Senate reform bill introduced (again but amended)

Barely into this session of parliament, as promised, the Conservative government has tabled a Senate reform bill with term limits now set at nine years and will only apply to senators appointed after October 2008 (34 total).  It also does not bind the prime minister to recommend appointments, nor does it bind provinces into a democratic process, but it "strongly encourages" provinces to do so.

This will pass the house and hopefully in the senate.  If it doesn't pass the senate, but gets stalled and amended there, then I think there are two options, one I've already suggested, and the other I read on Twitter.

1.  Flogging.  Flog any senator who agreed to be appointed based on their support for senate reform but is now balking.  Flog hard. Flog often.

2.  Reduce or eliminate their pay and benefits.

The NDP critic wants the government to hold a national referendum on the fate of the senate because the NDP believe Canadians will want to abolish it.  Well, he's wrong.  Poll after poll suggest a majority of Canadians want it reformed.  In fact, there's a Conservative majority in the House of Commons, who have continually campaigned on senate reform, and so that's the mandate given by the people.

So what will happen now?  Let's say this bill gets Royal Assent. 

Before the next federal election in 2015, we have a pile of (22) senators who have to retire (not including the 34 Conservatives appointed by Harper after October 2008). Broken down as follows:

10 Conservatives
11 Liberals
1 Progressive Conservative

Then by 2019, there will be another 20 (mostly Liberals).

So in the next 8 years, we will have the 34 appointed by Harper, the 22 who have to retire on or before 2015, plus the 20 who retire up to 2019, for a total of 76 out of 105 senators.  (There are about 8 who were appoint by Harper before October 2008, for a total of 84 of 105.)

That's a lot of vacancies.  What will the provinces do?  If I were Harper, I'd stand by his bill and not recommend to appoint anyone from a province unless a province does one of these things:

1a) hold a senatorial election covering the whole province
1b) hold a senatorial election for each region as determined by the province
2a) have the provincial legislature elect senators from a list of nominees to represent the whole province
2b) have the provincial legislature elect senators from a list of nominees to represent a provincial region

My preference is 1b).

And you know what else I'd do?  I'd appoint only a certain number from each province, instead of the full amount, drawing further attention to the blaring inequality of representation. 

In the next 8 years, there will be
3 senator vacancies in B.C., leaving 3. I'd appoint 3 based on if they're elected.3 senator vacancies in Alberta, leaving 3. I'd appoint 3 based on if they're elected.
4 senator vacancies in Sask., leaving 2. I'd appoint 2 based on if they're elected.
4 senator vacancies in Manitoba, leaving 2. I'd appoint 4 based on if they're elected.
18 senator vacancies in Ontario, leaving 6.  I'd leave it at 6.
12 senator vacancies in Quebec, leaving 12.  I'd wait until another 6 retire and leave it at 6.
 3 senator vacancies in N.B., leaving 7.  I'd leave it at 7 and wait for the next one to retire and leave it at 6.
5 senator vacancies in N.S., leaving 5. I'd appoint 1 based on if they're elected.
3 senator vacancies in N.L., leaving 2. I'd appoint 3 if elected, and see about adding another 1 to make it 6.
2 senator vacancies in P.E.I., leaving 2.  I'd appoint 2 if elected, and see about adding another 2 to make it 6.
1 senator vacancies in NWT, leaving 1. I'd appoint 1 if elected, maybe more. Same for Yukon and Nunavut.

You see where I'm going with this.  Each province gets 6 senators, each representing a provincial region (which regions are basically what we have in some provinces already).  After every 3 years, 2 of the 6 senators get elected and serve 9 year terms.

We must must must must remember that we ALREADY have representation by population in the lower house.  Even then, it's usually out of balance and needs correction.   What we don't have is each province having an EQUAL say in the federation.  Canadian provinces are unique and this should be celebrated and acknowledged.  Our current senatorial allocation is archaic, unfair, and not based on any logic.  Why should one province get even more say than another?   Why have provinces then?  Having an equal senate is the next step and having six senators per province appears to be the logical outcome over the next decade.

And for those who hold up stop signs in the senate and want proportional representation, an equal senate addresses this need by being a check against provincial domination in the house (Ontario and Quebec have a majority of seats in the house don't ya know).

So in a way, if provinces start to elect senators, based on the bill today, it is permissible that the prime minister can then only choose the right number to balance out the current provincial inequality.

All without opening the constitution.

Strikes, Riots, and the In Dig Nation

What a week in Canada!

Postal strike. Air Canada strike.  UFCW strike at National/Alamo/Enterprise at YYZ (at the same time I was renting).   Postal lockout.  Government back-to-work legislation on Air Canada.  Air Canada deal.  CAW union blowhard saying the government shouldn't be involved (wha?).  Government back-to-work for postal workers?  Conservative senators appointed by Prime Minister Harper balking at senate reform?  Then the CBC claims it actually makes a profit when it receives most of its revenue from uh... taxpayers.

Then Canucks lose the Stanley Cup.  Vancouver area hoodlums riot and trash downtown.  (See Rex Murphy's direct editorial on The National about it by the way.)

Such disobedience!  Such righteous rebelliousness!  Such in-dig-nation!

Is it all related somehow?

Probably not, but seriously, why?  Why are anarchists, socialists, and unions flexing their muscles now, now that it's a Conservative majority?  Are they afraid of their "entitlements" being taken away or something?  Maybe.  And maybe they want to blame and take it out on someone.

Me? I blame that senate page with the "Stop Harper" sign.

CPC Convention

Now that the CPC Convention in Ottawa is done, let's look at a few of the resolutions and their results and my comments. (You'll have to excuse me for not citing the exact wording.)

• Kill a pregnant woman and the unborn child and get punished for both?  PASSED.  I read that one of the delegates who spoke said if passed, this is a slippery slope issue related to abortion and a woman's right to choose because now we're saying the fetus is a person.  It's really close isn't it.  I don't know about you, but yes, killing anyone is the worst thing. But killing a pregnant woman?  That's even worse.
  

• Two strikes your out?  PASSED.  It just seems too obvious to me that if you commit a heinous crime twice, you're screwed even worse than before.  Where's the fine line?  Well, it was when the first crime was committed.
  

• The Omar Khadr law--high treason if you're a Canadain and fight against Canadian or allied soldiers?  DEFEATED.  I preferred naming it the Louis Riel law.  It seems to make sense, but underlying this, to me, is a basic fundamental aspect of personal liberty.  I believe we should be allowed to defend ourselves if the government becomes oppressive.  Not saying that this would happen in Canada, but it certainly happens in many countries... like right now in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisa, Bharain, Angola, ... etc.  Speaking of liberty...
  
  
• Limiting powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunals?  PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.   Excellent, but why not just scrap the whole thing?  Best argument from my MP, "Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn supported the motion, saying 'we already have hate laws" and the tribunals "punish individuals for expressing legitimate — even if they're controversial — views.'"
  

• Youth wing?  DEFEATED.  I already talked about this one and glad about it.

• Leadership vote riding weight (each riding gets 100 points and up to 400 for more members)?  DEFEATED.  Not a bad idea though.  In looking at the pluses and minuses from both sides (one member one vote vs. equal ridings) we have:

• If the bulk of the membership are from a particular areas, then candidates would only need to campaign there and not in every region of the country.  I agree.  As well, in a general election, our party leader has to basically visit every region because every riding is equal, so why not in a leadership race?
  
• That said, ridings with few members could be easily taken over by a campaign team or by stealth as Belinda Stronach tried to do.

• However, having the rule that >=400 members = 400 points could give incentive for ridings to sign up more members.  However, we all know that it's the leadership campaigns themselves that sign up the bulk of the members.

Regardless, the system that was originally agreed upon as the last item to bring the Alliance the PCs together remains--with each riding maintaining its 100 points.

And hey, Stephen Harper still won.  Not that his job is in any jeopardy now whatsoever.

So all in all, a pretty harmless convention as far as policy.  I still wished they had a senatorial flogging policy for any of senator who shows signs of insenaty.

A long time comin'...

My loyal blog readers will know that I'm a former Reform Party member.  I joined back in 1991 after seeing a Reform Party Students' Society booth during my first month at the University of Alberta.  It was a small club back then but then after taking the helm of the club in 1996 we rapidly grew and became one of the largest student political party clubs in Canada (with thanks to Kory Tenycke and Rob Anders, MP who helped with recruitment).

I remember meeting Preston Manning many, many times and him thanking me for all the work we were doing at the U of A.  I remember loyal club member, Ezra Levant who was just as boistrous then as he is now.  And I remember in 1996 meeting Stephen Harper in the kitchen at a Boxing Day party event that Ezra and his family were hosting for Reform VIPs.  Mr. Harper was a mild, quiet man back then. 

But what I also remember is the 13 years from 1993 to 2006, when Liberal policy after Liberal policy got me very frustrated with the direction our country was headed.  Sure the books got balanced, but the taxes upon the middle class went up, the gun registry, our foreign relations, our dollar, and especially our lack of support to the military.  There's much more, but I was nearing the point of actually considering moving to the U.S. (I did end up working there for a wihle though on a visa).

Reform went from 1 seat in Deb Grey's byelection in 1989 to 54 in 1993, to 60 in 1997, to 66 in 2000 (Canadian Alliance).  Harper then won the Canadian Alliance leadership (a campaign I worked on in Edmonton) and as soon as PC leader Joe Clark stepped down, with Peter Mackay as the new leader, the parties merged.  And four elections later, we finally have ourselves a majority.

In that time with Harper at the wheel, a lot has happened on the policy front.  Two of my favourite policies being lowering the GST and the TSFA.

And the policies to be now on the table are (a lot of reversing what the Liberals brought in actually):
- Senate reform
- scrap the gun registry
- scrap the party per vote subsidy
- scrap the Canadian Wheat Board
- crime omnibus bill

Finally.

It's been a long time comin'...

And I couldn't be prouder to be Canadian.

Senate reform! "Insenaty" in Quebec and Ontario

I know, I know.  "Where's Hatrock?  Senate action and he ain't postin'!"  Well, I've been shipped away on business and working long hours.

So anyway, it appears that a bill will be introduced in the Senate to bring in the long awaited Harper senate reforms--8 year term limits and have the prime minister appoint provincially elected senators.

Great!

Eight year term limits?  Oh, no.. it might be 10 or 12 now to have senators overlap governments.  Well, then run again!  I still advocate 6 year terms for one-half of the senators every 3 years--similar to the U.S.

Ok, so the bill will be a good first step without opening the constitution then?

Apparently, not if Quebec has a say.  The province is going to make a constitutional challenge.  Well that's not very nice.  I've never understood how a province with supposedly 40% of the population wants to separate, still wants to hold on to so much power federally in Canada.

Anyway, so now Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says we should just scrap the whole senate.  Well guess what genius, we'd have to open the constitution now (read: can of very large worms).

Not only that, but the Premier of the largest province says it doesn't make sense that Ontario has 25% of the population but only 20% of the senators.  WHAT?  INSENATY NOW! INSENATY NOW!  How many times do I have to explain that we basically already have rep by pop in the House, so why repeat that?  That's no longer a check and balance among provincial regions and interests.
 So you know what's going to happen?  The bill will pass.  Quebec will lose out its challenge.  Senators in Ontario will have to retire in 8/10/12 years (including existing ones who'll hit 75) and they'll be openings.  Especially if they're Liberals retiring (and many are) Harper won't appoint anyone new until they are elected.

So as long as the Conservatives have a plurality in the senate, this may come down to a game of chicken.  That or Harper will give a deadline, and if it's not met, appoint Conservatives to piss people off and draw more attention to the senate, like he has 30-some odd times before.

It worked didn't it?

Election notes - Day ??

I'm currently on an undisclosed tropical island enjoying a couple weeks off.  But that doesn't mean I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the election.

Here's what I know and what I think I know.

The NDP are gaining momentum which was triggered by Jack's performance in the debates.  I also think those on the left are comparing Iggy and Jack and liking Jack a lot more, especially in Quebec.  Iggy's "Rise Up" speech, I think, was a bit of a turn off for many, and many leftoids are confused as to what Iggy's intentions are with a potential coalition.  Not with Jack.  In Quebec, the NDP are ahead of both other federalist parties with the Bloc losing ground.

So who are these soft-separatists that are turning to the NDP?  They're coalitionists now!  By supporting the NDP and putting them above the Liberals, they've realized there is a potential for Jack Layton as PM in a coalition gov't with Gilles Duceppe in there somehow.  It's crazy, I know, but Jack's performance in the French debate was very good and convincing.

So now, this is where I'm going to speculate on some Conservative strategy.  Hear me out dear readers.  Consider...

- We all know, Stephen Harper's plan all along has been to replace the Liberals as the "natural governing party".

- With the Liberals moving to the right against the massive Conservative wall, the gap on the centre-left was left wide open.  Jack has successfully moved into it with some centrist policies like the small business tax cut and other family-friendly measures.  But it's more on personality than policy.  People simply like Jack a lot more than Iggy.

- So I think the Conservatives are helping Jack Layton.

- Did Stephen Harper willingly take a back seat in the French debate to let Jack do most of the talking?

- Is the recent Conservative attack ad on Jack Layton not really an attack ad at all but a way to draw attention to him so that lefties consider Jack as a potential leader of the opposition or the prime minister in a coalition gov't?   ... While at the same time, drawing away some soft NDP anti-coalitionists in BC and Ontario to the Conservatives themselves?

For this blogger, ideally, I would love to see the end or decimation of the Liberal party.  They were a terrible official opposition--Iggy's voting record notwithstanding.

While I disagree with them on many issues, I've always admired the NDP--they at least stand for something and would be a formidable official opposition to the Conservatives.  And I also think with a stronger NDP, it would quash the Liberals from wanting to merge, which is, of course, good for Stephen Harper.

Not only that, but having a Conservative majority is the best thing for our growing and prosperous country.  With lower corporate taxes, we are already seeing more investment and growth in the economy, which has had the positive effect of actually bringing in more revenue for the government, which is why the deficit is shrinking faster than expected.  I don't understand how many people don't get that concept.

And for national unity.  In a majority, we all know Harper will bring in legislation to eliminate the taxpayer-funding for political parties.  The Bloc relies on over 85% of their revenue from this funding.  Removing that, would hurt them big time.

So everything appears to be working in favour of Stephen Harper in his quiet campaign.  Like in 2004, after Canadian families got together for Christmas dinner and talked politics, the Conservatives surged.  The key polls will be after the Easter dinners where I think lefty Canadians at the table will see that the Liberals have no hope in defeating Harper, but they do see a potential for Jack Layton as official opposition leader or the leader and PM of a coalition government.

For an election about nothing, it seems to be an election about what those traditionally strategic-voting leftwing Canadians are thinking... that they're finally going to vote the party and leader they've always wanted to vote for.  And they're feeling pretty damn good about it.

Ok, now back to the beach and warm sunshine...

Debates and outcome scenarios - followup

English Debate...


Summary:  Harper calm & solid. Iggy stumbles. Layton feisty and passionate. Duceppe not as good as before.


I enjoyed this debate.  I thought each leader respected each other's time.  The first half they attacked Harper and it seemed it was on Iggy in the second half.  They started off with the leaked AG G8 info but it didn't last. I don't think this story is going to stick next week.


Jack wasn't interrupting as much as before and kept on the attacks while highlighting NDP policies.  He did really well.


Ignatieff seemed a bit uncomfortable when speaking and trying to bring together different anecdotes into some nonsensical train of thought and argument and reminded me more and more of a professor at Harvard for some reason .. or just a boring political science professor.


Duceppe was Duceppe.  Like a rambling neighbour but his quote on "I will never be prime minister of Canada, I can assure you that!" got some laughs.  People like Duceppe because he's straightforward and he didn't disappoint.


All that said, Iggy didn't deliver the knock out punch on Harper to make Harper trip, but Layton sure did... on Iggy that is.


Overall, I don't think this debate will change much other than halt the 2-4 point Liberal gain.  Harper made continual compelling and calm arguments why the Conservatives should be reelected with a majority.


At times, it seemed Harper's calmness seemed to frustrate Ignatieff, and for that, overall Harper beat Ignateiff, but I thought Jack won the debate overall.  He was enjoyable to watch.

Coalitions: comparing 2004 and 2008 again

A continual counterpoint being made by Liberals, NDP, and BQ supporters is that Harper is a hypocrite for denouncing the formal Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition when he tried to do it himself back in 2004.

Well he didn't.  He's not a hypocrite.

It bugs me that I feel compelled to have to regurgitate a post I made in May of 2010.

In 2004, there was no coalition.  Period.  All Harper, Layton, and Duceppe did was make the Governor General aware that she should consult the opposition parties before making a decision.

Here's a video to show you what Harper, Layton, and Duceppe said back in 2004.  It's VERY CLEAR.  No coalition.  Whereas early in this 2011 campaign, Mr. Ignatieff has not been clear on his intentions AND Layton and Duceppe have been calling Mr. Harper a liar regarding his intentions, when it is THEY who have been misleading.



And once again, here's the Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

(Also signed by Duceppe and Layton)

Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

2004:  "to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

2008:  "you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.... This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons."


Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.  See below...

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

Oh, and did I mention that this agreement between the Liberals and NDP is still in effect until June 2011?

And only 17% believe Ignatieff when he says he won't form a coalition.

Budget 2011 - Texas Hold 'Em

Budget 2011 is turning out to be a classic game of Texas Hold 'Em Poker.


Two cards are dealt to every player.
The Flop is like the first reading of the budget.

Harper's got pocket queens and bets over $200 billion.
Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe doesn't like cards with royalty on it, but he calls anyway.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff hasn't even looked at his cards, but he knows it can't be that good, but he still calls.
NDP leader Jack Layton calls Harper's hand, saying "there's always hope for amendments".

The Turn?

Harper sees a high card turn from the public, realizes he's still got a good hand and doesn't budge, maybe offering a GST cut on home heating to Layton, so he doesn't bet it as high as he thought.
Duceppe's got a good hand as always, he calls.
Ignatieff still doesn't look at his cards, except Harvard to run back to, so he calls
Layton calls but raises the bet.
Harper calls Layton.

The River?
It's a queen.
Duceppe's got a pair.Ignatieff's got a pair.
Layton's got a pair.
Harper wins with three queens and we go to an election.

Next round?   The election itself.

Waves of provincial and federal party support

A poll was just released showing 3/4 Ontarians want Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and his party out (29% support) and Tim Hudak's PCs in (41% support).

In last night's election in New Brunswick, the PCs trounced the incumbent Liberals, 42 to 13 seats. (It could be argued though that the PCs were even to the left of the Liberals there.)

Many believe that this wave of 'conservatism' on a provincial level directly translates to votes for conservatives on a federal level.  It doesn't.  While there are numerous examples, let us look at Ontario's recent history, because how Ontario votes federally basically determines who wins for the whole country.

In Ontario in the 80's, Mulroney's federal PC government dominated Ontario, yet provincially at that time, Ontario was Liberal. And then Bob Rae's NDP came in.

Then in 1993, once Ontario went with Chretien's Liberals, a couple years later, Ontarians went with Mike Harris' provincial PCs.  Then Paul Martin (tending to be a bit more conservative than Chretien) was PM and Ontario goes Liberal provincially with Dalton McGuinty. Soon later, Ontarians support Harper's Conservatives federally.

So my theory, backed up by strong evidence mind you, is that Ontarians, feeling like they are the big province that holds the country together, generally like to balance out their politics between who's in power federally versus provincially.

So for you Ontario Conservatives who are cheering for a potential Tim Hudak PC win, keep in mind the recent history, which dictates that soon after, Ontario federally will eventually switch to the Liberals putting the Liberals back in power. 

Which is why you'd better hope to heck that after the next federal election when Ignatieff's Liberals lose, that they replace him with Bob Rae, because I don't think Ontarians are that gullible to support him again, and will hopefully make an exception to my theory.

Hopefully.

What about Bob?

With a hat-tip to the Christian Conservative blog, just as I called it, Bob Rae has some thoughts on a Lib-Dip coalition.

Remember what I said just the other day:

As I always do, look at this from another point of view...  a certain someone and Jean Chretien were on PowerCorp.  Chretien likes Dion and brought him into cabinet.  In first leadership race after Martin steps down, a certain someone drops out and supports Dion on last ballot, not Iggy. 

Do you think the NDP grassroots would ever want to be in a coalition with Ignatieff?  I don't think so.  But perhaps a certain someone. Someone who was a former provincial NDPer himself. 

Again, I ask, if Michael Ignatieff's poll numbers weren't so low, would anyone be talking about a coalition?

For the fourth time ... Senate term limits

Originally, I read that the Conservatives and Liberals agreed on 12 years but the bill that will be introduced in the House of Commons is 8 year senate term limits.  I think they should be 6, but I'll settle with 8.  This is the fourth time this will be brought forward in the last four years.

And here we have some classic "insenaty now", but not from the Liberals, but from the NDP...

NDP MP David Christopherson called changing the term limits of senators "tinkering around the edges" and not real reform.

"What we care about is not so much how long senators are in the Senate, but how they get there," he said, speaking to reporters after the news conference had ended.

Oh brother.  So there Mr. Christopherson, you genius you, if there are rarely ever any vacancies in the senate, we'll sure have a lot of elections for it, won't we?

And I thought the NDP simply wanted to abolish the upper chamber, not caring about reforming it.

But if we have term limits, we'll have the potential for more vacancies and thus more calls for elections.

Remember, Stephen Harper plays the long game and reforming the senate has proven it is not going to happen overnight, over one election period, or in some failed accord.

Harper leads...

Nanos research did a leadership poll recently and found that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is far ahead of Michael Ignatieff on trustworthiness, competency, and vision.

Canadians like it when a leader leads and takes a stand. That's why they loved Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, and now are really warming up to Harper. But note the undecided. There's room, but I'd say most of those are people who don't even vote (for shame!).

Regardless, Canadians trust Stephen Harper more than twice as much as Michael "Just Visiting" Ignatieff.

The most trustworthy leader

National (n=1,002)

• Stephen Harper: 31%
• Michael Ignatieff: 14%
• Jack Layton: 14%
• Gilles Duceppe: 8%
• Elizabeth May: 8%
• None of them/Undecided: 25%

The most competent leader

National (n=1,002)

• Stephen Harper: 36%
• Michael Ignatieff: 20%
• Jack Layton: 11%
• Gilles Duceppe: 7%
• Elizabeth May: 2%
• None of them/Undecided: 24%

The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future

National (n=1,002)

• Stephen Harper: 32%
• Michael Ignatieff: 20%
• Jack Layton: 15%
• Gilles Duceppe: 4%
• Elizabeth May: 4%
• None of them/Undecided: 25%

Leadership Index Score

• Stephen Harper: 99
• Michael Ignatieff: 54
• Jack Layton: 40
• Gilles Duceppe: 19
• Elizabeth May: 14