O'Toole learned, MacKay didn't

 #cdnpoli #cpcldr

Erin O'Toole, the newly elected Conservative Party leader, learned from his last run that he needed to play more hardball.  In that previous race not long ago, O'Toole came across as a more progressive conservative and didn't get the support or attention compared initially to Kevin O'Leary, Maxime Bernier, or Andrew Scheer.  

What's perplexing is Peter MacKay used to play hardball. But that was when he won the Progressive Conservative leadership in 2003 when he signed a promise on a napkin to candidate David Orchard that he wouldn't merge the PCs with the newly-led Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance.

PC leadership 2003

You'll recall that race 17 years ago, was one of the last convention-style leadership elections with delegates. The results:

1st ballot:  MacKay 41.1%, Orchard 24.3%, Jim Prentice 18.2%, Scott Brison 16.4%, Craig Chandler 0% (endorsed Prentice)

2nd ballot:  MacKay 39.7%, Orchard 24.1%, Jim Prentice 18.2%, Scott Brison 18.0%

3rd ballot:  MacKay 45.0%, Orchard 24.6%, Jim Prentice 30.4%, Scott Brison (endorsed Prentice)

4th ballot:  MacKay 64.8%, Orchard (endorsed MacKay), Jim Prentice 35.2%

The result was later that year, the two conservative parties merged with the Canadian Alliance members voting by mail with 96% in favour, and for the PCs, a quick riding by riding phone-in blitz.  A leadership race ensued, MacKay sat it out, and Harper won over MacKay's future girlfriend and then Liberal floor-crosser, Belinda Stronach.  Harper would go on to lose to Paul Martin's Liberals, albeit a minority government.  But then because of Adscam prominent in voters minds and a poor Liberal campaign run by strategists David Herle and Scott Reid, Harper won a couple minority governments, one against Stephane Dion.  He'd eventually win his "strong stable majority Conservative government" against Michael Ignatieff with a strong NDP showing as its first time as official opposition by the late great Jack Layton. About a decade of Harper as Prime Minister, until Justin Trudeau came along.

CPC 2020

For MacKay in 2020, there appeared to be an overconfidence in his campaign, almost passive in thinking it was an anointment, and shows that having the majority of caucus support doesn't always guarantee a win.  Stephen Harper never campaigned like that.

From the start this leadership race, pandemic aside, nearly out of the gate, when asked whether he'd march in pride parades, Erin O'Toole's answer was basically "if first-responders are allowed, then yes" where MacKay simply said yes.  That set the tone early-on and drew lines in the sand and sent a signal to the other candidate supporters that he's listening.

Did the pandemic affect Peter MacKay's chance of winning?  I don't think so. The candidates were already in full-swing and members had an idea who they're first choice was. It was the second and third choices that were really in play after that. Or were they?

On that, leadership candidate Dr. Leslyn Lewis made a strong impact on 2nd and 3rd ballot choices as there was more time for the membership to get to know her and what she stood for.  She ran a very reputable campaign that garnered much respect and attention. She actually had the most votes on the 2nd ballot but not points--meaning she didn't have enough broad national support (more on that).  She plans to run for MP again.  As a way to draw attention to a local candidacy, running for leadership certainly helps.

Social Conservatism

With O'Toole winning, people I know who are more liberal in their views said they were disappointed in the results as they would have voted for Peter MacKay's Conservatives.  They're tired of Trudeau's public and private ethics violations.  They see O'Toole's win as a unification, albeit a party take-over by social conservatives.  

Perhaps.  If you look at O'Toole's voting record in the House of Commons and what he's said, he's really not a true social conservative and the Campaign Life Coalition certainly does not support him.  But his campaign made it seem to the Sloan and Lewis social conservatives that there was no room for them in a Peter MacKay-led Conservative Party, but there was in his.  And that's all it really seemed to take.

Canadian conservatives are an enigma in politics. I've been following it intensely for 30 years and have been at some of its historical moments.  Some conservatives can't stand it when Liberals win, but some accept it.  But when they do win, it's only when they are united, despite the vast divisions socially, and that takes having an ear to both sides.

Wexit

Beyond the social ideology, there is an eminent threat from the Wexit Western Canada and Alberta separatists led by former Harper cabinet minister and government house leader, Jay Hill.  Will O'Toole be able to appease them or will they remain a small faction, as is usual with blurts of western separatism?  

I think if he doesn't fan the flames and ensures Wexit doesn't grow, they won't split votes with the Conservatives, there's nothing to worry about.  Peter MacKay's first ballot third place showing in Alberta may indicate that if he won, Wexit would have more teeth.  With Erin O'Toole winning, we haven't heard anything in the past few days from Wexit.

Quebec

Then there's Quebec--which, like Andrew Scheer did in pandering to the dairy industry, those ridings put O'Toole over the top. Conservative membership continues to wane in Quebec and membership numbers have dropped--likely because there wasn't a candidate from there and the four candidates in the race did not have their French-speaking up to snuff.   Further, with many ridings having fewer than 100 members, giving a single vote far more sway there than in every populated Alberta riding.  MacKay had the backing of most of the Quebec caucus, yet they just didn't deliver for him.

Uniting conservatives of different shades under a big blue tent is never an easy task.  You can't shun or not listen to Western alienation. You can't shun or not listen to social conservatives.  You can't shun or not listen to progressives.

Stephen Harper knew how to do just that and why he was so successful at the party-level, and nationally as well.  But he had unifying conservative policies that all stripes could get behind. 

It seems Erin O'Toole learned.  We'll see if this translates nationally.

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.

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.

Justin's new ad

It just doesn't have that zip.  It lacks chutzpah.  I'm not embedding it here because you've probably already seen it.

Let's take a look-see at what he said in just 30 seconds:

"I've worked hard to win the confidence of the people of Papineau".  

FOURTH WORST VOTING RECORD IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.  Doesn't sound like you're showing up to work there, Justin.  And just because you got voted in as an MP doesn't mean squat.  All MPs won the confidence of at least the plurality of their constituents. Doesn't make you more qualified than the others.

"I'm a son."  

Well no kidding.  So are ALL MALES of 99.99...% of all animal species.  It's an obvious snide reminder that you're the son and riding the coat tails of your father.  Like we didn't know.

"I'm a father."

That's super.  Again, so are millions of Canadian men.

"I'm a teacher."

Not to knock substitute teachers that provide a valuable service, which include friends of mine trying to become full-time teachers, you weren't full-time, but a substitute.

Just like you are as a Member of Parliament and leader of the Liberal Party.

A substitute.

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!

Alberta's Redford PCs: I can't keep up!

Friends of Hatrock's Cave Political Blog,

My apologies for not posting as frequently as I used to.  I literally cannot keep up with the crap policies, scandals, and b.s. spin coming from the Redford PCs.  It's become so daunting to post on the high frequency of issues to comment on that I've simply resorted to retweeting what many others are already saying about this government.

I will say this.  I was no big fan of the Chretien Liberal government.  But I think this Alberta PC Redford government is probably the worst one I have ever experienced in my life.

Hatrock

Have not McGuinty

I normally don't bother with Ontario politics, but I do note that in general, after some time to reflect, when Ontarians put the Liberals or NDP in power at Queen's Park, they then soon balance it out with a federal Conservative government, so it doesn't bother me who's running the show there.

That said, before Dalton McGuinty, Ontario was a proud "have" province.  Since McGuinty, Ontario is a "have not", which puts the pressure on "have" provinces--BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador--to dish out even more.

I don't care whether you like Ontario PC leader, Tim Hudak, or not, even if you're a Liberal, Ontario needs to go back to being a "have" province again and it seems the only way is to ditch McGuinty.  He's had his time.  If you're on the left, even slightly, then vote NDP already.

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.

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.

NDP MP wants to ban floor crossing

I'm now convinced that the NDP have no concept of how our parliamentary democracy actually works in Canada.

They want to abolish the senate.  But they also want proportional representation to reflect the actual percentage of the popular vote to match the number of seats per party in the lower house.  I've already explained their contradiction in this, but essentially, where are the members for these extra seats going to come from, since the public isn't voting for them specifically, so they only represent a party and not a district, and so how are they held accountable?  Their argument is that they want a check against our first-past-the-post system, but an equal and elected senate would actually cover that and balance it out. (I'll save my further arguments against proportional representation in another post.)

And now NDP MP Peter Stoffer wants to abolish floor crossing.  Seriously, what planet is this guy living on?   He wants to prevent an elected representative of the public from switching caucuses in the House of Commons.  During new MP orientation, don't they give them an idea how the Westminster Parliamentary System works?  I guess not.

If the NDP won't accept floorcrossers then they can have their own policy and not accept the member until they run in a by-election or general election.  But it's typical NDP socialist thinking that their will should be the will of everyone, even upon the public.

Why do I say "public"?  I've discussed this before, but in the House of Commons, parties do not actually exist, but caucuses do.  Despite what some think or how people base their vote on, we elect people, not parties.  It's a person's name on the ballot along with their "political affiliation".  Sure the "political affiliation" gives us an idea of their political views and what caucus they're likely to sit with in the Commons, but if we just elected a party, then they should only show the party name on the ballot. But they don't, so really their argument is moot.

Not only that, our parliamentary history books are filled with records showing MPs switching caucuses or forming coalitions.  Coalitions.  Hmmm, you'd think the NDP would support that.  Coalitions are perfectly legal, but if a coalition government formed out of the opposition parties to take over from a minority government without first going to the public, like we recently almost had, then I think those parties should make it known that that is always their intention. We only had ambiguity from the Liberals on that one and I think the voting public deserves to know what the intention is.

Anyway, having MPs switch caucuses is congruent to a typical voter switching who they support at any time.  That dynamic is extremely important to our democracy and its will is organic in real-time.  There are many examples of where the MP simply states that he or she can no longer support the caucus of the party he or she represents due to policy and then he or she will sit as an independent or ask to join another caucus.  But it is their fundamental right to sit and be accepted into any caucus in the Commons.  Preventing that from happening instantaneously completely undermines our representative democracy.

Then at the next election, if the voters don't like it, let the voters decide.  (By the way, I'm also against recalling an MP.)

I just hope that there are less than 13 Conservative MPs who support this crazy idea or none at all.  I'm also shocked that this notion isn't also completely out of order in even making it to the floor.

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.

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?

Bob Rae the Interim

It appears that Toronto-Centre MP and former Ontario NDP Premier, Bob Rae, will take the Liberal Party interim leadership for the next year and a half when they finally have a leadership vote in the fall of 2012.

This quashes any actual leadership or prime ministerial ambitions he has had.

I've always had my eye on him (politically!) and believed that he was quietly undermining Michael Ignatieff's leadership, especially after bowing out of any leadership race when Stephane Dion stepped down.

There is also no doubt that Bob wants to merge the Liberals and NDP, but with the NDP in a much, much, much stronger position than the Liberals, that possibility is off the table.

Bob's getting up there in age, but I think the Liberal diaspora saw the writing on the wall if Rae was elected their leader.  The Conservative Party would have a Rae hay day in slamming his record as premier of Ontario.

This is a good move for the Liberals.

Far from me to give advice to them, but I would suggest that they reconnect with their original roots and purpose.  They were called Grits back in the day.  Does anyone call them that anymore?  No.  They need to find that "grittiness" to garner attention and purpose to exist.  Rae is not gritty, but actually quite eloquent in the House of Commons, so whomever the Libs pick as leader, he or she has gotta have the grit, because their last three leaders didn't.

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.

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

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?

Then why doesn't a coalition of losers apply at the riding level?

Yes, I understand at the parliamentary level, if a group of MPs from different losing parties can agree to form a coalition majority caucus, that it is perfectly legal that they can approach the Governor General and inform him that they can lead a government.

However, tradition in parliament is also important to understand.  Canadian parliamentary precedent whereby the losing parties form government is not tradition.  Our tradition is a first-past-the-post, and why minority governments can exist.

But what about the riding level?  Why not apply the same logic then?  What if a Conservative candidate won with say 42% support, but the combined Liberal-NDP support was above 50%?  Why not have a run-off election or allow losing candidates to throw their support to another losing candidate to put them over the Conservative?

More especially, why haven't I heard a single Liberal or Dipper in support of a parliamentary coalition suggest the same scenario be applicable at the riding level after an election?

And I'm also sick to death of coalition supporters touting the current UK coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as a model.  The big difference in the UK is that the Conservatives won the election and formed a coalition with one other party, not by losing and signing an agreement to form government with another party AND the support of a separatist party.

Ok, but you may ask, at the riding level, we should use a form of proportional representation (PR), say a ranking system, a run-off election between the top two, or having a portion of the House dedicated to selected members to balance the number of votes to number of seats.  But notice that it's NDP, Green and other small parties that continually blather on about this?

I've thought about PR, and you know what would happen in Canada that also happens in many countries that use a form of PR?

You get .... perpetual coalition governments and national instability.

And these coalition governments would be comprised of all sorts of parties.  And these parties would be focused on only certain issues.  Coalition governments wouldn't need to consider ALL regions in the nation or the entire nation as a whole anymore.  They would do whatever it took to hold onto power and keep the coalition intact.

But wait, don't we already have that potential here in Canada?  Consider this scenario ... if the Conservatives get another minority, Green Party leader Elizabeth May wins her seat in in BC, and the combined Liberal-NDP-BQ-Green seat total is above 155 and they agree and want to form government, don't we have at least two parties that primarily tout one issue each--Quebec separation and the environment?

Soon, you'd see all sorts of new one-two issue and regional parties popping up trying to win a seat here and there (hello Marijuana Party!) and the potential for coalition governments to be comprised of many little one-issue parties.  That's not how you form a stable national government.


In fact, this only proves to me even further why we need a Triple-E Senate instead of PR.  That way, you would balance regional issues and representation within parliament.  Further to that, first we need to fix the provincial representation in the House of Commons to make it fair on average for each riding.  Some ridings have 80,000 people and some 130,000.  BC, Alberta, and Ontario are losing out here big time.

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.

CBC Vote Compass really really is bias

See!  I told you those Liberals were sneaky!

Turns out the guy who's a PhD analyst for the CBC Vote Compass was an adviser on Ignatieff 2006 campaign--one Peter Loewen.

Election notes - Day 6: Liberals rise, NDP fall

Nick Nanos has released a poll showing the Liberals have gained up to 4 points nationally where the NDP have dropped by about the same amount.

I'm wondering if talk of the coalition by Harper has actually scared lefty voters to just support the Liberals instead of swallowing their ideological pride and go Conservative.  Or, they hate Harper more than they like Jack and now find Ignatieff palatable.  Or that stupid CBC Vote Compass has fooled Canadians with no views into believing they're Liberal.
 
Conservative support is stagnant, so Harper appears to be solidifying his base.  But I also believe the business community have left the Liberals for the most part and are mostly Conservative now, same with immigrants.  So I believe the fight for Harper will be to sway at least 3% of centrists in Ontario.

However, this movement on the left shows me that Canadians are paying attention more than I thought.