Political Commentary from a Nobody

And You Do What Exactly?

2006-07-13T00:00:00.000-05:00

The Liberal Party convention this December will be more then just a late night, late ballot slugfest for leadership of the party, it will also being electing its executives for the party as well as the commissions. For myself, the interest lays with the youth wing, the Young Liberals of Canada. Richard Diamond the current president I have never met, he is most likely a great guy who puts in a lot of time and effort into making the party great and engaging youth. The thing is, I’m not exactly sure what he does, nor what the YLC does overall. This might be because of my ignorance or my relative infancy in partisan politics but the questions for me still stands. What exactly do they do? I know what the provincial youth wings attempt to accomplish and the events they put on to do so but what does the national wing do. Outside of administrative tasks such as ratifying student clubs for eligibility to send delegates to the convention I have yet to hear or see of the initiatives they are doing.

Oh Renewal

2006-06-23T12:24:00.000-05:00

Do not get me wrong, I think the Renewal Commission in theory is a good idea, and something I support. Problem is, the way it has been created or introduced I do not. Hopefully I am wrong, and it just hasn’t really started to get moving yet but so far I am have little confidence. Jason brought up the problem of who has been selected to ‘chair’ the various policy groups. It is a cross-section of the elite of the party, and the elites of society. Too many former MPs are involved; many are part of the problem that we need a such a commission in the first place.

What exactly do these policy chairs do? What is the format? How will the grassroots be consulted? If you look at the website none of these details are listed or explained. So far I have not been invited to any meetings in Ottawa, have there even been any? Will there be any?

Liberals want to have a discussion with each other. What will the focus be of the party for this 21st century. How do we reform the internal organization of the party to meet those needs, adapt to the realities of the country and technological and communications changes? I hope I am all wrong and the commission has really yet to launch. Somehow though I believe it will be like many other ‘taskforces’ that I have seen in my lifetime. The elites write a report to themselves and nothing ever changes.

Sorry Dion, Kennedy is New Ideas

2006-06-18T13:43:00.000-05:00

This entire Kennedy has-no-policy/ideas wind is starting to get on my nerves. Obviously I am biased but it really makes little sense to me. Kennedy is one of the only candidates to release compressive policy papers beginning with immigration and the environment. Dion’s attack during the debate was unfair, firstly Gerard had no time to respond and secondly saying that you will extent an existing program is not really “new policy ideas”. There are a lot of candidates in the race that have actually brought forth no new ideas or even old ideas.

Now I understand where some of this line of attack on Kennedy comes from. He uses a lot of verbiage which sounds like platitudes. “Doing politics differently” and such seem like the empty rhetoric which we all have heard time and time again. But look beyond the face of the words and read into what exactly he is proposing. It is time to take the Liberals to the next level of progression. I believe we are the natural governing party, unlike some this is not because of some god given right but because of our views and policies mold best with Canadians. Gerard in my opinion is the best option to bring our party back to where it has to be.

Kennedy’s Balanced Environmental Approach

2006-06-17T12:56:00.000-05:00

So I hope everyone has had a chance to take a look at Kennedy’s environmental policy that was released yesterday. You have to admit it is a practical approach to a complex and difficult issue. I will admit right off the bat that I am not an environmental expert, nor to me has it ever been a major issue when I make a decision. That all being said it has got me going, it a real effective balance between achieving sustainable development and yet doing it within the economic framework which allows for economic growth. Ignatieff carbon tax policy is a good policy if the only goal is greenhouse reduction; problem is it would be an economic disaster and one which would again split the country.

Economic incentives for companies to produce green technology and invest in research in development are a must. While a strong tax incentive for those why purchase hybrid cars while at the sometime providing a disincentive to purchase gas guzzling vehicles promotes and pushes consumer auto consumption in the correct direction. Yet at the same time not providing too great of an incentive or too strong of a disincentive to skew the market in an unreasonable or unproductive way.

Also creating and reinstating government programs which promote retro fitting of homes and businesses to be more energy efficient. The practical solutions to the environment are difficult in the modern age. Economic competitiveness holds back many of the best solutions and at the same time because of our federal system, many of the key areas which need to be tackled are outside of Ottawa’s jurisdiction. Gerard provides effective, practical and reachable solutions in areas which we can control. The environment is an important issue, and Kennedy understands real ways to tackle the problems it faces. I look forward to hearing more.

Why I am supporting Gerard Kennedy

2006-05-09T22:43:00.000-05:00

My decision did not come lightly, after personally meeting many of the candidates, reading thought a fair amount of information, talking it over with friends and pondering it myself for quiet sometime I have decided to support Gerard Kennedy. My decision was based on a few things, obviously some semblance of vision and policy is required and so is experience, but also electability in an general election as well as someone who can take the party to a new place.

The party is in a low state right now, Canadians opinion of the party has failed obviously but so have loyal party members. We must fix both problems yet at the same time recognize it will not take one or two years but four or six. I overheard a discussion between two Iggie supporters talking about their chances in the next election. They believe that if Iggie wins then the Liberals have the best chance they thought to win in two, but if the Liberals would lose with him at that time, the party would be screwed. Harper will be in power I believe for four to six years, and the goal should be not what the above Iggie troops were hoping for. The goal must be to take power in four to six and keep it for at least two strong majority terms. I think Kennedy is the person who can do this.

Kennedy is young, almost bilingual, has a great story and has been a life long Liberal with none of the baggage. Do not discount how important this will all be come election time. He will be almost immune from the attacks of the opposition who will be trying to rehash sponsorship. He also has a record to stand on in politics of the biggest Canadian province, managing a department whose budget is bigger then some provinces. He also has an amazing pre-politics story, running and founding two food banks gives him credibility when it comes to social issues.

Being a life long Liberal and having none of the federal party baggage is key for creating a strong party within. Having the ability to unite the wings of the party as well as attracting those who were hesitant to get involved because of the perceived internal problems will be invaluable.

Kennedy though has something to work on, his French from what I have heard is not as bilingual as everyone thought. Also his verbiage is still very provincial, he will have to work harder to switch from the provincial mindset to the federal one if he wants a better chance to win the crown come December.

I also wanted to mention some thought on the other candidate. I have much respect for Dryden and Dion and if it comes to a second ballot would highly consider them. But there ability to connect with all Canadians is a problem, sadly it is a superficial one but it an important one. Michael Ignateiff, I also have much respect for, but as a professor. His complete lack of any experience in leadership and politics is a huge problem and also his electability concerns me.

HRDC Back Again (Sort of)

2006-02-06T19:13:00.000-05:00

An interesting aside to all of this cabinet related news. Diane Finley becomes Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in Prime Minister Harper’s slim down cabinet. What is interesting about all of this is that the Conservatives actually supported the splitting of the former Department of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) into the two departments of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD) and Social Development Canada (SDC). Yet Harper in his new cabinet has decided that this wasn’t a good idea and he is putting both departments under the privy of one minister.

Voting is Beautiful

2006-01-23T15:44:00.000-05:00

I am not sure if its just the fact that I cant actually imagine the Liberals not in power yet or maybe something else but you have to admit today is a beautiful day. Yes, I don’t believe we should actually be having an election but that is a debate is irrelevant obviously and here we are on the election date. There is something to be said about making a mark on a ballot and putting it the slot that makes you feel alive. Does not matter who you vote for, the feeling is there for everyone. Although too little of us actually vote for those who do it, it is something to watch. Citizens of this country are deciding on their future. The people of this country will speak today, they will tell the political parties, the leaders, the spin doctors and all of us political watchers that at the end of the day they make the final decision. Our system has flaws, the campaign is rarely done in high discourse but exercising your right (although I believe it is more then that) to decide the priorities and path of Canada is something we take for granted. Voting is important, if you do not like the system or the parties then spoil your ballot in protest. For those who say that political doesn’t affect them, I say look deeper because it most certainly does.

If you haven’t voted yet, get out there and do it!

Predictions

2006-01-22T21:58:00.000-05:00

Liberal: 94
Conservatives: 129
NDP: 24
Bloc: 59
Ind: 2

So opposition….

2006-01-11T18:11:00.000-05:00

How does that work exactly? Do I still have to go to class on the 24th? The mail will still be coming, right?

A Look At Ottawa (Part I)

2006-01-08T23:39:00.000-05:00

Ottawa-Centre
Well Super Ed is gone and that means that there is in fact a race of simple mortals. The race is essentially between Richard Mahoney, former Ontario Liberal Party president and Paul Martin Executive Assistant and NDP candidate Paul Dewer who’s mother was the city’s mayor a while back. In terms of quality of candidates, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader David Cherchenko is running and he could possibly be the best of the lot. The Liberals should win the riding but it will be very close. Dewer is running in Broadbent’s shadow and he knows it. All his campaign literature have Ed’s face all over it and so does the website. Mahoney is running a good campaign and since has the national connections he will be sure to have the resources he needs.

Prediction:Liberal Pickup

Ottawa-South
The Tories have a star candidate running here, sponsorship scandal whistleblower Allan Cutler. Problem is nobody knows who he is. The Conservatives have run a lackluster campaign here and that will allow David McGuinity to win this riding once again. Cutler is not a household name outside of political fanatics. When it comes to names of sponsorship characters he is not A-list (which if you think about is a good thing). Getting his story out is hard, normal door-to-door campaign literature is not that effective and he is not receiving much earned media. The major Ottawa press has not covered this riding and that is a major hinderers when the focus you need is on your candidates background.

Prediction:Liberal Hold

Ottawa-West Nepean
Former Harris cabinet minister John Baird is running against newcomer and former Ottawa Councilor Lee Farnworth. Baird isn’t very popular, added that this isn’t even his riding but he is known and that sometimes means just as much. Last time around the Liberal campaign thought they had lost this riding but ended up pulling it off in the end. One of the big reason that Sean Casey (2004 Tory candidate) lost was not just his lack of experience but there lack of troops on the ground. They had major manpower problems on E-Day which was a significant problem. With the trends nationally, Baird is expected to win this riding handily but I have heard from a reliable source that an internal Farnworth poll showed that they are in fact ahead in the riding as of mid-December (before the major shifts). Thus the Liberals are starting to put in major resources in the riding. It will be a Tory win but a lot closer then it could have been.

Prediction:Conservative Pick Up

Nepean-Carleton, Ottawa-Orleans, Ottawa-Vanier to come….

Rather Have a Bastion of Patronage, than Senate Reform

2005-12-31T00:41:00.000-05:00

Senate reform could become a reality with a Conservative victory. Not sure how far they plan to go with a minority government besides holding elections for vacant spots. I am totally opposed to senate reform, if I had my way it would be abolished. Since that is not a likely solution I would rather have it impotent and irrelevant as it is now then elected and legitimate. The “sober second thought” was created so that that there would be a check on the ‘people’. The elite did not know what the people (minus women, aboriginals and most ethnic minorities) would do when they had the power to elect their own representatives.

So what happens if we elected a senate? Simply put trouble ahead. If the senate is elected it becomes legitimate and that is not a good thing. Two houses of parliament would become a battle ground, a fight between two bodies of legislatures in which the legislative process is the target. As we see with our neighbors to the south and in Europe competitive legislative bodies lead most often to watering down of the government’s agenda. Is this what we want?

I have little faith that any time soon that provision will be removed or any distribution of seats will change. Opening up the constitution is not something any party wants to do. So what happens when we elected senators as Harper wants to do right away, remember they will serve to 75What you have then is a legitimately elected senator who knows feels he has the backing of the population; problem is he will not be accountable anymore. Now, I know what your thinking. How can you say that an elected senator then becomes unaccountable when a appointed one never is even chosen by the people? The simple answer is that senators roles are different in this system then in an elected one. Senators know there role, which now is unless a piece of legislation is so bad then they must rubber stamp it. When they become elected, they will do more then that. They will start opposing legislation passed by the House of Commons.

The senate is a plum job, and you get there by knowing people in the top jobs. I know its bad old patronage but I rather waste my money filling the seats of that hole then elect them. Yes I sometimes have to re-read what I wrote when I right a sentence like that. Its not a good thing but its better then the proposed solution.

Relative Not Absolute Gains

2005-12-30T14:11:00.000-05:00

If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister on the night of the 23rd we will all survive. I was having a coffee today and I was thinking to myself, is it Harper would do harm to Canada or will he just do little good. The answer is both really. In terms of policy and legislative agenda he will do no harm. His free child money is not going to do bad to this country as it is not regressive in the sense that the Liberal’s plan has barely been started. What it wouldn’t do is much good, $25 a week is not buying anyone childcare. His GST tax cuts, will help me personally as a student who doesn’t make nearly enough to pay income tax and you cannot argue that the tax is bad. What you can argue and rightfully so is that it will do less good for the country then an income tax cut. I would like somebody to tell me that the Conservative plan to increase minimum sentences is bad. It might not be the best way to deal with crime but it is not doing any harm.

So in essence you have a party that has policies that if they become government will do good things for the country. The question to ask is, if there policies will do as much good as Liberal ones. I would argue no and I believe that most Canadians* believe the same thing here. They see the Tory policy and say, not my first choice of ways to approach each issue but it is something at least. The Liberal problem besides childcare and handgun policy is that they have announced no new policy to juxtapose. The Liberals are against a GST tax cuts but if you think about it they never said they would instead make an equal cut in income taxes. Remember that pre-election mini-budget was enacted already and thus the tax cuts have already gone through. So if the Tories came to power those income tax cuts would still stand.

On the part where they will hurt this country is Quebec. I hate having to write this because I have always believed you should vote for something then vote against something. The Tories are likely going to win no seats in the province and if they form government it will be a huge problem for unity. Having no Quebec representation of the government in the House of Commons is huge. Having no elected Quebec MPs in the cabinet is a major problem for national unity. I have had problems reconciling with myself how to address this major issue.

So at the end of the day a Tory government is not a bad thing, it is just not as good as a Liberal victory. The sun will rise on the 24th no matter the outcome. It is really a game of relative gains not absolute ones.

*When I state “I believe Canadians….”, what I in fact mean is I am actually guessing.

Banning Handguns-Thinking Long Term

2005-12-08T13:27:00.000-05:00

It is true, banning handguns isn’t going to help solve the immediate crisis in inner city Toronto and Vancouver. Yet that does not mean that we should not ban them. I will always remember when I was around eleven or twelve and I learned that it was actually legal to own a gun other then for hunting. I had always assumed that here in Canada it was illegal and that we understood that owning guns has no real purpose. It is true people kill people but people use guns to kill people also.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is a good idea, I have no problem with such a policy and I encourage it but we need to recognize that it will also not solve the problems. The issue isn’t so much keeping those who offend in prison, the bigger issue is how to get more people who offend in prison to begin with or more specifically how do we catch them. The key here is two fold, first more police are needed on the streets to both deter those who wish to commit crimes and secondly to arrest and prosecute those who do. Another issue which needs to be debated is the social and root causes of the problems. None of the parties have really addressed this issue yet so I will withhold my comments on that subject as it is a debate that is way to complex for a few short lines.

In the long term banning handguns will have a positive effect on society, and I really have not heard an argument on why it wouldn’t. All I have seen or read is why it doesn’t solve the immediate problems in areas such as Jane and Finch. I have read stats that 50% of guns used in crimes are illegally imported from the states. I think everyone can agree then that we need to put more resources into our border security to stop that. But what about that other 50%, I mean I doubt a large percentage is coming over by cargo ship. Now it is true those who commit most armed robberies or murders in these areas do not legally obtain weapons, but at some point that weapon was purchased by someone legally. Many times weapons are stolen from those who owned it legally or it has changed hands many times but at some point it entered society is a legal weapon in many instances. By banning handguns you stop that weapon from entering the system.

Secondly, we forget about other types of crimes that are committed outside of these gang related murders. Many hand guns are used to commit murder in spousal situations. Those guns are in fact most of the time legally purchased. By taking away the means of the crime you in many circumstances are taking away the crime entirely. I know that in many cases a person might commit that same crime with a knife or other means but for a small few they will not.

Let us look past the fact that this is an inadequate solution to a major problem and made primarily for optics during an election campaign. At the end of the day the policy, maybe for many other reasons is a positive step.

Youth Apathy: A Possible Solution

2005-12-07T15:39:00.000-05:00

Part II, how do we get youth to vote. Mandatory voting I have always been against this because we should be sending people to the polls who want to vote not forcing them to cast a ballot in which many wouldn’t have a clue who and what they are voting for. But what we should do is lower the voting age to 16, but I qualify that (ironically this was suggested in the article I attacked earlier today). I have to admit that I am new to believing that a lowered vote age is good for Canada. I used to side with the camp that since those at the age are overwhelmingly uniformed (even more so then the next age group up 18-25) it would be frivolous and possibly hazardous.

So what exactly is the qualification that would need to be included for me to support the lowering of the voting age. It would b a mandatory mini-civics program in the lead up to the election date in high school. Now I am not saying we force students to skip lunch to come to this but would it be was during English class (a subject which is mandatory for all levels of high school) two or three classes are taken up through the campaign to teach students the system, the issues and give then a chance to read the platforms of the parties.

Now, this is a tad harder then it seems as you would need the agreement of all the provinces but I believe even with teachers whining about losing class time to this they would all be on board. Another qualification would be that a voting station should be located in the school. Thus they can easily access the polls to vote, and in most cases the high schools are a voting station anyways. (now I am aware that in some cases where students travel out of their ridings or even polls to go to school this is a problem which I have no answer to).

The philosophy behind this that high school is an opportunity where the government has access to almost every single person within a certain age group and with that they can promote the importance of voting. Here we have a chance to teach those at a very young age about the system and at the same time they will have the opportunity to take what they learned and use it.

I am not so sure I am convinced on the reasons why those 16 should be afforded the same rights as someone 18 but I will support the measure because it is an opportunity to start to get youth voting. If we engrain in their system at an age where we have access to so many of them that voting is an important thing and it is easy they will be more likely to continue doing it. Studies show that once you start voting you are extremely more likely to vote in the next election then someone who did not vote.

Youth Apathy: Faulty Premise

2005-12-07T14:35:00.000-05:00

So why don’t we vote (we; youth or those under the age of 25) is a question that everyone thinks they have the answer to. Is it because we have no faith in are political leaders, is it because they do not talk about issues that matter to us, is it because we rather be doing something else, is it because we are simply uniformed? Problem is everyone who asks this question is someone who is obviously engaged with the political process and is interested.

I have always found it funny when panels of youth are on a TV discussing why youth are much less likely to cast a ballot then adults. Problem is these people are usually representing either a political party, or a youth organization such as Rush the Vote. I would love to see them put three guys who have no idea about who is running or even that there is an election ask those guys for their opinions.

One of the most popular explanations for voter apathy in youth is that political leaders are not relevant to us and that the issue they discuss do not effect our demographic. Problem with this thesis is that the data simply does not back this up. Youth are interested in the same issues as adults. Healthcare is important to them, so is the economy. Education and the environment are also important but contrary to public believe this is not the most important issues for us.

The other explanation, that cynicism thesis also does not check out. In fact youth are more satisfied with our political leaders and the system then adults. We are just as skeptical as adults about election promises and when it came to the sponsorship scandal, ditto, we were just as pissed as are parents.

So why I am discussing this, today in the G&M an article appeared on the op-ed page about youth and our low voting tendencies. The article made some recommendations which I will discuss maybe at a different date but the premise on why we do not vote in the article is wrong like so many others on this important issue.

This basic premises are what groups such as Rush the Vote and other groups have been basing their campaigns on. How can you create a program to encourage youth participation when it is based on a fault assumptions? No wonder why they have been utter failures.

Note: my sources come from the yearly Canadian Election Study, http://www.ces-eec.umontreal.ca/ces.html among many many many other academic publications I have read on this incredibly boring topic.

Canada's UN Reform Plan

2005-08-03T08:57:00.000-05:00

Our UN Ambassador Allan Rock last week introduced a resolution to the General Assembly on the topic of UN reform. In his resolution he calls for the incensement of the Security Council to 25 positions, adding 10 two-year non-renewable positions. The resolution and the new government specific position on UNSC reform in the end is counterproductive and simply not good policy.

The UN issued in December its report from its High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change which called for the expansion of the UNSC to 24 seats in two possible configurations. One was adding new permanent not veto wielding members and the second was adding some new six year renewal seats. I favour the second way personally as it seems to be the only option that could be passed. The first option pushed by what is being called the G-4: Brazil, Germany, Japan and India has little chance of ever moving past the idea stage. Pakistan would oppose India, Italy would oppose Germany, China-Japan and Argentina-Brazil. The second method allows for long term security seats but at the same time not indefinite. In ten, twenty or thirty years the configuration of global power states could be radically different.

Back to Canada's position on this. After the report was released Canada like all countries applauded it and then went into hiding. Allan Rock did a few speeches, the PM released a statement but little on Canada's specific position was given. Later in the spring we learned they did not favour the first proposal of adding the new arrangement of not-veto members but last week we learn that they are not in favour of either of the proposals.

So now Canada and backed by Argentina, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and some other smaller nations want a whole new reform idea, something which on its own is a near impossibility. The fact is the UN needs to be reformed and member states needed to pick a plan (if any reform plan at all) and push it. Not decide to move back to the drawing table.

The faults in the new Canada backed plan are many, simply adding more 2 year term members does little to the council and does not recognize the changing global leadership structure outside of the US that we all want to happen. Adding longer term renewable seats allows for these countries to take their seat at the table and have a minor leg to stand on when challenging the so called "great powers". Nobody talks about fixing the UNSC for good reason, since it cannot be done but they are talking about bring credibility to the council. It is time to reach out to Africa, Latin America and the new economic powers by giving them a little more then some more token seats. The idea being that these new longer seats will be used to elected regional power-players of sorts. It is time Canada pushes a for real reform by promoting one of the proposed and widely backed suggestions so that meaningful reform happens.

No Senate But Off To Boston

2005-08-02T19:07:00.000-05:00

Well looks like old Revenue Minister and Martin backer Stan Keyes is off to be the new Consul General to Boston. Big day for appointments on the diplomatic front also.

Mayor of London Speaks

2005-07-07T14:41:00.000-05:00

I saw on TV this morning London Mayor Ken Livingstone speaking to the media and I thought that he made a great speech. I finally found the transcript and I encourage you all to read it.

Text of statement delivered by Ken Livingstone

“This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11 in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

I’d like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I’m proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

Streets of London

2005-07-07T12:36:00.000-05:00

I thought I would change things up and bring you a post from Richard, who writes a blog with his friend Ken in the UK called Militant Moderates about the events today in London.

I'm listening to Ralph McTell's 'Streets of London', which Ken introduced me to a few months ago. I wanted to break my self-imposed break from blogging to offer some thoughts after the blast in London today.

The most moving image of the day, for me, was the BBC interview with an old World War II veteran, who had been on the way to a reunion with other old soldiers, when he was caught up in the attacks. He simply said, nonchalantly, "well, we've been through it before, haven't we?"

The key response of London and the whole of Britain must be to adopt a defiant spirit of the Blitz, and to offer resistance not through acts of wrath but by carrying on our everyday lives, in silent acts of defiance that we won't allow anything to change as a result of the blasts. Dramatic changes in the British way of life would represent a clear victory for terrorism, and invariably serve little actual purpose in reducing the likelihood of attacks.

I realise there is some irony in invoking the spirit of the Blitz, when some civil liberties were curbed during the Second World War, but reflection on these invariably shows they served little practical purpose, and to transplant tactics from a traditional total war to a terrorist attack is probably unhelpful. Indeed, the sterling work of the police, ambulance and fire services today reinforces the fact that these terrorist attacks are so horrific and frightening precisely because they are not warfare in any conventional sense. And while metaphors to Pearl Harbour and the Blitz are certainly apt in communicating shock or defiance, it's important not to extend the metaphors into finding solutions. This is not a "war on terror" in the sense that it cannot be fought as a war, but is an infinitely complicated police operation.

There has never been any hesitation within Britain that international terrorism must be opposed; indeed, the conversion of America to opposing terrorism, after years of equivocation in their relationship with the IRA, was welcome. What is vital now is that a programme of aggressive support for human rights overseas continues. This will mean challenging state sponsors of terrorism, and also the corrupt pro-Western regimes such as Saudi Arabia, where the majority of 9/11 bombers came from. I have no doubt that such a resolve will hold, even if there is healthy debate on the best ways of achieving the fundamental aims of that policy.

What's important now is to take pride in the emergency services' brilliant work, in the deeply competent efforts of the Government, and in the good spirit in which London has reacted. I take great pride in an understated national response, and I very much hope that the best traditions of Britain will be born out in the coming days. It is imperative, even if, as is likely, domestic extremists were involved, there is no back-lash against the law-abiding and peaceful Islamic community in Britain.

The very essence of a British response must be to offer rational and calm defiance, eager that the best way to avenge the dead of London is by living; living normally.

"We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the undergrounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

Making The Pledge

2005-06-22T08:22:00.000-05:00

Jeffery Simpson wrote an interesting article in today's Globe and Mail (I will try to scan it and post later). He spoke about the famed 0.7 pledge , and how reaching it is not so simple. That the aid target for the western world is a significant sum of money and that to reach will need to be done by cutting spending or raising taxes. He is correct and it made me look back on my utter laughter yesterday during question period when Paul Martin escaped an NDP question about making the commitment with some nonsensical response about promising something when you do not have a plan to accomplish it. Now my laughter was not without merit since Mr. Martin has been promising the world to everyone lately without much thought.

This all being said we must strike a balance between our foreign aid and creating a pro-business environment and yet having strong social programs we so cherish. But it is time to make the pledge, and it is time to create a plan to follow through. We are spending billions of dollars trying to meet our Kyoto target and stop the effects of global warming. Should we not put that money towards saving lives today. As I write this I am reading through Bill C-48 the NDP-Liberal budget and of the 4.5 billion committed only 500 million is towards foreign aid. Yet we are spending 1.5 billion more on post-secondary education. Granted I am all for putting money in helping students afford university, I am a student myself and I know the problems and its worthwhile results. At the end of the day though the 1.5 billion more would help relieve the massive debts of graduating students but what is more important to us, less debt for students or less debt for countries who cannot feed their citizens.

Yes we need to strike a balance, but we need to make that a balance fairer for those with no voice.

I Wish I Could Have Avoided This Post

2005-06-03T15:47:00.000-05:00

I honestly tired to not talk about this issue but it really has taken a life of its own. So will take a break from our regularly schedule program of the Prime Minister Rankings (I will finish up this weekend) for my irrelevant opinions on the Grewal Matter.

Q: Did the Liberals offer Grewal and/or his wife something to cross the follow?

A: Yes and no. They did not offer Grewal anything specifically just the idea that he could be rewarded in the future. They did this not because they knew that offering an opposition member something as reward for his vote is wrong but because nobody wants Grewal in cabinet or his wife in the senate. As much as I believed Belinda is an idiot, she at least has star power and could (I stress could) be an asset in cabinet. This is something Grewal is not, he has a checkered past remember. Also it is important to remember that neither Murphy or Dosanjh knew that they were being tape recorded so the fact that they were speaking in such terms was more so they made sure not to promise Grewal as an individual something. If this was another MP from the opposition, somebody bigger then I have no doubt they would have done the same thing as they had done with Belinda and promise something specific.

Q: What do you think about the edited tapes?

A: This is the best part. The Liberals line on this is that they cannot be trusted at all because they were edited. This is not really correct. Although there is evidence of splicing it is only a few times. Meaning what he probably did was cut out all the non incrementing things. What Grewal did not due though is put together sentences that were not spoken. He edited the tapes probably to remove all the parts where he looks like he is really pushing for something. I do not buy the whole story that he was doing a sting operation on the Liberals. What is more likely of a story is that he wanted something and didn’t get it so he pretended he was going undercover to soften the embarrassment.

Q: Should Tim Murphy and Ujjal Dosanjh step down until an investigation by either the RCMP or the Ethics commissioner is completed like Sgro?

A: Who cares. I mean really it is not like either of them are very good. Murphy has not done a good job running Martin’s office and Dusanjh hasn’t really done anything at all.

Q: What about the Tories?

A: When the tapes first broke the Tories really didn’t push hard at all. They knew something was up, they knew Grewal was a disgruntled backbencher with a history of stuff like this. The problem was the NDP and the Bloc pressed the issue and the Tories were forced to back Grewal over there mortal enemy. Harper and the CPC look bad in this while thing and to be honest it is not your fault.

Q: So who is right and who is wrong?

A: Everyone loses here. Grewal obviously because he is a cheat and a liar and the Liberals lose because at the end of the offering or pretending to offer in this case rewards for votes is not a good thing. But let us be realistic here, this has always happened and is the nature of the game. That is why I do not care about this whole issue. Now how is that for complacency?

Keep Them Coming (PM Rankings Part IV)

2005-05-28T08:26:00.000-05:00

Number 6-Jean Chrétien

The little guy from Shawanigan has been Prime Minister the majority of my life, and most of that time I was waiting for Paul the Great to take over. He has been taking a lot of hits in the past year for obvious reasons but at the end of the day we have to remember what he did for his country. Yes it was Paul Martin at Finance who has gotten all the credit for slaying the deficit but at the end of the day it was Chrétien who should get the real credit as he was the one who took the heat for the massive expenditure cuts and allowed his ministers the freedom to make the hard decisions.

Facing the greatest threat of Quebec Sovereignty to date Chrétien, led the ‘Non’ side to victory in the closest referendum hopefully we will ever see. The controversy of the Clarity Act gave legal legitimacy to sovereigntist movement but let us be honest it was a bold step and for that he deserves praise.

Smaller accomplishments such as the complete overhaul of Youth Justice and the creation of the Young Offenders Act (for good or for bad) will be something people will not remember but it was something that was badly needed. Winning three straight majorities is still a huge accomplishment even if it was against such a divided opposition. It was also Chrétien who first started us on the road to same-sex legislation, not Paul.

When he stood up in the House of Commons and announced Canada would not partake in the invasion of Iraq, it was a significant point in our modern history. In the deep integrated relationship we have with our southern neighbor, such a decision is much harder then it seems.

At the end of the day the Sponsorship Scandal and his frequent lapses in judgment when dealing with ethical issues will be his legacy but it doesn’t mean it should.

Number 5-Sir Robert Laird Borden

It is hard for us to understand what a strong leader during war means to a country. Borden will be best known and rightfully so as the Prime Minister who led us through World War I. The 1917 Conscription Crisis pitted English Canada and against Quebec one again. Borden offer for a wartime unity government was a bold one but ended up hurting him in Quebec even more when no Liberals from the province accepted his invitation to cabinet.

Borden though major accomplishments were in creating Canadian independence on the world stage. Up till then whenever Canada had fought in a war it had been under the British Flag (literally and figuratively) but Borden wanted Canada to have its own military. When the war was over Borden fought hard for Canada to have its own delegation at the Paris Peace Conference and ended up being the Canadian representative at the negotiations. This also allowed Canada to sign the treaty individually and thus be a member outright of the League.

Although for a majority of his term he was fighting off scandal after scandal Borden was a strong leader and one in which the country could rally around in a time of war. Something we really cannot comprehend today.

Getting Closer (PM Rankings Part III)

2005-05-27T13:31:00.000-05:00

Number 10-Alexander Mackenzie

Who? Not very many people know Mr. Mackenzie as he is easily mixed up with other famous Mackenzies such as Prime Minister Mackenzie King or his grandfather rebellion of 1837 leader in Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie. Not as famous as either of those two but Prime Minister Mackenzie was the one who brought in the Supreme Court, the secret ballot, RMC, Auditor General (not a big deal then but thanks to Mrs. Fraiser it is now) among other things.

Number 9-Louis St. Laurent

The academic Prime Minister was really the legacy that St. Laurent would leave. He was one who knew everything about the government, and everything about each portfolio. Although External Affairs Minister Pearson received all the credit for resolving the Suez crisis it was under his watch. He also helped establish NATO and brought the tenth province Newfoundland into confederation. He also laid the groundwork for the old age pension system as well as expanding the Trans-Canada highway.

Number 8-Lester B. Pearson

Pearson is somebody which I always feel deserves to be higher but pretty much all his accomplishments were due to a minority government or things that happened before he was Prime Minister. He was probably best known for resolving the Suez Crisis (which won him the Nobel prize) as External Affairs Minister and the creation of the modern-day peacekeeping idea. Domestically he oversaw the universal Medicare system we have now as well as the creation of the Maple Leaf as our flag.

Number 7-Brian Mulroney

Possibly the modern day devil but you have to give credit where credit is due. He over saw landmark legislation and landmark failures. US-Canada Free Trade and the Canada Health Act are two pieces of legislation that we cherish yet the GST is something we really cannot forget (literally). Failures such as Meech and Charlottetown are what he will always be remembered by at the end of the day. Still, Mulroney was pretty daring and took many chances. More then another other Prime Minister in decades and for that he gets his due.

Prime Ministers...Number 14 thrugh 11

2005-05-26T20:21:00.000-05:00

Number 14- Sir Arthur Meighen

Two brief stints as Prime Minister, one as short as they can be (under a month and that also includes an election campaign. As Minister of Justice he quashed the Winnipeg General Strike by force, not sure that was a good thing at all. You have to give Meighen credit, he never gave up. Lost his seat in 1921 after King came to power, after Byng let him form government and he was defeated right after he still did not give up. Took a senate seat and in 1941 ran to be leader of the Tories again and won but lost his by-election to return to the House.

Number 13- R.B. Bennett

Well little could anger a country more so then a wealthy business man coming to power in the height of the depression. R.B. was fearful of communism and succumb to the red scare. He amended the criminal code to allow for immediate imprisonment for anyone who even looked like a commie. Bennett’s government also got in trouble when they ordered an assassination attempt against the Communist Party Leader Tim Buck who had been arrested. He did have some noteworthy accomplishments though such as the Bank of Canada, Canadian Wheat Board and the processor to the CBC.

Number 12- Sir John Thompson

I guess he gets to be number twelve because he was not a bad Prime Minister. Then again he was not a good one either. Then again what did he do? I guess the highlight of his two year legacy is that he died in office while on a trip to England.

Number 11-John Diefenbaker

You either like Dief or you do not. I do not like him at all. Although the Bill of Right is something which should be applauded as a principle piece of Canadian legislation, it was really all that Dief could be proud of. I guess in hindsight blunders like scrapping the Avro Arrow which shall ever be ingrained in my generations’ minds thanks to Heritage Moments and a CBC Mini-Series. Although NORAD is an important piece of our defense, Diefenbaker’s love affair with military integration with seen by many as a huge error in judgment.

Picking Up Where Trudeau Generation Left Off

2005-05-26T01:50:00.000-05:00

A month ago a new blog called Trudeau Generation began a ranking of Prime Ministers of Canada. Staring with the worst and moving up towards the best. Problem was, after only two Prime Ministers the blog went idle. Well, I deciding I am going to pick up he slack and finish the list off.

So far coming in at number twenty (also known as the worst Prime Minister in our history) was Sir Mackenzie Bowell and not far at nineteen was John Abbot.

So without further adieu I present to you numbers 18 through 14

Number 18- Kim Campbell

Oh Kim, even as a school trustee in Vancouver you was a huge jackass. As Prime Minister you will be remembered as the one who did not believe elections were the time to have policy discussions. As our first female Prime Minister you really mad have the population look pretty bad. Thankfully you were turfed just months after being sworn in.

Number 17-Charles Tupper

I guess Tupper’s greatest accomplishment was that he lived to be 94, and at that time that was one hell of an accomplishment. He was also wore out his welcome as Premier of Nova Scotia as he was resented by the local population for being a big supporter of John A. Macdonald’s vision for a powerful centralized government. As Prime Minister he can be remembered only for being there for a few months.

Number 16-John Turner

Kind of reminds you of Paul Martin. Highly popular but the time you got into office you are marred in controversy. At least with Turner he brought it on himself with his indulgent in patronage appointments. Thankfully for many he again only lasted a couple months (literally) and was booted out of office. He is still kicking around somewhere.

Number 15-Joe Clark

Joe who? It is funny, as a Prime Minister he was an utter failure but now he is still one of the most respected Canadians around. Still though his huge increase in fuel taxes after saying he wouldn’t raise taxes was something nobody liked. Walked himself into a non-confidence motion soon after and thanks to a few abstaining So’Creds he was defeated just over a year into his mandate.

The Enemies I Like

2005-05-23T14:05:00.000-05:00

Well here is list numero deux

My First Gimmick

2005-05-21T22:44:00.000-05:00

Well I present to you my first gimmick idea called 'Seven Days, Seven Lists'. For the next week each day I will present you with a list. Everyone lives lists, and so do I. Our first list is in honour of Belinda Stronach new cabinet position (I left off Dan McTeague on purpose and also Don Boudria since he is retiring soon).

Hilarious Gomery Witness of the Week

2005-05-15T12:43:00.000-05:00

Meet Richard Boudreault

Ottawa Prediction Update

2005-05-15T02:53:00.000-05:00

Ottawa-West Nepean

Well Ottawa West-Nepean MP Marlene Catteral has decided she will not run again after saying she would. In a email I received it said this is due to her husbands health. To be honest, I think it is more to do with her facing off against John Baird and the ass-kicking she was going to get. Well Marlene, you did nothing for the riding and were irrelevant. Enjoy retirement. I had the pleasure of campaigning for her last year, not sure if it was really a pleasure but it was something.
Prediction:

If It Even Matters Tonight.....

2005-05-10T09:54:00.000-05:00

It is A Vote of Confidence

2005-05-09T20:06:00.000-05:00

The Liberals are declaring tomorrow’s backhanded motion proposed today by the Tories not a vote of confidence. I grudgingly have to disagree and I believe this in fact a motion of confidence. Forgetting the fact that I do not believe the motion should be in order at all, but since the Speaker has ruled that it is, we must accept it is a motion of confidence against the government.

The vote is an amendment of a concurrence motion of a Public Accounts Committee report talking about the misdoings of former Parliamentary Privacy Commissioner which was presented to parliament last fall. The amendment proposed today by the Conservative House Leader Jay Hill to read “''to recommend that the government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service”.

The amendment in recap says that that motion should be sent back to the committee where it should recommend in the report that the government should resign.

The Liberals are arguing that is a procedural motion and thus not a confidence motion. I must disagree on this point; it is clearly a substantive motion. Let us understand the difference here. This amendment of the motion does more then call for the report to be sent back to committee but it recommends the resignation for the government. The fact that there is a recommendation that is clearly not a procedural recommendation shows that this is substantive in content. If the motion just called for the report to be sent back to committee then it would be a procedural one, but it clearly does more then that.

Do not get me wrong, I believe this is a backhanded and a bs way of trying to get to an election, and this is political opportunism at its best especially since tomorrows newspapers will have the headlines of today’s Gomery testimony from Benoit Corbeil, former Director of the Liberal Party in Québec.

But the fact is the motion is one of confidence. Although the motion recommends that the committee recommend that the government resign, the fact is if the motion passes then a majority of members of the house believe that the committee should change the report to say the government should resign. If A asks B to C to resign, then it is the same as A asking C to resign directly.

This whole things is BS and how tomorrow plays out shall be very interesting. Will the Liberals try and get the budget voted on tomorrow so they can lose on that. Will GG get involved? Stay tuned.

Time to wake up to the realities of the new Russia

2005-05-09T16:11:00.000-05:00

The cold war is over, and the threat of nuclear war in the conventional sense has massively dissipated. The break up of the Soviet Union has created free (define that for yourself) democracies in many former states under soviet occupation. The bi-polar global order is no more, and a uni-polar one has been created. You can decide on your own if that is actually a good thing or not. But Russia the successor state to the USSR is still a problem, once which does not get the attention it deserves.

When Gorbachov set the wheels in motion of democracy in Russia and the opening up to the western world we all rejoiced. Boris Yeltsin continued this vision towards this and when Putin took over hours before the new millennium he envisioned much of the same. But the road towards this ultimate goal has slowed to a grinding halt in the past year or so. Politically, economically and socially the pathway to real openness has be muddied by the government.

The very fishy situation in the Yukos sale from holding company to mystery buyer then right away they sold parts to the government even though direct government purchase was not allowed. Followed by the even more mysterious trial which is about to take place over the leaders of the company.

You would still be surprised that freedom of the press and information is still relatively guarded by there government, this is unacceptable in a state where one part has pretty much the only influence in policies.

There are still hundred of nuclear weapons still unaccounted for and the pledge to dismantle most of the remaining weapons have not happed at nearly the pace and the numbers that were expected and agreed to. The continual cooperation between Russia and Iran in nuclear technology still continues and with the permanent veto wielding power of the Russian Federation on the Security Council will be one reason we will probably never see this referred to the council for discussion.

The influence of Russia in its former satellite states politics is still occurring with a large degree. The influence and control Russia has in Belarus still exists, there power and control they had in Ukraine and possible unhandedness in the rigging of the fall election in Ukraine. Thankfully the western powers realized this and got involved, and the resilient people of Ukraine who would not allow such things to happen allowed for a revote.

Let us look at what has happened in the Security Council deliberations on Darfur. Two major countries have now allowed for real sanctions on Sudan, China and Russia. They belief in state sovereignty over humanitarian reasons for the Soviet Union is evident because just like China they do not want to set a precedent for such an event, especially with there own human rights abuses.

Russia is not like it used to be thankfully but that does not mean that is still not a problem. The world needs to wake up to the issues in the country and make a stand. If Russia wants to be a peace broker on the world stage it must look within first and reform faster and in all sectors. The world players the US and EU do not want to anger and provoke Russia but turning a blind eye is not the answer either.

Must Suck to be a Tory

2005-05-08T21:28:00.000-05:00

It really must suck to be a member of the Conservative Party. Here we are in the midst of one of the biggest political scandals of all time, corruption, mob like money laundering tactics and all and yet the Tories can only muster mid 30’s polling numbers on a good day. Wow. I can tell you why I would not vote Conservative and why you all should not either but still the numbers lately amaze me. You would expect that in the political climate of the past year and even more so the past month they would be able to get a lot more support. Must be really disheartening for there supporters. Stephen Harper, you really are doing bad job.

We Must Actually Learn From the Past

2005-05-05T21:33:00.000-05:00

Today is Yom Hashoah, the day we remember those killed in the Holocaust. Over six million Jews were murdered to at the hands of the Nazis in Europe. We say to each other, that we will not forget the lives of those lost. The children, women, elderly, disabled, gypsies, and homosexuals who were slaughtered must not be forgotten. The Convention against Genocide was signed in 1948, it sets out clear obligations and duties for states in such situations but it has largely been ignored. In Rwanda, the world turned its head and in Darfur we are doing so once again. The world is allowing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children to be murdered but due to geopolitics we sit and do nothing.

It is time for the world to standup and say enough. It is time for us to finally take international human rights seriously. In this Westphalia state world, sovereignty is what rules but in the push for a normative system of international law things are slowly changing, but not fast enough for those who need out help most. Today we remember those who were murdered by the Nazis and this weekend we will thank those who liberated them, but we have not learned as much as we would like to think we have. It is time to take up, it is time to act.

Wide Open

2005-05-04T23:40:00.000-05:00

Ed Broadbent today announced he will not seek re-election here in my riding of Ottawa-Centre due to his ill wifeThis is huge news since this riding is now in play for all three parties. . No knock on he NDP really but Ed won this riding handedly just on his name, he is so respected in this country that he could have run as a Tory and won. The riding has been a sure thing for the Liberals in the past but has a large NDP following. Richard Mahoney, Martin confident and area lawyer ran in the riding last election for the Liberals but said he would not seek the nomination till he felt he had a chance. Now with Ed out, chances are he will decide to seek the nomination again, my hunch is also backed up by the fact I got an email from the riding association for a meet and greet with Mahoney next week. The Tories ran a dud candidate last time but he faired pretty well in territory which is not Conservative at all. From what I have heard and read the Tories have a lot of quality candidates vying for the nomination, who though I do not know. The NDP still have a chance here if they can find someone to run with a name, the area has a lot of youth and that social liberal upper-class.

It is time for an election

2005-05-03T16:48:00.000-05:00

I have made up my mind, we need an election. The reason though has nothing to do with the Liberal Party, sponsorship scandal or the NDP-Liberal budget. A spiral effect has happen to parliament, the Liberals are trying to avoid a confidence vote and the Tories are trying to force on has caused a complete paralysis in parliament. Only one bill is really being debated and that is C-38, the same-sex marriage legislation. The rest of the time is debate on various motions from committee which end up not being even about the issue but about the ‘corrupt’ Liberals and also debating various procedural motions. The Grits will not let the budget be debated because that means it is one step closer to a vote which they feel they will lose. The Public Accounts committee is not investigating the public accounts anymore, they are bring back issues from years ago Earnscliff so that they can’t paint the Prime Minister as corrupt, even though these issues have been debated to death already. All that is happening is a game of political brinksmanship and procedural wrangling. Parliament is a real standstill now and it will continue to be so until the government falls.

Better Catch Up On Your House of Commons Procedure

2005-05-02T16:47:00.000-05:00

Well if you are a political procedure nut (I am not) then you are going to enjoy the new few weeks, how will the Tory/Bloc defeat the government. It is not as simple as just a vote; the real fun is how do you get to that vote.

Some important readings for the next few days for you all...
Standing Orders of The House of Commons
Fact Sheets on House of Commons Procedure
Globe and Mail Election FAQ
Hill Times Legislative Update
Election Predictions Project
Nomination Watch

So Ottawa eh?

2005-04-29T15:23:00.000-05:00

So it looks like were going to have an election, and thus I give you my early Ottawa area predictions…

Ottawa-Centre
It really doesn’t matter who the Liberals throw at Ed Broadbent because he will easily be re-elected. People who are not even NDP supporters vote for Ed here, the respect this man carries is overwhelming. From what I hear, the Tories are going to push hard in this riding and have a large amount of candidates vying for the nomination. The Liberals ran last election Martin confident Richard Mahoney but he has stated he will not run again unless he has a chance in hell of winning.
Prediction:

Ottawa-Vanier
Liberal MP Mauril Belanger who is the Deputy Government House Leader and Minister Responsible for Official Langauges pretty much has this riding as a lock. This is one of the safest Liberal seats in the country and he is a very popular MP in his riding.
Prediction:

Ottawa-South
David Mcguinty, brother of the Premier won the seat last time but will be in a dog fight to hold onto his seat this time. The NDP is not in play here but the Tories certainly are. Barry Turner former MP of Ottawa-Carleton in the mid 80’s is back and he is up against local Lawyer Allan Riddell who ran last time for the nomination.
Prediction: To Close to Call ( )

Ottawa West-Nepean
Ahhh, my old riding. Old Chrétien faithful and former Whip Marlene Catterall looks to be put out of her misery with who ever the Tories nominate in this riding. Sean Casey, a Tory staffer and candidate last year is backing John Baird who is the current Nepean-Carleton MPP and former Harris/Eves Cabinet Minister and current Health . Also in the fight for the Ed Maufouz, who I have never heard but is apparently neck in neck with Baird in party memberships sold.
Prediction:

Nepean-Carleton
Youngster Pierre Polivere beat out former Defence Minister David Pratt last year and looks to be re-elected pretty handily in this mix urban-rural riding. Unsure who the Liberals are going to run here but it really doesn’t matter.
Prediction:

Ottawa-Orleans
Local backbencher and Liberal Marc Gudbout surprisingly won this riding last time against former head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Walter Robinson, it unsure if he can withhold a strong Tory charge this time. Robinson has said he would not run again but that was a few months ago and things could be changed. In any regard, it will be a very close fight.
Prediction: To Close to Call ( )

Another Disappointment

2005-04-26T22:40:00.000-05:00

This agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is as disappointing as it comes. Granted I am all for more money for foreign aid, education and housing. What I do not like is the fact that the Liberals folded like a deck of cards to survive a little longer. Jack Layton made a great political move but for Paul Martin showed once again that he does not standup for what he believes in.

The NDP, Tories and Bloc all had there chance to plead there case for what they wanted in the budget in private consultations with Ralph Goodale while it was being written. The fact that Liberals did not include all the things that NDP wanted is an issue to some but the Liberals made their choice. The fact now that they decided to embarrass themselves by reopening the budget after over 2 months shows why I am disappointed with this government.

I was not a huge admirer of Chrétien, but one thing he always did was stick to his guns and fight battles head on. I was one who waited for Paul Martin, waited for this deficit slayer and his centrist fiscal policies to finally take over. Paul Martin showed the type of attitude that we all wanted when the sponsorship scandal broke, he fought it head on, called the inquiry and put in place a number of new accountability measures but moves such as this explain so well why they call him “Mr. Dithers”. You can’t blame the NDP, and you can’t argue with what was added but you can be disappointed in your government today.

Go Away Both of You

2005-04-26T15:58:00.000-05:00

Alfonzo Gagliano, our finest Ambassador to the land of Lego and the best Public Works minister this country has ever had, has stated the Prime Minister Martin will be responsible for the break up of this country. Although I do not believe that this will happen, sovereignty in Quebec is on the rise thanks to you sir and the Charest government in Quebec. Alfonzo is also suing the government for wrongful dismissal, personal damages and lost wages. I really have little to say that hasn’t been said before but even if Gagliano is innocent and did not know anything even though he was the Minister of PWGS and Chrétien’s Quebec Lieutenant. Then he is possibly the most incompetent elected Member of Parliament ever. My message to Alfonzo, shut up.

The second is President Bush’s nominate for Ambassador to the United Nations, John “kiss up, kick down” Bolton. For a man who has publicly stated his distain for an institution I respect (and yes I know of its massive security failure and corruption), to see a man such as that be the representative of the most powerful country in the world makes me sick. Thankfully two republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations committee are holding up the nomination because of these concerns and others. For the sake of internationally diplomacy and multilateralism let us pray that he does not get confirmed.

Independent M.P Watch: Chuck Cadman, has changed his mind and will vote with the Conservatives on any Vote of Non-confidence (With Gov: Parrish, With Opp:Kilgour, Cadman)

Interesting Readings

2005-04-25T14:46:00.000-05:00

I hate people who just post links but today there are a bunch of full length articles and speeches that I believe everyone should read.

The first is an op-ed piece printed in the Toronto Star and Calgary Herald this past month by Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch. He argues that the problem is the system and an election will not solve the overarching problem.

The second is from President Vladimir Putin who gave earlier today a speech to the country in the Russian version of the ‘State of the Union” address. It is very interesting and I am trying to find a full English translation but here is the BBC experts.

The last link is from Paul Martin speech to the Liberal Party convention pack in November of 2004 when he was elected. It was his first speech as Liberal leader and the speech was powerful, passionate and was full of hope. Kind of funny to look back now and read it, eh?

Jack and Paul, Will Help All

2005-04-24T12:49:00.000-05:00

Jack “used car salesman” Layton has offered to support Paul Martin if he renegotiates the budget, more specifically remove the corporate tax cuts and invest more in education and so on. Let’s look at this logically and although the Liberals have said they will meet with and talk about the offer, will it actually keep them alive?

If the Liberals do gut the corporate tax cuts and invest in social programs (something which I doubt they will or can do) then the Tories who will not bring the government down on the budget will now do.

Stephen Harper ran out of the budget speech and announced to the world that it was a budget that they liked in some ways and that they will not bring down the government over. The Tories shot themselves in the foot when he did that since it was almost an endorsement something which they obviously did not want to do.

Thus the Tories in gutless fashion abstained on the budget speech. They did not even have the shadow cabinet vote against it in principle; they just sat in there in their seats. So when the Budget Implementation Act goes to a vote (whenever that is), Harper is forced to either abstain or vote for it because bring down the government that way would set up a perfect Liberal campaign. One in which they play ad after ad of Harper saying that he would not do this and that he actually liked the budget. He would also have every mayor in the country upset at him since it would kill the gas tax to cities provision. Also it would kill the Atlantic Accord something which he championed during the Danny Williams-Paul Martin fiasco.

BUT if Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale revise the budget to get NDP support then Stephen Harper has his excuse to vote against the budget and with the Bloc support will bring down the government. So I really ask, are the Liberals working with the NDP to keep themselves a float or allow an election in which to campaign on the theme that Tories and the Bloc are in bed with each other to defeat all these great things for Canada. Maybe it is not a bad move at all for our Prime Minister.

Olympic Logo

2005-04-24T01:26:00.000-05:00

Not that it makes any difference but I like the Vancouver 2012 Olympic logo which was released yesterday. It is simple yet elegant.

Here is what it all means courtesy of cbc.ca

“The 2010 Winter Olympics will feature a unique design of an inukshuk, a traditional stone sculpture used by Canada's Inuit people, as its official logo. The winning logo, called Ilanaaq (el la nawk), was unveiled Saturday in Vancouver and was designed by local graphic designers Elena Rivera MacGregor and Gonzalo Alatorre.

Their emblem was selected by a nine-member panel and beat out over 1,600 other submissions. The logo boasts five stone-like formations in green, two in blue, and one in red and yellow. Two pillars serve as the legs in support of the body, a horizontal shape acts as the arm and an eagle is where the head would normally be. The form stands over the words "Vancouver 2010" and the five Olympic rings.

The different colours represent different regions of the country: the green and blues symbolize coastal forests, mountain ranges and islands. The red represents Canada's Maple Leaf and the yellow depicts the brilliant sunrises. “

Canadian Politics….American Style

2005-04-22T16:51:00.000-05:00

Ontario has decided that it will hold fixed elections and B.C. is already doing this. The case for fixed elections is simple; you stop the government from calling a vote when the polls look good in their favor. The downside is that you have a very long unofficial campaign as the opposition knows when voters will head to the polls and acts accordingly to try to woo them. If Stephen Harper does not force an election and we wait till January for the writ to drop as the Prime Minister promised last night then what you will have is an unofficial election campaign for 9 months. This is how it is in the United States when the next election campaign begins the day after the last one.

Advantage....Nobody

2005-04-21T19:54:00.000-05:00

Well say what you want you have to admit Martin read a great speech off the teleprompter. And since it was not live, I must ask how many takes did it take?

In seriousness though what we saw it was a good speech. He outlined what he has done to correct the problem, find the answers and took some responsibility. It was a good move and a good speech and put it to the opposition when he committed to calling an election right after Gomery reports. Overall I was proud of the speech; it was a little humility from a man who has shown none. He made a case that you cannot disagree with about why we should wait before an election.

Stephen Harper’s prepared statement afterwards started very badly as it seemed he had expected Martin to declare his innocent and declare that the opposition parties were holding the government hostage. But after the first minute or so he laid out a very effective case and spoke very well about the issue. His speech set out there conservative opinion of hypocrisy of the Liberals. He hit back hard.

Gilles Duceppe speech what would be expected. He is an effective speaker in french and has a way of connecting with the audience. But in reality the Bloc support is already as high as it will be and if we have an election now or in six months they will make as much seat gains as they can.

The joker, Jack Layton came out and only started touching on the speech and the sponsorship scandal half way through. Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? He has no power in parliament, his demands mean nothing. Chuck Cadman, David Kilgour and Carolyn Parrish, the three independent members have more power in parliament then the entire NDP caucus. Layton’s speech came off more then anything as a cheap campaign stump speech.

So should we wait for Gomery or not? Polls so far say Canadians overwhelming say yes we should wait, but that is misleading since the educated answer is to say that. I believe that if an election is called in the spring Canadians will forget very quickly about their anger towards the Tories for forcing an election and will punish the Liberals. It is also important to note that what is coming up with Gomery in the final month of testimony. Besides more ad executive testimony the forensic auditors testify and we will get a detailed idea of where the money came from, where it went and where it is now.

In all Martin was up against some huge expectations and I think he met them. Question is how the non-partisan player in all of this react, how will Canadians judge the speech.

Did this change anything? I don’t know, I think that undecided, fence sitters on this issue will agree with the Prime Minister argument. But I do not think this will change very much.

Was it a commercial for the Liberals (paid for by the taxpayers through CBC)? Were the opposition parties in their responses just as partisan and political? Is Paul Martin buying for time? Do the opposition smell blood? Is Paul Martin a hypocrite? Is Steven Harper one too? The answer to all those questions is a giant yes. Will we see an election in the spring? Canadians will say no, but the ‘game’ of politics says yes.

Sponsorship Scandal Acting Report Card

2005-04-21T14:10:00.000-05:00

So how did your favorite opposition MP fair in comparison to others in pretending to be angry and upset during Question Period.

Tories
Stephen Harper B
Commands respect since he is the leader of the opposition and is able to muster a little bit of passion in his questions

Monte Solberg B-
Always has witty comments in his preamble, and is able to show some anger. Only problem is he reads directly from his sheet

Peter McKay B+
Has passion and anger in questions but they are usually a repeat of an early question.

James Moore A-
Young and angry. Always throws in a humorous comment in his questions

Diana Ablonczy B+
Plays the role as Tory pitbull. All she does it yell but same problem as Monte, always reads off her page

Jason Kenney C
Always sounds like a wiener. You just want to muzzle him when you hear his voice

Bloc Quebecois

Gille Duceppe A-
I am not really sure why he is so effective, but everytime he talks you are somehow drawn to him

Michel Guimond B
His acting needs a little bit of work but its still very good.

Michel Gauthier A+
This guy has it down pat. The more you yell and point the better. Does not even need to read his question just gives the government hell on every question.

NDP

Jack Layton C-
Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore. Puts one hand in his pocket and talks like a child.

Bill Blakie A-
The Gauthier of the NDP. He screams with passion and commands respect. I think he so effective because he looks like a giant bear.

Ed Broadbent A-
He’s old but respected, and that counts for something still….I think.

Tories Make Next Move

2005-04-21T13:17:00.000-05:00

Well the Tories have made their next move in this great game of minority politics. Pretending to show that they are the government but announcing that they will seek intervener status in the BSE border closing case in Montana. Well this is the definition of partisan politics, not working for those who have been devastated by the border closure. As we have seen already the Government of Canada was denied an even lesser status obviously an opposition party won’t be granted greater powers. But it was a nice photo op, your move Mr. Prime Minister?

The Game of Politics

2005-04-20T22:41:00.000-05:00

Parker Brothers Canada Presents….Canadian Minority Politics

Players: 4

The object of the game differs depending on what party you play. If you are the Liberals then your goal is try to stave off an election until after Gomery releases his report (November) at all costs. If you are the Conservatives then your goal is to have an election as soon as possible but without making it look like you are working with the Bloc. If you play as the Bloc Quebecois, your goal is to revive separatism and have an election as soon as possible. If you want to play the role of Jack Layton and the NDP, pretend you have power and play all sides.

So far the game has been very interesting indeed. The Tories made the first move by planning to present an opposition day motion affirming a relative normality that opposition days are to be held once a week. This would allow them to make sure they could control when to call an election. The Liberals made the next move by canceling the Tories opposition days when they got wind of the motion to be proposed and have not stated when they would resume.

But the Conservatives would not just go away, on their next move they went to the Committee on House Procedure and proposed a motion. It stated that the government must schedule an opposition day for at the latest May 19th and that any motion proposed would be voted on that same day.

The Liberals led by Whip Karen Redman tried to filibuster the meeting for up to three hours but the Tories and the opposition led committee voted in favor of the motion. It will be now sent to the full house where it sure to pass.

But the Liberals would not be done; they swung back hard and announced that Prime Minister Martin would address the country in primetime. This allows Martin a chance to directly appeal to Canadians. What will the opposition next move be?

And you wonder why they call politics a game….

Grits Try to Avoid Election At All Costs

2005-04-19T00:02:00.000-05:00

This is despicable. I really have little to say but I am utterly disappointed in this decision. This is a cowardly effort to avoid an election at all costs and might force the Tories to vote against the budget. Sometimes the good of Canada, be that be passing the budget or maintaining parliamentary democracy comes before partisan games.

Say Goodbye Marlene Catterall

2005-04-13T13:19:00.000-05:00

Even if you forget the polls the latest set of polls showing the disastrous numbers for the Liberals my local MP (well not really anymore since I have moved riding) and somehow who I have campaign for is official finished. Besides the fact that she is a nobody in Parliament, she will be facing a power player whenever the next election is. Nepean-Carleton Conservative Health Critic M.P.P. John Baird and former provincial cabinet minister (Energy I belive) will be running in the riding federally of Ottawa-West Nepean. Now Bard is a guy people love or hate but he is somebody people know for his work both in Queens Park and in the constituency. Well Marlene, say goodbye, enjoy your pension and take a good vacation because your days are winding down quickly. To be honest, I like John Baird I’d even consider voting for him if circumstances were different. I expect though Catterall will retire so she doesn’t get humiliated on E-Day.

2005-04-10T12:54:00.000-05:00

Once a Rat Always a Rat I Guess
Edmonton-Beaumont Liberal MP David Kilgour is considering jumping ship over his ‘outrage’ of the sponsorship scandal. Well David if you weren’t about to lose your seat and has not already switched sides maybe I would care. David Kilgour knows quite well that he’s about to lose his seat in Alberta (with Anne McLellan I may add) with the new poll out and things only going to get worse. Problem is Mr. Kilgour has already jumped ship once, in 1990 over his ‘outrage’ over the GST he jumped shit from the Tories to the Grits. Take note it is called political opportunism.

Recipe for a Spring Election
Ingredients:
3 Cup of Jean Brault Testimony (bagman flavor)
2 Cup of Gomery report not out till November
1 Cup of more ad executive testimonies to come
1 ½ Cup of Liberal Premier Jean Charest unpopularity in Quebec
2 Cup of outrage over same-sex marriage legislation
1 Cup of relatively coherent Conservative message since party convention
1 teaspoon of the nickname “Mr. Dither”
½ teaspoon of non-real accomplishments of Paul Martin so far as PM

Directions:
Mix ingredients in the media and add a Bloc Quebecois motion of non-confidence. Place in oven of falling Liberal poll numbers and wait 2-4 weeks. Serves 31 million.

Export Lou Dobbs

2005-04-08T18:00:00.000-05:00

Dear CNN,
May I ask you why you have allowed the show Lou Dobbs Money Line, sorry I now mean Lou Dobbs Tonight to turn into a one hour rant. Personally I don’t tune into the show to hear why the United States is going down the gutter with illegal aliens stealing hard earning Americans jobs and how exporting jobs is killing the American economy. Forget all the both rational and economic reasons behind why movement of jobs out of country to cheaper labour markets isn’t a bad thing at all but let's talk about a neat concept, objective journalism.

I know in this day and age of Fox News where people seem to rather hear partisan views then objective viewpoint but CNN I thought was above all this. The theme of the show has changed from a friendly anchor discussing the economy and market news of the day to a platform for Lou to sell his new book, Exporting America. I though journalists were suppose to be at heard, objective or was that just a dream I had?

Thanks for folding like a deck a cards to the new definition of news.

One Premier and a Funeral

2005-04-08T14:11:00.000-05:00

Only at a Funeral
Only at the Pope’s Funeral would Israeli President Moshe Katsav shake hands with both the Syrian and Iranian Leaders. Does this mean anything? No, but it is something you’ll probably never see happen again.

Bernard Lord Facing VONC
Ah New Brunswick politics. It would appear that the ruling Tories will be facing a vote of non-confidence over an opposition motion over the budget. Premier Lord, the man the entire Federal Conservative party is hopping will become there new leader could face an embarrassing situation as he already only holds a one seat majority. I bet you Stephen Harper is watching very closely to this one.

Political Briefs

2005-04-08T11:48:00.000-05:00

Gomery
Well it would appear that everything that we all assumed and read are true. Jean Brault from Groupactione admitted to the worst of what we could expect and now the game begins. But lets be honest, did anyone actually believe that he Liberals were innocent when the report came out last year? The good news (or bad news) is from yesterdays testimony the PQ were involved in some shady dealings also. I will admit though, if I was not a Liberal I might be considering switching parties. But then again, where would I go?

UK Politics
Well they are here heading to the polls in UK and it should be interesting. What is most interesting is that due to the strong concentration of Labour votes the Tories need about 7 or 8 percentage point leads in popular vote polls to win. I hope Labour wins, with a small majority or minority and thus here is a strong backlash against Blair and Gordon Brown can take over in a couple years before his political stock disappears. Who is Gordon Brown? Well think Paul Martin circa 1998 but a stronger leader.

New Pope?
Is it time for a Pope from the developing world? What do I know, I am not Roman Catholic but from an observer standpoint I hope not. The problem is the likely candidates from Africa and South America. The problem I see is that those from the developing world who are being considered are the most conservative of the candidates. The biggest sticking point is condoms, if the new Pope is from a part of the world where HIV/AIDS is a pandemic it will just make things worse in the fight against the disease.

Sudan and the ICC
This week the UN Security Council passed a resolution allowing them to refer specific individuals to the International Criminal Court. This was actually a big deal in the sense that the US did not veto the resolution due to their ongoing objections to the court. Is this actually going to make a difference in Darfur, not at all.