe that's a good thing.  Just sit there and be a conservative protest vote.  You can't do that too long though or the NDP might just usurp all the good policies! People need to know who Brian Jean is.
WP +/- 0.

UPDATE:  Brian Jean comes out with a plan to balance the books in three years by cutting public sector jobs in middle management (not front line workers) without raising taxes.
WP +2.

Liberals - Well-known journalist Graham Thompson says it would take a miracle of biblical proportions for the Liberals to get a dozen seats.  And I don't usually associate the Liberals with the Bible, do you?
LP -1.

Polls released showing the Wildrose in the lead, NDP sweeping Edmonton and making in-roads in Calgary, then the PCs.  Say, what?  As it stands, it's a Wildrose minority with a possible NDP official opposition.  But anything can change day to day here.

+2 NDP
+2 WP
+1 AP
-1 LP
-3 PC

Preston Manning's plea to stop the insenaty

In a bold, open letter to all senators, former Reform/Canadian Alliance leader Preston Manning afronted them with the growing mood amongst democratic Canadians that the problem with not moving forward on senate reform is caused by the current senators themselves who've done nothing on it.  This, despite the relatively recent Conservative majority and a bulk of whom were appointed by recommendation of Prime Minister Harper on the basis that they would reform it.

With a recent Nanos poll indicating almost half of Canadians want the Senate reformed and just under that amount want it abolished, with few taking the status quo, it's the abolish side that is growing, probably because reforming it is seemingly less and less likely.

On this blog, I've gone on and on for years regarding politicians who say we reform the senate but offer no ideas, solutions or say it's difficult to do so there's no point.  This behaviour I've coined "insenaty".  Manning has basically painted the entire red chamber in asylum-white while senators sit back and strap themselves in straight-jackets whining that reform is a fruitless exercise.  Sigh.

I've offered my ideas over and over.  I prefer reforming it to abolishing it.  But even I've become frustrated, as I see little action despite my acknowledgement of Stephen Harper's term-limit proposal and preference for appointing elected senators (albeit only from Alberta thus far), he's the most reformist of all PMs in our history.

And as my frustration grows with my age, I lean toward perhaps abolishing it to then start from scratch may be the preferred route to rid the upper chamber of the "Ottawashed" and replace it with fresh electors, accountable to you, the voter, and not themselves.

Popular Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall now prefers abolishing it.  That says something right there.  I no longer see him suffering from insenaty.  His mind is clear.  Perhaps it is I and others who suffer after continually bashing our heads against the wall, expecting the same result.

As Manning said in his letter, even after decades of the infinite hours spent by countless people on the issue of senate reform, essentially the patience runs out, and it is time the Prime Minister, fed up with the complacency, proposes to free us from the chains and ends the thing.

At least then, finally, we can stop the insenaty.

Insenaty! It's back! Senate accountability at the forefront.

Like I said a long time ago, I've always held the belief that Prime Minister Harper made interesting appointments to the Senate in order to draw much more attention to it.

Who knew that former CTV journalists now senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin would be at the forefront of that attention, and investigated by former colleague Robert Fife. (Nevermind Senator Patrick Brazeau and his current charge).

So now everyone is saying that senators need more accountability on their expenses.  Well, duh. Welcome to the debate guys.  This isn't new news.  I could go back into history and show you all the abuses by members of the "sleepy chamber" until the cows come home.

But I know an excellent way to hold senators accountable!  Elect them!   So anyone who says we need accountability in the Senate without saying we should elect them is experiencing what I call "insenaty".  It's the thought process involved in wanting something changed with the senate without actually wanting senate reform.

And further to that, on the left hand, we have NDP leader Tom Mulcair, who has questions about his past as well, continually saying we should abolish the senate.  Well of course the NDP would say that.  It's the easy answer here, isn't it?  They had one member in there appointed a while ago by Trudeau.  They'll never win the House, unless they try and sneak what ever version of proportional representation through in order to sneak into power.  Abolishing the Senate is a daunting constitutional change, and frankly, dangerous to our democracy even though the Senate is essentially an appointed body.  Can you imagine an NDP government without any check and balance to the crazy legislation they'd pass in the House?  Well that's exactly what they want.  Don't be fooled folks!

So when you read or hear someone calling for senator accountability, ask yourself:  "Why aren't they asking for them to be elected?"

Insenaty now!

Back in the 90's, there were Liberal senators who were known convicted criminals and still remained as senators. When the Reform Party brought this up, along with senate reform, not much attention was paid by the media about any of this really. The public was unaware and no one really did anything about it, not even the governing Liberals, until years later when the senate finally governed themselves on this long-standing issue.

Oh, but NOW, when three Conservative senators are on the boilerplate for varying issues, and the governing party immediately deals with the issues, now, NOW the media (lead by the CBC) and the NDP opposition get all hot and bothered and call to abolish the senate.

I'm not saying that Brazeau's alleged actions are justified but he has the right to due trial.  With the PM immediately removing him from caucus and the Conservative senate majority putting him on-leave, that shows swift accountability by the governing caucus.

On former CTV journalists turned senators, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, their lavish expense claims and residency issues aren't new to the senate's ongoing accountability problems. 

You know though, right from the get-go seven years ago, Harper has made us all pay more attention to the senate on numerous occasions. By his first appointment of a floor crossing Liberal, then doing no appointments, then doing a record number of appointments, while at the same time trying to get provinces to elect senators in waiting, setting term limits, people have been paying way more attention lately, and so we call for more action to try and reform the upper chamber. 

Sometimes I wonder if these senator issues now aren't a blessing in disguise to the master plan of either abolishing the senate and starting over or Harper's incremental plan of changing it without opening the constitution.

In the meantime, I want insenaty now! Insenaty now!

Harper: "Bert, you have to give us an override."

Triple E Senate booster and Conservative Senator Bert Brown was asked by Prime Minister Harper to look for a way to ensure the House of Commons remains supreme over the Senate regarding passing legislation.  Senator Brown proposes that we simply use the same formula in the 1982 Canada Act, but to do so, each province must have an equal number of senators.  That formula being 7 out of 10 provinces with more than 50% of the population to change the constitution. 

It would now apply to senators.  But to do that, you need Quebec or Ontario to agree as the other provinces' populations don't add up to 50%.  Bert is also proposing that Ontario and Quebec senators would also get veto powers.  I guess that prevents the whole country from ganging up on Quebec (or Ontario).

This idea stems from folks who don't believe the Senate should reign over the House of Commons especially if it's elected--it would give it more legitimacy and power.    But I have to laugh at that since they're admitting that electing senators gives them that democracy, where currently, with them appointed, all they need is 50% + 1 to kill a bill from the lower house dominated by Quebec and Ontario!  Insenaty now!!!

What do we at Hatrock's Cave think?  Anything to get to provincial equality is fine by us.  Not regional equality, but provincial.

Federal seat redistribution

New legislation is finally being introduced to fix the democratic imbalance in the House of Commons by adding the following seats to these growing provinces:

+7 BC
+5 Alberta
+18 Ontario

Bringing the total to 308+30=338.

But that will then leave Quebec, which has 24.4% of the population, with 23.1% of the seats.  Oh dear no!  Nevermind that they already have 25% of the seats in the Senate where BC and Alberta each have 5.7%.

Which further proves why we not only need an elected Senate, but an equal one as well.  I've mentioned before that if over the next 10 years or so, if Harper doesn't appoint folks in provinces with more than 6 Senators, with the upcoming 9 year Senatorial term, coupled with mandatory retirements, it is possible virtually to achieve provincial equality.  He could hold provinces accountable to the new terms by not appointing anyone if they don't have Senate elections.

Harper's always played the long game in politics.  I wonder if this is part of that plan.

NDP and Liberals

With the passing, deification, and Saturday's memorial for Jack Layton, pundits, bloggers, and journos were quick to begin the speculation on who should run for the NDP leadership.  Names such as party prez Brian Topp and Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair, uh, top the list.  And Jack was right in his final letter saying they need to pick someone as soon as possible.  Because with Quebec Solidaire member Nycole Turmel as it's interim leader, the worse the NDP will fair in the public eye or be taken seriously in the House of Commons and in the media.

For the other interim leader, Liberal Bob Rae says a merger with the NDP is not his focus "at the moment".  Ah Bob, always leaves a slight crack open.  As the Liberals gear up for a meeting among MPs, senators, and more failed candidates than ever, they need to do a lot of things to get back in the game.  Merging with the NDP right now is the dumbest thing the Liberals could do from a position of great weakness.  As well, that all depends on who they and the NDP pick for their leader.  And even if that leadership candidate says a merger is not in the cards, I'd dare them to ask Stephen Harper and Peter Mackay their thoughts on that.

Even though he said he's not running (they all say that at the start), the best hope for the Liberals, in my humble Hatrock opinion is Justin Trudeau--maybe not in 2015 but 2019.  That said, I've heard of absolutely no rumours of anyone running, which is how Bob would like it.  My guess is that a lot of Liberals think Harper will win the next election, but then the public will grow tired of him and that's the time to run.  Bob Rae will finally step down and a new Liberal leader will emerge.  And if I was Justin Trudeau, that's exactly what I'd do.

Entering the political fray is about three things:  patience, timing, and momentum.

So back to the NDP speculation.  Patience is short, the timing is in the next month, and the momentum is derived from a build up of the speculation.  I'll be honest I don't know who Brian Topp is, although I've heard the name before and that name is certainly being built-up.  So is former Manitoba premier and Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer.  The more they resist the urge to run, the more build-up and support occurs.  That said, Thomas Mulcair has the best advantage being from Quebec, which is where most of the NDP is from now.  Olivia Chow should not run because she won't win, which will be an embarrassment.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservative government sit back and run the show with a majority in both houses and yet not too much attention on them.

Bob the Interim cont'd...

Hot off the wire, the Liberals have picked Bob Rae to be their interim leader.

Several Blogging Tories have suggested that this is really a ruse by Bob to eventually lead the party.  Now that Justin Trudeau says he doesn't want to lead the party, and he was the favourite, really, who else will step forward besides Dominic Leblanc?

Not only that, but in four years, who'd really want to go up against the very strong Conservative and NDP parties?

With the government about to remove taxpayer party subsidies, the Liberals are in trouble as far as fundraising compared to the CPC and NDP.

So, I kind of agree and predict the following will play out.  There won't be any real candidates step forward and the Liberal bagmen will let Bob continue and fight the next election, which he'll lose obviously.  Then, in 2016, there will finally be a competitive Liberal race, Justin will run and win, and then contest the 2019 election.  How that election will play out, I have no idea, and neither does anyone really.

Now, there's no denying that Bob wants to merge the Liberals with the NDP, but the Liberals were only open to it when they had the upperhand to swallow the NDP.  That's not true anymore.

Bob Rae continually gets voted as the best parliamentarian in the House of Commons by his fellow MPs likely due to his gentlemanly, calm demeanour.  With Jack Layton announcing that his caucus will refrain from heckling, that Harper has certainly toned it down over the years, methinks Question Period is going to be pretty boring for a while. 

Oh wait, Thomas Mulcair won his seat though, didn't he?

CPC leadership vote methods

This deal breaker issue that created the Conservative Party has reared its head again.  That, or the CBC is making mountains out of molehills again.

So on the one hand, you have 'one member one vote' folks from the old Canadian Alliance/Reform Party.

On the other, you have 'equally weighted riding' folks from the old Progressive Conservative Party.

I believe the agreed one when the party was created was equally weighted ridings but where a riding needed a minimum of 100 members, giving them 100 points.

Now, you're asking, what does an old Reformer like me prefer?

I actually think 'one member one vote' is not good.  That's not how our federal elections run, nor is it how we select our prime minister.  Ridings must be respected--it's a fundamental aspect of a parliamentary representative democracy.  Ridings are the organizational grassroot itself.  Without them, being a member of a party is basically useless and it's where campaign teams are borne out of.  As well, it pits large member regions against smaller ones and that's not good for unity or equality across the country.

But I also think the delegate/convention system is good.  I think there should be a single leadership convention like in the old days and delegates vote on behalf of riding.  Then the run off votes happen in the same day.  It's bloody exciting... and well... bloody (ask David Orchard).  It's true blood bath politics.  Separate run off votes weeks later that the Canadian Alliance had wasted money and time and it was not as exciting. I was there.

As well, why is the party even bothering to look at this non-issue?  Stephen Harper's going to be Prime Minister for the next 8 years at least anyway.

And just like that, 3 senate appointments

Just as I published my last post and talked about senate reform and criticizing the government, the Prime Minister, just like that, appoints 3 Conservatives to the senate, all who lost in the recent election.

• Josee Vernier, a Quebec MP
• Larry Smith, former CFL commish, former senator
• Fabian Manning, former NFLD MP, former senator

“Our Government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate,” the Prime Minister in a statement released to the media. 

With a small Quebec caucus, Harper just appointed many of them to the cabinet, and also needed a bit more Quebec representation in the senate.  Fine.  For now...

Because, Mr. Prime Minister, this is the last set of appointments I'll forgive you on.

Comin' out of the Cabinet

I didn't bother to make any Conservative government cabinet speculation.  Why?  Because I really think most Canadians don't care.  I will make some comments on the updated cabinet itself, however.

The cabinet:

• grew by one member to 39 (it was much smaller when Harper first took office, now it's like the biggest evar!)
• is as large as Mulroney's cabinet was (don't get any ideas)
• is bigger than the entire Liberal caucus (ok, now you can)

Notables:

• John "The Bulldog" Baird is at Foreign Affairs -- he's one of Harper's best and hopefully he further improves Canada's standing in the world
• Julian Fantino is now the new Associate Minister of National Defense -- that's an odd one
• Maxime "Mad Max" Bernier is in as a junior at Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism
• Jason Kenney stays on at Immigration but takes on Chair of Gov't Operations Committee (supposedly really important)
• Tim Uppal (Edmonton-Sherwood Park) is now in at Minister of State for Democratic Reform. We'll be watching this one closely now that a former Reform MP is the Prime Minister with a majority government and majority senate.

Two hard working Edmonton MPs that didn't get in, that really should have been considered are:

• Laurie Hawn -- Who would make the perfect Veterans Affairs Minister (he being a veteran)
• James Rajotte -- Treasury Board or something financial.  James is very smart

For further comments, read CalgaryGrit.

Oh, and someone mentioned that they could fit the entire Bloc Quebecois caucus in their car. Just sayin'.

Election Post Mortem

I say, there's no better title to this blog post than "Post Mortem" due to the election's political death of leaders, cabinet ministers, and other high-profile MPs.

Lorne Gunter has some insight on the NDP "surge" and how it was the Tories who actually surged through splits.

I lament, however, at no longer having the bulk of my posts focus on Dr. Michael Ignatieff.  It was fun to challenge his intentions to become PM.  I look forward to the next victim, Justin Trudeau, who will surely woo young soft Dipper support in Quebec once Quebeckers see that their new crop of NDP MPs won't deliver on anything and will turn on them so fast to look for the next best thing.  However, older soft-sovereignists will surely halt any exodus reciting "Je me souviens" and how Justin's father helped ignite Quebec nationalism.

And speaking of Quebec nationalism, Mr. Duceppe, it's been a slice, but your party, like your province, no longer has any real relevancy or power in Parliament.  Conservatives have shown that a majority is possible without Quebec and this will continue in elections to come as more seats are added to BC, Alberta, and Ontario.  Now especially with a few Quebec Conservative cabinet ministers getting turfed, Quebec continues to choose to be on the outside of government and the national stage.  So be it.

"Jack and Gilles went up the Hill to fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down, sprained his hip, recovered, and Gilles tumbled all the way thereafter."

For American-born, dual-citizenship, Elizabeth May, she and her party survive another day, despite losing 380,000 votes from 2008, that's a almost $800,000 the Greens WON'T receive in vote subsidies, but now, they won't have to pay her a salary.  I may spend some time focusing on her and her policies in future posts.

Speaking of salaries... over 100 MPs lost or retired.  How many qualify for the gold-plated pension I'm not sure, but many long-time MPs, including Gilles Duceppe, will live very comfortably for the rest of their lives.

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it has been a very long time coming.  Over ten years actually to get here.  After his hiatus as a Reform MP and leading the National Citizens' Coalition for a few years, in 2000, seeing Stockwell Day's days numbered, he returned with one intention--to unite the right. 

This election, I maintain that Harper was the one who engineered the election, trapping Ignatieff into holding the gov't in contempt.

I maintain that Harper let Jack attack Ignatieff on his voting record in the English debate and let him go toe-to-toe with Duceppe in the French debate.  Harper knew he didn't need Quebec to win, which is why Harper didn't have to say much and actually sacrificed Quebec and some of his cabinet ministers to the NDP to win it all elsewhere.

With a loss, two minority wins, and now a majority, Harper has proven as a skilled tactician, there is only one winner in a game of chess, not only with opposition leaders, but from within as well.  He is and will remain for many years, the last man standing up high on the Hill, with the only pail of water.

Debates and outcome scenarios

I think all the debates comes down to is not really how Harper performs--he'll be his usual self.  It comes down to Iggy and if undecideds get comfortable with him and trust him.  Tough to do. Harper needs to be careful not to attack his personal history, but his numerous flip flops on policy.

You'll also notice that the Conservatives have been laying pretty low during this election and not trying to draw attention to themselves. Reminds me of Ralph Klein's election in 2004.  That said, the media attention has been quite negative on Harper and quite biasedly positive on Iggy.  Voter turnout will be low low low and the fewer that show up, that means there's less desire for change.  Conservative base is loyal as hell and the GOTV (Get Out The Vote) machine for the Conservatives is well oiled --- I've been a part of it and it's actually a lot of fun.

Polls are averaging out with about 153 CPC seats to 71 LPC.  If Harper survives the debate and even ties with Iggy, 

That said, closer to election day, watch Liberal numbers go up a couple points to 32 and maybe 33.  But that support won't be stolen from Harper, it's NDP and Greens.  NDP might get wiped out down to low 20's.  The Liberals have basically stolen NDP policy.  Makes me wonder if there isn't some secret plan to show that both parties are more similar than some think--all designed to setup the Coalition Gov't.

Why else would the Liberals cancel their June convention?  The NDP and CPC didn't.  Liberals are going to lose and at their conventions, after an election loss, the Liberals MUST vote on whether to keep Iggy around as leader.  But, if he becomes PM in a coalition, there is no need for a convention, right?

So anyone can get caught up in the mire of mini-scandals from both parties (Liberals are throwing stones at glass houses), but this election's main issue is simply:  do you want a majority or a coalition gov't?

With Iggy's approval and trust ratings at such a low level comparatively with Harper and Layton, Canadians will not accept Iggy as their PM.

A Conservative minority will result in a constitutional crisis again.  The Liberals and Dippers know that if it a minority, they're not voting for the same budget, which Flaherty said he'd table again.  Then the power turns to the Bloc.  If the budget gets voted down AGAIN, then the GG has to decide:

1. if we're going to have yet ANOTHER election, which Harper would win in a landslide because (see Dief in the 60's) as my bet is Canadians are sick of this
2. if the coalition should govern instead, while legal, most Canadians don't want to accept Iggy as PM
3. if he refuses the coalition and tells them to get along with Harper for a while then may accept another election.

Like I said, the debates are important, and it's Iggy's big chance to shine. Will Canadians be even watching?

TFSAs to double

This is great news!  Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised today to double the amount one can contribute to their Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) from $5000 to $10,000 whereby the interest or investment return would be tax free.

However, like the other tax policies promised this campaign, this wouldn't kick in until the deficit is paid down.  Fine.

But once I originally heard about the TFSA, I opened an account and plopped some cash in there, put it into a stock I knew was going to rise, and voila, 650% annual return on investment! It's essentially free money.  Granted, I still paid income tax on the original investment, but with a good stock (and they're out there), can you imagine getting a loan for $10,000 coupled with a good stock that doubles, cash out, pay off the loan, and then you're sitting there with an extra $10,000 out of no where and tax free?

Lefties claim that this only helps the middle class and rich.  Hogwash!  This is the perfect way for people to save and invest and save some more to give them a leg up.

Of course, lefties would rather have the government create a "program" to have a bureaucracy of people to figure out who gets what money, how much, and when.  Then they claim they're creating real jobs.

When I tell my American friends that we have this type of account in Canada, they can't believe it and tell me that Canada is simply sounding better and better all the time.

Ignatieff claims to be an American 22 times in 2 minute speech

Listen to this two minute speech from Michael Ignatieff and how many times he says "us" and "we" in reference to Americans.  I just don't get how anyone can trust a word this guy says about anything, let alone calling our hockey-loving Prime Minister as "unCanadian".  Unbelievable.



h/t The Alberta Ardvark

Election notes on week 1 - Momentum with Harper

The Conservatives gain over the week and the Liberals grab 4 points from the NDP, then steadily go down and the media says Ignatieff has the momentum?

I'm not saying that the Liberals didn't have a good week campaigning.  They did.  No gaffes and Ignatieff has come across as well spoken and sincere on the trail and in their TV ads.

Jack and the NDP had a good week campaigning but initially lost support to the Liberals and now they appear to be gaining it back.

What's becoming clear is that Conservative support is solidifying and not being lost to the Liberals.  With  the Liberal platform moving way to the left, it's an obvious attempt at winning over 'progressives' and stealing soft NDP support.  It's the usual Liberal strategy, but in this case, it's for survival and it won't work actually to win the election.  It's not centrist.

The Liberal Red Book is difficult to decipher on what the policies actually are.  All the campaigns are still guilty of yapping about billions and millions to be spent on this and this over so many years, but this doesn't translate to the average Canadian and street politics and they'll ignore it altogether.  Voters want to hear how that money applies to them directly. 

What is winning people over is when Ignatieff said "four grand for each student" and Harper said "Thousand buck tax credit for your kid in fitness and 500 for you now too".

These types of policies bug me, but politically, they work.  It almost seems that by the time they've targetted every demographic with a tax policy specific to them, in the end, it almost seems like everyone will be covered.  What it does do is speak to you directly.  "Hey parents, we're thinking of you, so soon you'll be able to write off your kids' karate class fees."

For Stephen Harper, the past week could have gone much better, but the polls show who has the momentum toward the coveted majority, and it's the Conservatives, not Liberals.