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.

Celebrating the demise of Sun News Network?

In watching the Sun News Network (SNN), Herbal Magic appeared to be one of the major sponsors--appealing to the stay-at-home parent considering a weight-loss program.  I hear that another popular herb gave actually gave you the munchies, so I'm not really sure how these herbs worked to make you lose weight.

I find myself, and perhaps you too, watching less and less TV news.  That is, unless some major calamity strikes, I am spending more time watching Netflix and PVR'd shows, including sports, for entertainment, skipping commercials.  My news gathering is primarily online from Google News and Twitter, including any video linked to a major news network.  Radio news is my medium for the morning and in the car.

Like newspapers, TV as we knew it, is kind of dying a slow death to the digital age.  And while the freedom of the Internet with net-neutrality is now being put into question by governments and big-corporations, it is more important than ever before to prevent them from taking it over.  Big mainstream media OWNS TV, newspapers, but are also the major Internet and phone providers in this country.  There are smaller outlets, but competing for sponsor dollars is difficult in a smaller market.  All that said, TV still dominates the living rooms and dinner tables and political campaigns live and die based on the live emotion of TV.

I've recently had chats and online discussions regarding SNN going off-air after about four years of production.  "Good riddance" was an exclamation I read often.  How selective are we, to celebrate the demise of a media outlet when opinion disagrees with our views.  Don't see me hoping for the demise of Evan Solomon's show on CBC although I often am at odds of things he's spouted when watching, wait, reading and viewing videos online.

Nay! What we should be celebrating IS the array of opposing views out in media-land, rather than a single state-run TV propaganda machine coupled with an increasing corporate monopolistic media conglomerate.  Celebrate independent thought--don't dismiss it, I say.  It is often the tactic to shut down discussion

It's funny. I often hear lefties saying we need to defend the little guy over government cutbacks and big corporate takeovers, all the while smiling when the CRTC prevents a start-up TV network from being included in the carriage packages offered by, you guessed it, the big corporate media outlets.

That event alone triggered the beginning of the demise of SNN as they were then unable to gain a wider audience to secure needed sponsorship for revenue.

I had friends at SNN--yes some former Conservative Party staffers--hard-working people who strongly believed in their views for a better Canada.

At the start, I visited their seemingly rag-tag offices in downtown East Toronto and stood in Ezra's bookshelf-strewn studio, which, I learned, had a TV camera that was controlled remotely from another room. Neat, I thought.  Now, these assets will have to be sold off.

Ezra Levant, host of The Source, and as shrewd as many think, he certainly grabbed the attention of the Canadian punditry from a vast array of ideologies, stirring controversy, with his brand of defending freedom.

He, along with Brian Lilley, and Charles Adler, all provided a flair in a media crusade against nanny-state bureaucrats, while flouting common-sense idealism and conservative-libertarianism.  David Akin, a respected journalist in his own right, gave the network legitimacy.  While Adler has his ongoing radio show, Levant and Lilley are currently searching and eyeing for new platforms to continue the battle--likely Internet-based.

At a time when Trudeau politicos believe that cozying-up to extreme global terrorists in our backyard with hugs and sunshine will provide rainbows and fluff-based security, at least there was a loud voice in media-land calling out and holding a potential PM to account on this topic while other outlets floundered.

Now that the Sun News Network is off-the-air, that's one less TV outlet in the Canadian media challenging the opinions of the mainstream media and leftorinos.

In fact, no one else was doing it on TV, and now that voice is gone from that powerful medium.

For you, the viewer, take note, whether you agreed with the approach or style or opinions or views of the cast on SNN is not the point of this debate.

The point is that at least you could decide to watch and listen, to change the channel, or turn off the TV and maybe try some of that "herbal magic".

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 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!

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.

Wheat Kings

The monopsony Canadian Wheat Board is planning to have a vote to see how many of the 70,000 Western farmers want out of the pool.
 


Eliminating the CWB is the right move.  Ag Minister Gerry Ritz is correct in saying that farmers should be able to choose who they sell their grain to.

This vote is likely a sham. It's non-binding anyway. But how many of the farmers will actually vote?  How are they voting?  Are they being lobbied?  It seems like a political ploy by this monopsony and nothing more.

Canada Post strike. Air Canada strike. And now the Wheat Board.  Methinks unions of mostly monopolistic corporations are flexing their muscle against the Conservative government.

That said, after watching the documentary "Food Inc.", I'd hate for a private corporation to run all the grain in Canada like they bully American farmers with law suits and this is an argument by the CWB to maintain its existence and control while canola farmers are doing just fine in a free market.

This only continues to solidify my distaste for monopolies and monopsonies whether run by government, as an oligarchy, as crown corporations, or as private business.

And let's not forget, the CWB only applies to parts of BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.  Ontario and the rest of Canada are not part of it. 

It's time to end it.

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.

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.

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.

CPC Convention - No to youth wing :)

Another issue that never seems to go away is the creation of a party youth wing.

Back in the Reform Party days, there were mumblings about creating one, as they had a national youth director, so why not an excecutive and organization?

The party being basically a grassroots organization, had a distaste for top-down style governance.  Those of us who were heavily involved in Reform campus clubs, especially out West, were vehemently against this concept.  Why?  Simply because we were already organized at various universities and colleges.  While we appreciated the support and advice of the national youth director (a.k.a. Kory Tenycke), we also got lots of support from the local constituency associations, especially in Edmonton-Strathcona.  And the MPs were very supportive, never turning us down to come and speak at our special events and meetings.

But another point against a youth wing, and this, to me, is the #1 reason.  Now, some may say, "Hey, it's good to have youth involved in politics."  Sure!  But consider, if you will, what is deemed as "youth" at the party level.  If you're 29, guess what, you're a youth!  Ah, don't you feel young again?

We always felt that having any wings merely subjecated those groups into their own little sandbox.  If you wanted to be heard and wanted to change policy, you simply got involved at the riding level, heck start a movement within the party, propose policy, go to convention and get it voted on and passed.  If you're under 30 and wanted to get involved in the party, well, get involved!  Run for a position, or heck, even MP.

I think these youth wings are a way for the main party to push aside the youth, not have them get more involved.  Not having a youth wing, a women's wing, a chicken wing, or what have you, actually is more equal, and what is the actual reality of our current democracy.

I remember at the 2002 Canadian Alliance convention in Edmonton, where my friend, Jamie Tronnes, who was president of the campus club, continued our legacy club's policy of "No Youth Wing" and campaigned hard against one, handing out flyers, speaking against it, and giving it her all.  In fact, 6 years before that, we elder statemen, enshrined into our Reform Club constitution that we were against a youth wing.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that same structure and core belief remains in the U of A Conservative Club constitution to this day.

And I'm very glad at this convention, to see that it got defeated once again.

The Louis Riel proposal...

But check out this proposal...

Page 24 of Section B:

RESOLUTION B - 060
EDA – Calgary Southeast
Section M – Criminal Justice (NEW)
NEW

98. Canadian Citizenship and High Treason
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that any Canadian citizen, whether by birth or by naturalized grant of Canadian citizenship or by claim of landed immigrant or refugee status in Canada who commits treason by taking up arms against the Canadian Forces or the Forces of Canada’s Allies automatically invalidates his or her Canadian citizenship or claim to Canadian citizenship and, if and when returned to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Legal System, should be tried for high treason under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Take THAT Canadian Talibaners!

Oh, and you too Omar Khadr.

New tag:  treason

It's the CPC Convention!

I know it's going on because I read it on Twitter.  But I don't know where. I'd assume Ottawa. Ok, Ottawa it is.  And coming off a big win, it's probably going to be a big beer fest.  Fun stuff.

The only convention I ever went to was in Edmonton in 2002.  I was doing stage security while Mr. Harper spoke and I fended him off from photographers.  That was back in the Canadian Alliance days.  Back when he said (and I remember because I was the closest person to him), "The Canadian Alliance is strong and the Canadian Alliance is here to stay!"   I didn't believe a word of it.  I, like him, knew that unless the PCs and Reformers merge, this wouldn't work.  I knew right away when they named the party CRAP.  Who missed that?  Geezus!  So when the knives came out for Stockwell Day, I hoped Harper would step up.  And he kinda did, didn't he?  So I got involved on his leadership team, which morphed into Laurie Hawn's team.

Anyway, so now with the coveted majority, you'd think that some pretty smart people would propose some good policy that will easily become gov't policy, yes? So what policies are on the table for the Conservative Party of Canada this weekend?

Let's have a quick look shall we?


Leadership vote one-member-one-vote vs. equally weighted constituencies?   WHAT?  I thought they settled that?  So must be because there's a looming leadership race, right?   Oh, nope, Scott Reid, MP is proposing a more balanced approach formula than balanced ridings.

So with these pressing matters, there's some actual policy.  Here are the three policy streams for your perusal:

1. Canada's Social Fabric
2. Role of Gov't, Taxation, and Crime
3. Economic Development

So now we're going to go through each policy item and discuss it.  Wait, let's not. What's the point?  Barely any of these are ever going to become gov't policy anyway.

I don't ever remember calling Quebec "a nation" ever brought up at a convention or heck, even discussed.  I don't ever remember this idea of the Tax Free Savings Account.  Maybe it was, but no one remembers.

So what's the point of these conventions?  Well, it's to keep the grassroots old Reform policy wonks happy, like they think they'll actually make a difference.  Maybe they will now with this majority--it was REALLY pointless back in the Reform days.

In the meantime, it seems like I'm missing a really good beer fest.

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?

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.

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.