The Trouble With Conservatives

Conservatives love to lay claim to the issue of values, as though their political philosophy allows for the moral high ground, absent with other ideologies. Social conservatives are particularly pius and tend to put themselves on a ethical pedestal. Liberalism is attacked as an "anything goes" philosophy that has lead to social decay.

This situation is particularly striking in American politics, wherein Republicans use the liberal tag to belittle Democrats and paint themselves as the party of ethics. During the Clinton era, Republicans seized on his "problems" as evidence of an amoral man, part of an amoral movement. Republicans swept to power, on all levels, under the banner of restoring values. Instead of recognizing the flawed humanism is all of us, conservatives like to portray themselves with a sense of moral elitism. However, for every liberal who fails, we can readily find an equally flawed conservative. Bill Bennett, the moral tzar of America is a gambling addict. Rush Limbaugh, the mouth of conservatism is a drug addict. Tom Delay, the Republicans posterboy is awash in ethical scandals. These indiscretions seem all the more egregious because all these men claimed to be above it all, pontificating to the lowly heathens with the broken souls.

Enter Stephen Harper and his current problems regarding Emerson. The reason why there was such an uproar over the Emerson appointment wasn't a function of a liberal media gone wild, but more accurately necessitated by Harper's own moral parameters. Restore integrity and honor to parliament was the Conservatives election mantra. The dirty Liberals can't be trusted, only we can ethically govern the nation. Parliament must be accountable and operate in a transparent way that upholds our values. Within this context, the Conservatives set themselves up for the inevitable fall from the pedestal. Ironic, because the one thing liberals accept is that we are all flawed, everyone has issues, nobody is perfect. The trouble with Conservatives is they are destined for hypocrisy, through their own unrealistic claims of superior values. Harper set the bar too high, and now he is dealing with the consequences of his own arrogance. Newsflash, conservatives are human too, with all the requisite flaws. Conservatives are not better social citizens, in fact their inherent hypocrisy might make them worse.

Harper Blows It

It is simply amazing to watch Harper bungle the Emerson affair at every turn. A self inflicted controversy, which only gets worse with every miscalculation. The blowback from all quarters over Harper's snub at the ethics commissioner may prove to be a bigger blunder than the actual Emerson appointment.

Almost everyone agrees that the ethics inquiry is on shaky ground at best. Why fan the flames with arrogant refusals, when there is little chance of actual reprisal? Harper, the self-appointed "ethics P.M." doesn't seem to grasp the nuance of appearances. In refusing to co-operate, Harper has in effect introduced an entire different set of talking points, none of them flattering. The scope of the inquiry has moved from a question of Harper's appointment, to the legal question of whether he is bound to co-operate.

Today I saw a news story with video of the campaign Harper pontificating about the necessity for accountability and an ethics watchdog. Juxtaposed with his personal attacks on the office of the ethics commissioner, Harper comes across as hypocritical and downright foolish. Liberals speaking of the illegality of refusing to participate. Broadbent, who was recruited by Harper for said posting, lambasting Harper's stance. Pundits jumping on the chance to watch Harper fall from his perceived ethical pedestal. Global News declaring the "honeymoon is now over".

What a massive miscalculation, given the objective feeling that the case is flimsy. In over-reacting Harper has emboldened Shapiro, who is now receiving support from unlikely sources. Did Harper decide to belittle the inquiry on his own, or did his handlers concoct this warped approach? I'm inclined to think Harper made the call, and in so doing demonstrated his political tin ear. Harper prides himself on his ability to "think ahead", but clearly on this issue it is one nightmare after another, that reveals little foresight. I almost shudder to think the reaction when Emerson is taken to court in B.C., an avenue that actually has a strong argument. Harper is blowing this issue, big time.

Afghanistan and Public Opinion

I came across this email from a Canadian soldier, commenting on the divided public opinion for the Afghanistan mission:

I am a currently serving soldier based in Shilo, Manitoba. Master Cpl. Tim Wilson (killed when his armoured vehicle rolled) was a good friend of mine and I knew some of the other guys in the rollover.

"I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the weak support making us feel ashamed for what we do. What these people are telling us is that our sacrifices and efforts are for nothing.

"Since when did freedom not become worth fighting for? I can't believe this is the same country that turned back tyranny in 1939 and 1950.

"If these people were in charge, we'd all be speaking either German or Russian. It's hard enough to go through the stress and dangers of operating in a war zone like Kandahar, but it's even harder when you're wondering when the folks back home are going to pull the carpet out from under you and undo everything you've worked and sacrificed for over there...

"I don't hear anyone asking a cop why he answers 911 calls, or why a firefighter runs into a burning building.

Hardly unique, the argument that unfavorable public opinion distracts from the mission and demoralizes the soldiers. A common tactic in American politics to silence criticism, any dissent is viewed as an affront to the soldiers in harm's way. You could well argue that equating patriotism to supporting a war led to the feeble opposition of Democrats on Iraq, despite the alarming concerns. Opposition should not be suppressed because of the perception. It is the role of government to debate the merits of potential conflicts, not simply rally around the flag as a show of unity.

The public is free to form any opinion it wishes, without considering the implications outside of their personal preference. If they wish to support the troops out of duty, that calculation is their right, but equally those that oppose should be given a voice. Democracy doesn't demand the goosestep, if it did then we could accurately question the notion of freedom. So, when a soldier laments the fact that low public approval effects the troops, I think it unfortunate, but hardly wrong. While we have already had the debate over Afghanistan, the mission evolves and government must constantly reaffirm our goals. I suspect Canadians will debate the merits of Afghanistan until such time as our troops come home, to expect anything less is unrealistic.

I might add that I support the mission in Afghanistan, although it bothers me that our troops are taking an uneven risk, mainly because of the Americans misguided Iraq war. It is not Canada's role to fill a void that is byproduct of an overextended American military. In principle, the effort in Afghanistan is justified, but the scope appears more than we bargained for initially.

Holding Hands

On the surface, Harper's latest overture to Quebec on the UNESCO question is a positive development. The move recognizes Quebec's unique role within Canada, sending a strong signal of inclusiveness to Quebecers. I have no qualms with Harper's commitment, it simply acknowledges what most Canadians already know. Allowing Quebec a place on the international stage isn't necessarily a threat to federalism, so it seems a win-win. I also commend the spirit of a new beginning:

"I do place a high priority in not just good relations with the provinces, but getting the federal relationship with Quebec back on the right foot," Harper said.

Charest said Harper's visit is symbolic because it's an "opportunity for us to enter into a new era in this relationship between Quebec and the federal government.

"We believe in Canada. This is a federalist government, and we want to work with our partners within the federation."

Sounds great doesn't it? All Canadians are tired of the endless wrangling between Ottawa and Quebec. The Liberal legacy on Quebec is hardly flattering, illustrating little nuance in cultivating a positive relationship, while doing much harm. Other provincial governments, namely the Klein Conservatives, have seized upon the dysfunctional relationship and used the wedge to further their own narrow agendas. Obviously, the current climate can't continue if you favor a strong, united federation.

Enter cynicism, or maybe more accurately realism. While the initiative is a noble premise, the motives are anything but. I can't help but see the Harper/Charest mutual admiration society as nothing more than political calculation. Harper's sudden desire to appease all things Quebec is driven by the electoral allure of a majority. Charest recognizes the desire for "inroads", and in turn sees an opportunity to change his dismal political reality through results with the feds. Both men get what they desire through the co-operation, but the impetus is hardly a vision for Canada.

Honestly, I don't think Harper gives a rat's ass about the needs of Quebecers, at least not in the way the soundbites argue. Again, I see the Harper approach as a mere extension of the Klein desire to use Quebec to weaken the federal government, so in turn Alberta is left alone. I believe Harper's philosophy towards Quebec starts from this position, and is not "renewed federalism", but more accurately "hyper provincialism". Harper views federalism through the lens of a premier, a dangerous mindset for sure. Appeasing the western base with the knee jerk criticisms of evil Ottawa wielding its misguided power, encroaching everywhere. Appealing to Quebec is a natural extension of this regionalist approach and Harper deftly sees the voter potential.

So, when I read about a new role for Quebec in UNESCO I say "great idea" on its own merits, but I still don't trust the messenger and his slick tones. The Harper initiatives in Quebec are about power, appeasing the base and opportunism. Canada is a distant consideration, which makes the prospect of future "agreements" all the more concerning.

Klein Resignation Timing A Question of Closet Space

King Ralph:

The premier has said he plans to retire from politics in about a year. This has left some party members grumbling that Klein is well past his best-before date and that he should step aside sooner.

But Klein says he needs several months to archive the many things he's collected over the years and doesn't want to be rushed out of office.

"I haven't even talked to an archivist yet,'' said the premier. "I know that Premier Harris of Ontario ... it took him nine months to wind his office down.''

"I'd hate to be defeated and try to deal with all the good stuff I get,'' he said. "I have to look after the condo, all the clothes I have here, the furniture. We have to find out where I'm going to put all this stuff.''

The people of Alberta are well served by a man who clearly has his priorities in order. Such are the perks in a one-party state, drowning in revenues.

Harper's Words Betray His Choice

Stephen Harper defended his decision to recruit David Emerson with the following logic:

“The power to make cabinet appointments is a power that resides in the office of the Prime Minister as the highest democratically elected official in the country and this Prime Minister has no intension of acceding that jurisdiction in any way, shape or form to any government official,” Mr. Harper told reporters in Ottawa.

A forceful argument, with constitutional relevance, Harper asserts his rights as Prime Minister. However, Harper's striking reference to "democratically elected official" ironically supports the arguments against Emerson. Harper is right, we do have a democracy, wherein the people elect their officials. In asserting his right, Harper has in effect betrayed the principle of democracy. Now I realize that this fact has little bearing on the ethics probe, but it is relevant to Emerson for obvious reasons.

The Canadian people have the ultimate right, to choose their representation, which was clearly ignored in this scenario. If Harper wishes to refer to democracy, as a means to belittle the ethics probe, then it is a double-edged sword. Harper may well put into the question the relevance of Shapiro, but he does so through his reliance on democratic mandate. The same logic must apply to his appointee- you can't pick and choose where the principle applies to suit your needs. By extension, Harper uses his democratic right to abolish the democratic right of the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. Then it becomes a question of where the power lies in a democracy, with the elected or the electors. Ultimately, and Harper has made this point, the Canadian people have the primary power. I hope a reporter poses this question to Harper, with his own quote as evidence against his decision.

McKay Gets It Right

It was nice to the see the Conservatives have softened their stance on Hamas:

Canada will continue to provide some aid to the Palestinian Authority on the basis of third-party assurances from Russia that the money will not be diverted for military purposes or to finance terrorism by Hamas.

The announcement yesterday by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was a softening of the new government's previous position. Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened last month to cut off aid after Hamas, considered by Ottawa to be a terrorist organization, won a majority in the Palestinian parliamentary election in January.

The new approach leaves some room for compromise, instead of confrontation. It may well be that Hamas continues on its extremist path, but there is more chance for evolution with a diplomatic approach. Using aid as a carrot to invite change is sound policy, it is nice to see the Conservatives acknowledge this reality. The harsh rhetoric heard in the aftermath of the Palestinian election was understandable, but it also left no room for progress.

McKay seems to parrot the new American approach, which suggests a co-ordinated policy on Hamas. If anything, a cautious agenda may allow for more moderate elements within Hamas(relative of course) to gain greater control. This approach is more conciliatory and can only help the process.

Chretien Surfaces

I've been waiting for Jean Chretien to come out in public. I thought we would hear his thoughts on the state of the Liberals, but no Chretien talks Kyoto:

The former prime minister who signed Canada onto the Kyoto accord is dismissing claims from the current government that its goals are unattainable.

Jean Chretien said Monday that Canada can still reach the environmental targets he committed to before leaving office in 2003. Chretien urged the new Conservative government to keep working toward Kyoto's target of a six-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas levels from 1990...

" I don't think Canada will want to turn its back on Kyoto," he said.

"There are very big consequences on that. It's tough to achieve, but it's achievable."

It's nice to hear Chretien championing Kyoto, although critics could justifably argue that his government did little to actually implement the Accord's requirements. Signing it was easy, but the Liberals failed to take the tough stances necessary and this hurt their credibility on the environment. Chretien may see Kyoto as part of his legacy, hence the rebuke to the Conservatives. The lack of practical application by the governing Liberals left the door open for Harper and company to use the "unattainable" angle, as a result of wasted years. I think it strange that Chretien would choose this talking point, given the legacy, although I agree with the sentiment.

Conservatives Focused On Quebec

The Hill Times has a story, outlining the prospective hopes of the Conservatives in Quebec. Talk of 50 Tory seats in the next election is probably unrealistic, but the mere fact that Conservatives can dare to entertain such dominance is remarkable, given the recent climate. Liberals scoff at the optimism, while Conservatives show a singular focus to make a majority a reality:

Following their breakthrough in the Jan. 23 election which brought them 10 seats in Quebec, the Conservatives are already drawing up a new strategy that they hope could help them win a majority government the next time Canadians go to the polls.

"The ultimate goal is to have each constituency to raise enough money on itself to be able to finance its own campaign and not have to look to the central party," said Quebec Conservative Sen. David Angus (Alma, Que.) chairman emeritus of the Conservative Fund, the financial arm of the Conservative Party and chairman of the Finance Committee for Quebec.

The Conservatives smell blood:

With support for the Conservatives continuing to rise in Quebec, Sen. Nolin said Mr. Coulombe is now working on a riding-by-riding analysis of election results, down to the polling station, in order to develop a new strategic plan in the coming months.

In the Montreal riding of Papineau, Sen. Nolin noted that there was only a 50 per cent turnout in the last election in allophone neighborhoods, while francophone areas of the riding, once a Liberal stronghold, saw a 75 per cent voter turnout. Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew, lost the riding to Bloc Quebecois candidate Vivian Barbot. Sen. Nolin said the Conservatives are hoping to find explanations for all those trends in eaneighborhoodood.

"To be able to give ourselves an efficient strategic plan, we will need to understand the nature of the electorate in each riding."

Sen. Nolin, a seasoned political operator, said Transport Minister, Lawrence Cannon (Pontiac, Que.), also the political minister for Quebec, will play a key role in drafting the strategy.

The Prime Minister illustrates the central priority through his prominent meetings with Charest, where a deep alliance is solidified. In concert, the party apparatus devises a clear strategy immediately following the election. The troops on the ground work to build the base and infastructure. Liberals can scoff all they want, but there is no question they are losing the battle for Quebec.

The stain of centralism, at the expense of constitutional domain is solidified, while the Conservatives offer the slick notion of "renewed" federalism, with a premium on provincial jurisdiction. Harper approaches federalism like a Premier, without the messy nationalism that so often pre-occupies the Liberals. A noble notion, but lacking the attractive appearance of narrow self interest.

As discussed earlier, Harper views every decision through the lens of electability. In his recent interview with Maclean's, he admitted that the first question he asks himself is, how will this measure be received? Principle is replaced by expediency and the dangers of this philosophy are obvious. The Conservatives have made it plain, they will do whatever it takes to win over Quebec, nevermind the consequence. The nature of our federalism, demands a federal leader act within an adversarial framework. The provinces act in the best interest of their region, while the feds protect the notion of the whole. It is imperative that the P.M reacts as a check to balance regionalism. The Harper Conservatives are wasting their energy on expanding their support, instead of demonstrating the foresight required in our federal system.

Detached From Reality

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made an appearance on today's Meet the Press. It is simply amazing to watch the Pentagon's continued refusals to admit the obvious. One of the central flaws of the Bush administration, is their inability to confront the plain truth, instead stubbornly clinging to outdated talking points that insult basic intelligence. The Bush administration would garner far more public support if they merely adopted a "reality based" approach to the Iraq discussion. Instead, we get this embarrassing crap:

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there's been progress in training Iraqi defense forces and disputed accounts, some from conservative commentators, that U.S. efforts in Iraq are failing.
"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace said. "What is it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."
Pace disputed a steady stream of CIA assessments, reported last week by Knight Ridder, that the Sunni insurgency has deep roots, is likely to worsen and could lead to civil war. His more optimistic appraisal is expected to set the tone for a meeting this week among President Bush and his top military commanders to assess the war and decide how many U.S. troops should remain in the country.

How can Pace make the claim that progress is being made in training Iraqi forces, when just last week the Pentagon was forced to admit that the only Iraqi battalion capable of independent operations had to be downgraded. The word is setback, progress implies improvement. The unbelievable element lies in the fact that the Pentagon has used these tired arguments at every hearing, press conference and interview since "mission accomplished". It is like some bizarro Pentagon tribute to Groundhog Day.

Pace argues that people are overly pessimistic, that Iraq is not on the verge of civil war. Is this stance part of a bigger strategy to justify withdrawal or pure delusion? It is now reasonable to posit whether or not the civil war has actually begun. To deny the realistic possibility is so beyond the mainstream view of the situation that it borders on ridiculous. Yet, Pace claims progress and a steady march toward stability.

It is this sort of inability, or refusal, to admit the obvious that is at the heart of the Bush administration's failure. It has it roots in the view that people are incapable of processing bad news and remaining resolute. The irony is this lack of faith in the American people has ultimately undermined their faith in their government to come clean. Remember "Baghdad Bob" wildly claiming that American troops hadn't entered Baghdad, when in fact they have overrun the city? The world media had great fun poking at the absurdity of the propagandist who resisted reality. Can someone explain to me how the current Pentagon stance on Iraq isn't analogous?

John Crosbie Offers Bad Spin On Emerson

Former Tory Cabinet Minister, and perpetual blowhard, John Crosbie weighs in on the Emerson matter with some "superficial criticisms":

In attempting this Harper has shown he is a political leader who can think outside the box, as demonstrated by inviting David Emerson, re-elected as a Liberal, to become the minister of international trade and inviting Michael Fortier, co-chair of the campaign, to become minister of public works after appointing him to the Senate...

As for Emerson, well respected in B.C. and the West, note that all Harper did was invite him to join the cabinet. He had run when Paul Martin asked him to serve in 2004 and performed well as a minister. So he was asked to "serve" again and accepted.

"Outside of the box" indeed, with the box being our democratic process. Crosbie rationalizes Emerson's defection as simply a call to serve, no different than Martin's recruitment. The call to serve would be justified, if Emerson was a diplomat, but the voters actually do the calling in the instance of elected officials. Emerson was called to serve as a Liberal, not a free agent who always ends up on the winning side. Crosbie attempts to inject nobility into the selection, but he conveniently ignores the core issue- voters rights.

The typical conservative protest:

The natural governing party of Canada, and their media sympathizers, clearly have protested too much about the addition of Emerson and Fortier to cabinet...

The movement of Emerson to the Harper government, following the election, was in no way deserving of the hysterical hissy fit frenzy of much of the media the same media caught by surprise but undisturbed when Martin bargained Stronach into his cabinet.

This whole issue is simply media driven, with the underlying partisanship. Interesting that Crosbie chooses to make the Stronach comparison to prove his point. If my memory is clear, the media was relentless in their criticisms of the Liberals in the wake of Stronach. It is also fact, that the Conservatives used the Stronach episode as a cornerstone example of why the corrupt Liberals had to go. Crosbie forgets that it was the Conservatives who chose to run on a platform of "restoring integrity", in effect laying the foundation on which they would be judged. Had the Harper Conservatives not presented such a moralistic, pure image, the Emerson affair would not have looked so hypocritical. The media, driven by public outcry, is merely pointing to the pedestal the Conservatives created. Hey John, if you live in a glass house....

Quite telling that the entire Crosbie editorial falls to mention the voters. Attacks on the Liberals partisan motives, the left wing media (always a conservative nemesis), but no acknowledgement of people. I would argue that the entire Emerson affair is primarily a people driven enterprise. Are most of the demonstrators, petition signers, talk radio callers Liberals and NDP supporters? Yes, how could they not be when the people of Vancouver-Kingsway overwhelming supported these parties in the election. Should the media ignore the public, in an effort to avoid any accusation of bias? Whenever the attention challenged media wanders, the public outcry demands they re-focus. Crosbie presents Emerson as the victim, at the mercy of the evil press and the party of entitlement. Crosbie conveniently ignores the true casualty, Canadian democracy.

Emerson: Legal Action On The Horizon

There has been much discussion concerning the possibility of legal action against Emerson. Saturday's planned protest in Emerson's riding is likely to be a large one. What is particularly interesting is the legal angle that is now part of the equation:

Vancouver activist Mike Magee, who organized an online petition at www.recalldavidemerson.com, said the ad hoc group now has two lawyers working on preparing a civil case.

Magee said Friday that many people in the riding who voted for Emerson because he was opposed to the Conservatives have put their names forward for a court challenge of the defection.

Lawyers will be present at today's meeting to explain what is involved in being part of any potential court challenge, he said.

"They feel there is enough evidence nationally to launch something. We are just working on the formalities of lining up plaintiffs," Magee said.

A court challenge looks a virtual certainty at this point. How can Emerson survive a legal case, as well as a ethics inquiry? I had the sense the national media was tiring of the Emerson story, but these latest developments have re-energized the entire debate. Unless Emerson resigns, this matter will distract the government for a long time and further taint the "ethical" Prime Minister.

The ethics inquiry is bound to offer some new information that is potentially damaging. A legal case presents an entirely different set of talking points, not to mention emboldening the disenfranchised of Vancouver-Kingsway. Harper's flippant statement, that he was well aware of the consequences when he recruited Emerson, looks more delusional with each day. This issue is here to stay.

Ethics Investigation of Harper/Emerson

This should be interesting:

The ethics commissioner is launching a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Bernard Shapiro said Friday he will look into what influence was wielded in the decision by former Liberal David Emerson to cross the Commons floor and join Harper's Conservative government cabinet. In a letter to three MPs who complained about the switch, Shapiro says he will issue one report on the conduct of both Harper and Emerson, who is now international trade minister.

How embarrassing for a new Prime Minister, whose cornerstone campaign promise was a return to ethical government. I have a feeling, that as Canadians learn the details of this deal, it will take the bloom off Harper and cement the black cloud over Emerson. At the very least, this investigation assures that this issue will remain part of the political dialogue for some time.

Update

Harper plays the partisan card:

In a release, the PMO added, “this Liberal appointee’s actions have strengthened the prime minister’s resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament.”

The dodge and weave:

The Tories are crying foul, noting that Shapiro turned down their request for an investigation into Liberal Tony Valeri’s landholdings during the election campaign on the grounds the commissioner couldn’t act between sittings of Parliament.

Translation, the Liberal hack didn't act on Valeri so Emerson is fine because there was no parliament. Trouble with this logic is it fails to admit an election did take place, so the two situations aren't similar. During an election isn't a precedent for after the vote. Try again. I would stick with the Liberal crony angle to discredit the entire process. However, we do have some precedent with the Grewal decision and it is hard to argue that Emerson hasn't "gained" from his decision.

McGuinty Advocates Abolishing Senate

Yesterday, Dalton McGuinty took the Klein government to task over their health care proposals. Today, according to Bourque Newswatch McGuinty has advocated scrapping the Senate:

Bourque has learned that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has called for the abolishment of the Senate. According to a reliable source, he made the comments this evening at the Ontario Liberal's Heritage Dinner, their biggest fundraiser of the year. It remains unclear how his fellow Premiers across the nation will respond to this bold suggestion, one that goes a step further than what Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he would do, in essence to hold elections for Senate seats as soon as possible.

I think one of the more potentially dangerous Harper proposals is the elected Senate option. The last thing Canada needs is another layer of bureaucracy that could cause political gridlock and American style pork barrel motivations. Harper seems bent on forging ahead with the elected Senate, primarily to appease western alienation. While I agree that the Senate is a flawed entity, electing Senators is a simplistic solution that has a net negative when you look past the democratic appeal.

If McGuinty is ready to lead the charge to abolish the Senate, it will provide another option which seems the most practical. The current makeup of the Senate has always been a sore spot in Canadian politics. Rather than reform the Senate, in effect replacing one bad system with another, why not just abolish and be done with it. The Senate is not a completely useless body, it does provide some valuable contributions. However, the status quo is now a symbol for a broken system and this perception is entrenched.

Abolishing the Senate eliminates the eye sore, without hampering the effectiveness of our Parliament. One of the main criticisms of Canadian federalism is the duplication of bureaucracy- how can adding another "effective" layer allow for coherent policy? The American example should serve as a concrete example of some of the pitfalls of a system with two elected bodies. Why Canada would find it necessary to voluntarily enable potential gridlock is beyond me. The best option is too simply rid the system of the irritant. I don't see an elected Senate as a democratic tool to right perceived inequalities. The practical application will lead to inefficiency, regional consideration, horse trading and perpetual debate about a body whose time has passed.

I hope McGuinty emerges as a strong advocate for abolishing the Senate. As it stands now, there doesn't appear to be any coherent opposition to Harper's plans. It is nice to see McGuinty offering forceful rebuttal and if the last few days are any indication, he is positioning himself as the "wait a minute" guy.

Quebec Poll: Good News for Harper and Charest

La Presse has released a new poll, which illustrates why Harper and Charest are so eager to form a close alliance:

For the first time in two years, the Charest government clearly improved its standing with the electorate. The rate of dissatisfaction dropped by 10% in February, the most significant movement in one month since the fall of December 2003...

Moreover, CROP notes from with certainty what it had already perceived, but starting from too partial data, in January: the arrival of the Conservatives in Ottawa gave oxygen to the Charest government. "Now, it is clear and significant", observes Claude Gauthier of CROP...

Charest isn't the only one to gain in Quebec:

The poll of 1,000 Quebecers shows a 62% satisfaction rate for the Harper government, a number which rises to 70% in Quebec City and falls to 56% in Montreal...

The poll's respondents supported Harper's plan to raise the age of sexual consent, from 14 to 16, by a margin of two to one. The majority supporting his child-care plan, in the only province with a fully functioning daycare system, is narrower — 57% to 34% — and, one suspects, not rock-solid. Still, for the moment Harper's on the winning side of public opinion, in a debate that pits him squarely against an elite Quebec consensus.

No wonder, the two leaders plan a third meeting in the near future. The fact that Harper scores a 70% approval rating in Quebec City is quite striking by any measure. Harper's calculated focus on Quebec is solidifying his support and hurting the sovereignists. Separatism numbers were likely to wane, simply as a by-product of the Liberal ouster, but there does seem some natural gravitation towards Harper's "renewed" federalism.

Charest sees Harper as a lifeline to change the conversation and get off the electoral mat. Harper sees Charest as a vehicle to firmly entrench the Conservatives in Quebec. These poll numbers will solidify the alliance- for the moment it appears a win-win. No wonder the Federal Liberals are increasingly nervous about their future prospects in Quebec. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Good For McGuinty

I have been waiting for someone to stand up for our public health care system. Harper seems to be sending mixed signals, on the one hand affirming the feds commitment to the public system, while simultaneously giving Alberta's plan some latitude:

"This government is committed to the Canada Health Act," Harper said "My understanding is that the Alberta government is not just committed to the Canada Health Act, but the Alberta government has enshrined the Canada Health Act in Alberta's own legislation."

I don't think there is any question, that if Alberta is allowed to move forward then the notion of equality is dead. Klein may tinker to appease, but his proposals will dismantle the public health system. Enter the McGuinty Liberals, who looks poised to provide some forceful rebuttal that is sorely lacking:

McGuinty says Premier's Ralph Klein's so-called Third Way on health reform is not Ontario's way.

He says wait times, for example, should be reduced for everybody, "not just for those who can afford to jump to the front of the queue.''

McGuinty says Harper told all the premiers last week to stay within the Canada Health Act and so should take action against Alberta.

He says the ball is clearly in the prime minister's court.

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman calls Alberta's health-care reforms a threat to medicare, and a "pretty deliberate'' violation to the Canada Health Act.

The Conservatives are taking the entirely useless, wait and see attitude, while Rome burns. We desperately need someone to put politics aside, and call a spade a spade. Obviously, the opinion of the Ontario premier will have no traction in Alberta, but at least McGuinty can keep the pressure on the Conservatives to honor their role as protector of public health. Given the political dynamics, McGuinty may be in the best position to defend the rights of equality.

Harper Interview

Maclean's has posted the first one on one interview with Stephen Harper. Harper makes some interesting comments on how he intends to govern. I find these statements somewhat troubling:

On that point, there is no way of knowing how long this minority government will last. Does that mean you are now campaigning as much as you are governing?

I've made no secret of the fact that when you are in a minority, in a sense you are always in a campaign. But it's probably not a bad thing to remember when you have a majority too. It doesn't mean that everything you do has to be popular. But everything you are doing has to be serving the public interest. And you'll have to, in due course, justify it to the population. I've been attacked so much in the past few years it doesn't really matter to me. I always ask myself what will the public's reaction be to such-and-such a decision or such-and-such a move by the time we get to the next election, when the public actually makes a judgment. So the temporary reaction of a columnist or whatever today doesn't really mean anything. You have to ask yourself, "How is this going to look to the public in due course?" And that should always guide you. And sometimes, you'll proceed with things that are apparently unpopular because you know in due course they will be easy to justify. But if in a year, or two, or three down the course you still won't be able to justify it, then that's a wrong decision.

Of course it is a good thing to take the public view into consideration when formulating policy. However, Harper's approach seems to place undue emphasis on appearances. There are times where government has to make decisions which invariably alienate people. Government shouldn't enact legislation based on how it will be received in a coming election. If the goal is a majority, and policy is seen through this lens, it may make for decisions that aren't in the long term interest of the country, but merely in the Conservatives best interest. I would offer Harper's overtures to Quebec, an elected Senate and the GST cut as policies that are more pander than sound vision. If every decision is rooted in a political calculus, it begs the question, are you operating on a set of core beliefs or simple appearance?

Harper made some comments with regard to Emerson:

Well then, let me be blunt: was it stupid to appoint Emerson?

No. I was absolutely aware of what the criticism would be. But I want the best people in my cabinet. And I want to broaden the base of our party beyond those who voted for it. And so that decision was made full well knowing what the criticism would be, and it was made without hesitation.

You say that, but did you really understand how angry your core constituents would be?

Most of the anger has not come from there. Most of it has come from the Liberal party, the opposition parties, and elements of the media. And this is where we expected the bulk of the criticism to come from.

It sounds like Harper and Emerson have co-ordinated their erroneous talking points. In defining the outrage as nothing more than partisan motivations, it belittles the genuine frustration of ordinary voters. Harper's comments reveal an arrogance that is striking for a man who claims to represent a government that believes in openness and transparency.

American Troops Favor Withdrawal

Interesting Zogby poll of American troops, with surprising results:

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

The Democrats who have advocated a timetable for withdrawal have been vilified by Republicans. The fact that American soldiers also favor a timetable should provide Democrats political cover and allow them to turn up the rhetoric. How can anyone question the patriotism of the patriots??

The poll also found that members of the National Guard were more apt to prefer withdraw, as opposed to regular soldiers like the Marines. This finding is hardly surprising, given the Pentagon's misuse of National Guard forces to fill the gaps for an over extended military.

Liberals In Trouble

Yesterday, I had an entry which outlined the Conservatives strategy in Quebec, with the goal a majority in the next election. It is also quite telling that some Liberals are openly musing about a Conservative government for years to come:

Liberals are also looking at the real possibility that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) will "in all likelihood," win at least a minority or a majority in the next election which is affecting the whole dynamic of a Liberal leadership run.

"If he's got a majority the next time, you're up seven or eight years and nobody coming in this time is going to survive that long, especially older ones," said one Liberal, which explains why the party's heavy-hitters did drop out. "If Stronach and Brison don't do something, they're just going to fade from peoples' memories. They don't have long careers behind them to draw on, so they have to make their mark now or they'll just be distant memories by the time anything happens."

The fact that several high profile Liberals have taken a pass on the leadership race is more than just coincidence. It would appear many Liberals have calculated that their time in the political wilderness may be a protracted affair:

"How often do you have a leadership for a national party and three of the four leadership contenders are refugees from another party and one's an emigrant who's come back home 30 years later," said one Liberal, referring to Mr. Brison, Ms. Stronach and Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff, respectively.

The Liberals admissions, coupled with the Conservatives aggressive agenda to expand their base should give the center-left pause. In the near term, the Conservatives can put forward legislation that has public appeal, in an effort to set up their prospects for the next election. The more contentious issues, that frighten progressives, will be put on the back burner until a time when Conservatives have free reign.

It is hard to envision a scenario where the Liberals can effectively blunt the Conservative incursions into Quebec and provide a forceful alternative. How do you counter "renewed" federalism, in a province bent on greater autonomy? Unless the Conservatives self-destruct, the Liberals may flounder for years to come. And, don't expect the NDP to stop nipping away at the progressive wing of the Liberal Party. Of course things could change, but given the Conservatives clear, and increasingly effective, plans to solidify support, the Liberal prospects look bleak.

The fact that some Liberal insiders have already calculated that the Conservatives will win another term serves as a sobering revelation. The next Liberal leader may be viewed as a short-term bridge to party renewal. Quite a predicament for a Party that only months ago looked like Canada's perpetual rulers.

"Put A Human Face On Justice": Vic Toews

According to Vic Toews, that was the central purpose of today's proceedings. Indeed, we did see that Marshall Rothstein is a brilliant man, who gives careful consideration to his rulings. However, I think people pretty much assumed that Rothstein's selection, based on rigorous consultations, implies a man who is extraordinary and competent. Considering the fact that today's hearing lack practical "teeth", the little nuggets we learned about Rothstein are overshadowed by the risk to the process.

Interesting to note, that during the proceedings, Rothstein expressed concern that the public hearings didn't "degenerate" to a point where justices are humiliated. There has been much debate as to whether this new approach is a positive in the spirit of openness, or a negative ala the American political circus. Given the fact that this process is not a constitutional requirement, offers no recourse or allows for concrete recommendations, it begs the question- why?

Toews argues that the process humanizes the justice system. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it justices interpret the law, based on sound legal argument in such a way that personality should be irrelevant. If we put a "human face" on the judiciary, doesn't it detract from the apolitical climate we strive for in our legal system?

Today's hearings went well, no question. However, I suspect the next time we hear of a court appointment, there will be greater scrutiny, as the media investigates and the opposition "vets". It just seems intuitive to think the process will evolve, in such a way where government and opposition support a nominee, based on their own morality. The hearings are a formality, but the government will be anxious to appeal to their base, and the opposition eager to paint judges as "extreme". I don't think Canada is so unique that it can avoid the trappings of the American process. American judges have become so politicized that no one is surprised to see a 5-4 vote on the 2000 election, with each Republican nominated judge voting against Gore, and each Democratic appointment voting in favor. The law is color blind?

This process isn't necessary from a legal standpoint. Why engage in proceedings that have the potential to politicize the process? The hearings today are simply a public relations coup by the Conservatives to trumpet "transparency" and "openness". Legal minds, with government and public consultation have chosen this man to serve. Why not leave the process out of the limelight, where the temptation for political opportunism is muted? I have a feeling the hearings we see 10 years from now will show no resemblance to the benign, friendly affair we witnessed today.