Kennedy Inches Closer

Increasingly, it looks very likely that Gerard Kennedy will enter the Liberal leadership race:

Ontario Education Minister Gerard Kennedy is expected to officially enter the federal Liberal leadership contest next month, sources say...

The Nova Scotia Liberal senator leading the draft-Kennedy movement said he is certain the bilingual education minister, who once headed food banks in Edmonton and Toronto, will run.

"I'm not a guy who likes to waste his time and I'm still making calls" to potential supporters across the country, Terry Mercer said from Ottawa.

"I haven't been this excited about politics in a long, long time."

If Kennedy does enter the fray, he seems to have a great handle of the stakes:

"I have had approaches on the federal front before, but I guess the sense that there needs to be a fundamental reform of the federal Liberal party is what has me interested to the extent that I am considering it," he said, although he admitted he's a "dark-horse candidate without even a seat (in Ottawa)."

He said he's been buoyed by the strength of support from people who say he has "a unique contribution to make" to a party badly in need of rebuilding.

"They have at least convinced me that these kind of reforms are quite essential for the progressive, practical outlook that I believe in.

"These renewals don't happen on anybody's timetable, they happen as a result of a larger circumstance.

"I guess that's why these are probably once-in-a-generation chances, particularly this particular circumstance where there is a period of confusion about direction (of the party)," he said.

What is interesting, and refreshing for that matter, is that all the potential candidates seem to recognize that fundamental reform is required. Kennedy is an unabashed progressive who can attract the soft NDP support(myself included), which should allow for a real debate on direction, with tons of policy contrast.

Before the election, I argued that a Liberal defeat may be the best thing for progressives in the longterm, as defeat would require reform. I must say, this race is shaping up to be a meaty, philosophical affair and may well be a watershed moment moving forward. Instead of stopping Conservatives, we might actually find something to get behind.

Graham Sets Right Tone

Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham sets the right tone:

It's up to New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois to see that the minority Conservative government survives its first throne speech, says Opposition leader Bill Graham...

"I did point out (that) his is a minority that is even less strong than ours and on many of these issues he knows that not only (does) he represent a minority of members of the House, but also in terms of the electorate,'' said Graham

Graham's defiant demeanor is completely appropriate given the dynamics of the new parliament. The Liberals do run the risk that they will look like belligerent obstructionists. However, it is crucial that the Liberals clearly define their role and put the Conservatives on notice. Graham sets the table for a scrappy opposition, that will not be strong armed into supporting any measure that doesn't consider their position. In laying the onus of support on the other parties, Graham effectively allows the Liberals free reign to vote against the government.

Graham's stance finds support in the words of the former opposition leader Stephen Harper:

"The Liberal party can't expect to walk in and simply propose its own program that only one-third of Canadians supported and expect that everybody's going to vote for it.''

I suspect the looming battle will revolve around the child care question. All the other parties are on record rejecting the Conservative's proposal. Harper has repeatedly placed the child care issue within his top five priorities. The Liberals have made it clear that they will not support the Conservative plan, which leaves the Bloc and NDP to decide the government's fate. Graham offers a strategy where Liberals vote with their conscious, and the question of confidence is secondary. It is as though Graham is saying "if they fall they fall, we are acting in our interest". Graham looks eager to continue the Liberal tradition of feisty opposition which should make for an interesting parliament.

Visionless Liberals?

Quite alot of debate surrounding the relatively "early" Liberal leadership convention. Some argue that the Liberals should have postponed a leadership race, and instead focused on re-inventing the party. Others argue that it is essential for the party to act soon on the leadership question to present a face for the party and prepare for an early election. Two articles highlight the varying opinions:

The positive:

Unwilling to let Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new Conservative government dominate the political arena for an entire year, the Liberal Party of Canada has wisely chosen to compete for the attention of Canadians by speeding up the process for choosing a new Liberal leader...

The goal is to generate public interest in the contest through serious debates on the directions the country needs to follow to ensure its success on the global economic and political stage in the coming years

The negative:

At the moment, Liberals are utterly lost. After careening through two years and two elections with Paul Martin, a party that once boasted it was the western world's most successful no longer dominates the political centre, is out of fresh ideas and has no obvious leadership light to follow out of darkness.

So what's the Liberal response? It's to declare that Stephen Harper is making such a horrendous start that they must be ready to fight an election now forecast for next spring.

What self-deluding nonsense...

A short, sharp leadership contest favors style over substance, organization over personal potential, pragmatism over growth. That, and the bravado assumption that voters will consider Liberals rehabilitated by next spring, inflates the spectre of a Conservative majority.

Liberals are wisely recognizing this contest must be transparently more honest. They are foolishly ignoring that the party needs more time to find itself. A party obsessed with power is now hurtling toward nowhere.

After the election, I argued that it was essential for the Liberals to abandon a quick leadership race. The Party desperately needed to focus on internal policy matters and re-energize without the distraction of ambition and naked politics. I also felt the Harper government had a clear two year window, given the electoral mood of the country, and this allowed for a slow process.

However, I have now come to the conclusion that the Liberals are best served with a relatively early race. The lack of a clear frontrunner has opened up the race to allow for a more substantive debate. If soundbites are any indication, potential candidates clearly recognize the need for the Liberal Party to re-define itself. Brison has spoke to a desperate need for vision, so too Dryden. Ignatieff welcomed Rae into the race, saying "the more the merrier". According to Ignatieff, the leadership race is primarily an exercise in:

"A great party engaging in a full borne renewal. A really searching debate deep inside itself."

My point? From all indications, many of these contenders understand the stakes and embrace the opportunity to provide a clear vision. This leadership debate can easily morph into the debate the Liberals require to provide a new, positive agenda. Through these candidates, if they hold true to their commitment, all the questions can be addressed in a forum that allows clear distinctions. These candidates are all in consultations with local people and the grassroots. Obviously, the feedback conveys the desire for a real debate and not the usual slogans and style. I think the race, on a substantive level, is shaping up quite well- everyone is ready to engage.

In addition, I have now abandoned the "two year" window argument for the Harper government. Harper has already used up so much political capital in such order that it has no historical precedent. The early signs show a government that's own rigidity may cause more friction that anyone bargained. Harper's political tin ear and his preference for little advice suggests a disastrous miscalculation waiting to happen.

No one would argue that it isn't in the opposition's best interest to have clear, forceful leadership. If Liberals can embrace renewal through the leadership race, then it is a positive to have a leader in place as soon as possible. This is not to say an election is imminent, but why not have the ability to move if opportunity arises. Harper is already fighting the next election, as evidence by his massive offensive in Quebec. I am not sure the Liberals can essentially stay on the sidelines for a long period and hope to recover.

The early signs suggest a leadership race that recognizes the imperative of substance. If Liberals can accomplish renewal in relatively short order, it will undoubtedly provide more flexibility in dealing with the Conservatives. I must admit I am pleasantly surprised at the tone of most of the leadership hopefuls- they seem to get it.

Hearts And Minds

Is anybody surprised when stories like this surface:

After a roadside bomb killed a U.S. marine in western Iraq, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old-girl, residents told The Associated Press on Monday.

The military says 12 marines are under investigation for possible war crimes by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service following the Nov. 19 attack in Haditha, 225 kilometres northwest of Baghdad.

The allegations against the marines were first brought forward by Time magazine, which reported this week that it obtained a videotape two months ago taken by a Haditha journalism student that shows the dead still in their nightclothes...

"American troops immediately cordoned off the area and raided two nearby houses, shooting at everyone inside," said Mr. Rsayef, who didn't witness the events but whose 15-year-old niece says she did. "It was a massacre in every sense of the word."

I'm sure there are many other incidents like this one, that will never see the light of day. Unrealistic to expect humanity, when everything about war contradicts the premise. These American soldiers aren't unique, it happens in ever conflict- atrocities are a pre-requisite. Another night of Arab news outlets beaming the message that America is evil. Hearts and minds?

Emerson/Harper Inquiry Over, But...

Shapiro concludes:

From the preliminary inquiry is that neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Emerson contravened any of the specific Sections of the Members’ Code. I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his Cabinet and his party. In addition, there is no reason, and certainly no evidence, to contradict Mr. Emerson’s own claim that accepting Mr. Harper’s offer seemed, at least to him, a way to better serve his city, province and country. I therefore find no reason to pursue these matters further.

Hardly surprising, it was technically a weak case. Although, Harper's massive over-reaction now looks incredibly foolish, given the quick end to the inquiry. What is interesting is Shapiro concludes that, while no there is no formal breach of ethics, the appointment of Emerson leaves much to be desired:

This discomfort can be partly explained simply by partisan politics. It is always a matter of some delicacy to determine whether a request for a specific inquiry arises from a genuine concern for compliance with the Members’ Code as opposed to, for example, an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

In this case, however, I believe that partisan politics – in the very best sense of that phrase – is an insufficient explanation. “Crossing the floor” in the House of Commons is not at all unusual in Canadian parliamentary history. However, the closeness in time of Mr. Harper’s offer and Mr. Emerson’s acceptance of it to the general election heightened the issues – ethical and political – that always lay beneath a decision by a Member of Parliament to cross the floor and become affiliated with a political party other than the one under whose umbrella he or she campaigned and was elected. Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance seems to have given many citizens a “sense” that their vote – the cornerstone of our democratic system – was somehow devalued, if not betrayed.

Shapiro offers the Emerson protesters some validation, by rebuking the Conservative's standard spin, that this entire affair is mere partisanship. Shapiro gives support to the idea of voter disenfranchisement. Clearly, Shapiro makes a distinction between this floor crossing and previous ones, by outlining the close timeframe between vote and crossing. While Shapiro acknowledges that his office has no formal complaint against Emerson/Harper, he advises parliament to deal with the negativity that surrounds such manoeuvers.

On the surface, the media will spin this as a win for the Prime Minister. However, if you carefully read Shapiro's conclusions, you can read it as "yes it stinks, but it ain't my pile". I don't see this decision dampening any of furor over Emerson, Shapiro is sympathetic to the outrage.

Liberal Executive Lays An Egg

The Liberal Party will pick a new leader in early December:

The leaders also took steps to reduce financial barriers for candidates, party president Mike Eizenga said.

Those steps include reducing the entry fee to $50,000 from $75,000, leaving more money in candidates' hands by eliminating the party levy on the first $500,000 raised, and tightening disclosure rules. (The levy on funds above $500,000 is 20 per cent.)

But the executive approved a $3.4-million campaign spending limit, which gives an advantage to candidates who can tap into rich backers.

Most striking, is the missed opportunity to project an appearance of equality. Despite the tinkering, the fact that the spending limit is 3.4 million sends a clear signal that money and power trump the grassroots. Instead of endorsing a 2 million limit, which apparently was on the table, the Liberals go with the high end number and basically say "nothing's changed". Eizenga can point to the cosmetic changes(any serious contender can come up with 75 thousand) as evidence of reducing financial barriers, but the bottomline is the spending allowance and in that regard it puts a barrier on certain candidates, while allowing others a distinct advantage.

This was the first test of the "new" Liberal Party and I think they failed badly. If you really are concerned about opening up the process, and it isn't just convenient politico speak, then you should make rules that level the playing field. Setting a high spending limit betrays candidates who don't have "important" friends and their organization will suffer, no matter the process. This decision allows people like Stronach to thrive, not on merit but influence. The national executive can spin all they want, but on the important matter of the day they went with the status quo and essentially revealed their disconnect. Money and power are alive and well in the "new" Liberal Party.

update
Liberal reaction:

"Candidates should be competing based on ideas and vision, rather than on bank accounts," Brison has said.

That could be seen as a dig against Stronach, also a former Conservative with deep pockets thanks to her multimillionaire father's business success as head of auto parts giant Magna International.

Stronach applauded the new rules, saying they will "ensure the leadership race is more open, accessible and accountable process . . . that will guarantee a level playing field for everyone who decides to run."

The fact that Stronach applauds the rules pretty much says it all really. I put in the earlier Brison quote because it speaks to the real capital that should dictate.

Liberals Need Kennedy

Cherniak has an overview of the main players for the Liberal leadership. The big six are Dion, Dryden, Brison, Stronach, Rae and Ignatieff. A brief look at each, makes it easy to conclude that the Liberals desperately need Gerard Kennedy if they hope to project a new image:

Dion: While Dion is a great intellectual, he is crippled by his close ties to old regimes. Dion has baggage which is not easily shed, in effect a new leader already tarnished. This predicament is hardly an attractive quality for those who understand the need for a fresh start. I suspect Harper would salivate at his chances in Quebec with Dion at the helm. "Renewed federalism" vs "old centrism" is a recipe for disaster.

Dryden:I like Dryden. Dryden shows a real grasp of the "big picture", approaching each issue with vision and coherence. Dryden's ideas challenge Canadians to reach for the best in themselves. However, Dryden is a boreasaurus as an orator, prone to rambly speeches that lack inflection. The message is great, but the messenger can be a turn off. Dryden's ties to the last government aren't a huge burden, but coupled with his age, Dryden may find it hard to present a new path.

Stronach:Is there a more divisive figure in the Liberal Party? As Cherniak said, you either love her or hate her- clearly a polarizing force is the last thing Liberals need. Stronach has grown since she became an MP, but she is still relatively lacking in the substance department. Stronach, rightly or wrongly, represents all that is wrong with federal politics. Star power, whatever that means, can't mask the deficiencies.

Brison:I caught Brison doing the rounds the other day. When he wasn't deflecting the email criticism, Brison again showed that he is a crafted speaker, heavy on philosophy. However, the recent admissions have tarnished Brison, whether Liberals choose to believe it or not. Again, Brison has the stain of the old regime, which puts him in conflict with the fresh approach.

Rae:What a great speaker and statesman. Rae is a true intellectual, who shows a masterful understanding on every issue. However, talk about baggage! NDP canvassers in Ontario still hear voters who refuse to vote NDP because of Rae. Rae was unfairly saddled with a massive recession, but his legacy is written in stone. While I welcome a Rae candidacy, his appeal may be limited and ultimately any success would probably bring more questions than answers. Do Liberals want such a controversial figure at the helm?

Ignatieff:Another intellectual, with a great pedigree. On the surface, hard to argue with someone who draws comparison to Trudeau. Again though, Ignatieff comes with issues that distract from his credentials. The residency angle portrays a sense of opportunism which Ignatieff will not easily shake. Ignatieff's age, the Martin factor also betray any sense of a new direction.

Which brings us to Kennedy. When you see the above landscape, and I am probably overly harsh, you conclude that the Liberal Party are setting themselves up for failure. The common theme I have heard since the election is the Liberals need to re-invent themselves and break away from the shackles of the past. Gerard Kennedy is the wildcard who has unique appeal when considering a new vision. Kennedy is relatively young, articulate, placed outside of the Ottawa hierarchy and has potential appeal over several regions. The stakes are high for the Liberals, this is not a time for half measures and cautious transitions. None of the above candidates can be packaged to convey a freshness the way Kennedy can. The Liberal Party needs Kennedy in this race, if for nothing more than appearance.

I like some of the above candidates, plus a couple more not mentioned. But, if you view this campaign tactically, I don't see a calculus of pluses and minuses that doesn't put Kennedy at the top. Everyone one of these candidates has a downside, what is Kennedy's?

Bush: Environmental Nightmare

Pretty sad, when the courts have to intervene to stop the Bush administration's assault on all things environment:

A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The fact that 14 states were part of litigation speaks to the Bush administration's disconnect from the people it claims to represent. Obviously, this is good news for eastern Canada, given the massive amount of U.S emissions that drift into the region. In an age where the world struggles to reduce emissions, the Bush administration offers the stone age mentality, actually arguing for looser restrictions. Huh?

However, for every positive development, the Bush administration moves on other environmental targets. Clearly, unable to take repeated NO's for an answer, we find this sad attempt to re-start the ANWR issue:

A last-minute deal to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on a $2.8 trillion budget plan has given new life to the Republican drive to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which will begin in October, includes a $10 billion Gulf Coast restoration fund that would be financed from the leasing of arctic refuge drilling rights, revenue from new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico and further sales of the broadcast spectrum. With that provision in hand, Landrieu cast the only Democratic vote for the budget resolution, which squeaked through Thursday night, 51 to 49.

It remains a longshot, given the past vote rejections, but the simple fact that this issue has re-emerged speaks to a single-minded, industry driven philosophy that has no regard for anything but potential profits. If only the American Senate were allowed to vote on the Iraq war over and over and over. Is it 2008 yet?

Buzz Makes A Point

I'm not a huge fan of Buzz Hargrove, but I think he makes a valid point regarding labour's affiliation:

"Union members are no more likely to support the NDP than other Canadians. And union leaders who position themselves as automatic spokespersons for the party are wasting their political credibility with their own members."

"We need an active, demanding independent labour movement to push the envelope and hold government accountable — whatever party is in power. Second, our members are far more sophisticated and independent- minded in their politics today. They do not want to be told how to vote."

Organized labour should not be in the business of directing their membership's voting preference. The NDP should not be beholden to organized labour, as the primary consideration on any policy decision that relates to the economy. I don't think organized labour, or the NDP, are best served by such a formal alliance. Labour loses the appearance of independence, as well as credibility with members who don't vote NDP. The NDP is viewed as primarily a labour run party, which narrows its appeal to the wider electorate.

If labour is perceived to be a free agent in the political realm, they would in fact have more leverage and influence as parties jockey for their support- we see this development with the American primary system. Politicians would speak directly to the membership, instead of the translation through the organization. Labour would also benefit from the appearance that it is not a goosestep enterprise, that operates like a vanguard. You could argue that labour gets it relevance through mass organization, but political openness doesn't threaten this ideal.

There is no question that the NDP suffers from the stigma that it is tool for organized labour. If the party has any hopes to gain a greater political relevance, any move that alleviates the labour party appearance would be a plus. Labour will always be a part of any left-center party, but more informal understanding would benefit both parties.

Decima Poll's Curious Omission

The newly released Decima Poll compares the results with those on election night. Conclusion: the Conservative's hold steady, while the Grits lose and the NDP has marginal improvement. It is hard to dispute these numbers, however it is curious that Decima fails to compare the results to a poll they did exactly one month ago. The data is presented as though this is the first post-election poll, which it clearly isn't. If you look at the February Decima Poll and use those results to compare today's release the conclusions are altered slightly.

The February poll showed the Conservatives at 35%, while the latest one is 37%. The Liberals are actually up three points to 28%, compared to the earlier 25%. The NDP falls from 24% to 19%, representing a marked drop. Conclusion: Tories have slight rebound, Liberals return from post-election hangover and the NDP are the big losers. Obviously the election results are a far more reliable backdrop for this poll, especially given Decima's record, but no reference to their own methodology is odd. Anyways, food for thought.

How Does Klein Do It?

Ralph Klein has decreed that all potential replacements resign from cabinet by June. Couple this fact, with Klein's announcement that he will stay on until 2008 and you have a situation that betrays the public good. Albertan's now have a lame duck Premier, with bizarre priorities, as well as a government deprived of it's best and brightest.

Flashback to Jean Chretien's "long goodbye" and you will find the same people who reacted with contempt now strangely silent on King Ralph. It is simply staggering to watch the Klein "cult of personality" operate with impunity. In effect, there is now a two-year leadership campaign which will invariably distract the government, or what's left of the government. How are Albertan's served by this scenario? Clearly, Klein can do whatever he wants, with little accountability which reveals an inherent hypocrisy in Alberta. Oil revenues seem to mask the arrogance and sense of entitlement so often vilified in the federal realm.

On the surface, asking cabinet minister's to resign makes sense to avoid conflicts and jockeying. However, the timeframe betrays the "ideal", leaving the government in a perpetual holding pattern, that intensifies as the months pass. Klein has already made it clear he lacks any vision for the future, as evidenced by his lazy attitude in the last election. Now, Ralph can just sit on his throne, awash in revenue, while the people are largely silent and the peons fight to replace the annointed one. I don't get it, I didn't get when I lived out west- it's almost laughable. Everytime I raised a issue about Klein, I inevitably received the "oh that's just Ralph". A province of apologists(I'm generalizing of course), who offer no criticism so long as the checks come in and the coffers are full.

Elected Senate: "I Don't Think Harper Knows What He's Up To"

Anyone who has reservations about the possible implications of an elected Senate should give this article a read. Harper seems determined to forge ahead with his plan, mainly as a way to appease his base, despite the pitfalls. Instead of democratizing the process, the Harper plan puts accountability into question:

It is unclear what is gained through elections if the victorious senators are still allowed to remain in office until age 75 or until their resignation, as the Constitution dictates...

"Once elected, the senators are there until 75. What have you accomplished?" ask Mr. Franks, who has written pieces defending the work of the current upper chamber. "In Canada, you elect people and then they are accountable for their acts in a succeeding election. The senators are appointed until 75, so that opportunity doesn't exist."

Harper plans to go ahead with an elected Senate, without provincial consultation, which means the Senate would essentially lack accountability. After election, Senators are free to do as they wish, without the voter check that democracy demands. In a sense, the Senator's would have greater latitude than MP's because they are not subject to electoral reprisals. How is this reform an advancement on democracy?

Once engaged, the newly elected Senator's would wake from their "effective" slumber and become a player:

Regardless, once the elected senators are in the upper chamber they may feel empowered to flex their muscles, Mr. Behiels warns. The Senate does have the power to block legislation and send it back to the House of Commons, but that power is rarely deployed because Senators are viewed as lacking the degree of legitimacy enjoyed by elected MPs in the House of Commons.

"The elected senators might say, 'We have nothing to stop us. We have these powers. We're going to use them.' That will immediately cause a clash with the House of Commons, because all of this hasn't been worked out in advance," says Mr. Behiels.

His warning is echoed by Ronald Watts, a former director of Queen's University's Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. In the book Protecting Canadian Democracy, he writes that leaving the powers of the Senate as is while introducing direct elections represents a recipe for disaster.

"Doing this while leaving the powers unchanged and without introducing a deadlock resolution process ... might open the way to serious problems in the operation of responsible government."

Historically, the Senate has been weary of serious challenges to Commons legislation because they lacked democratic legitimacy. Harper's simplistic, superficial remedy allows for a legislature that becomes increasingly partisan, prone to pork barrel haggling and a general inability to function smoothly. Adding another layer of bureaucracy, without additional constitutional tinkering serves no one, apart from the appeasing appearance of "elected".

I am not against Senate reform per se, although I think you can make a strong argument that abolishing it is the most seasonable. Harper's approach doesn't show much depth, a mere bandaid solution that opens up an entire different set of problems that will have to be addressed. I think this quote sums up the initiative quite nicely:

"I don't think Harper knows what he's up to," says Michael Behiels, a professor of Canadian political history at the University of Ottawa. "Harper is being led by his wishes to satisfy the Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party, rather than any real understanding of what this will entail."

Such is the case with kneejerk agendas, meant to garner votes, without a careful consideration of consequence.

Harper Gives Mixed Signals

Harper made a point of declaring our firm resolve in Afghanistan with the "we will not cut and run" argument. Harper was attempting to show that Canada is committed longterm, that our support would not be dictated by day to day events or setbacks. The message was intended to boost the troop morale, present a united front and appease any Afghan concerns about our longterm presence. It is within this context, that Harper's later comments with Karzai seem contradictory:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai yesterday that Canada's desire to keep troops in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed if opposition parties at home resist...

"As I said to the President, we have a parliamentary system and I don't control the majority and I don't control the other parties, but I would hope that if in the future we reduce our military presence, it's because we've achieved two of our objectives," he said after the two men met in the presidential palace in Kabul.

We will not "cut and run", but I really don't have the longterm authority, or present power, to back up my pledge. These mixed messages offer more confusion to Afghans than if Harper said nothing at all. Karzai is left with the impression that the Harper government is a weak entity, in a volatile environment.

Stephane Dion chastised the Prime Minister for politizing his visit with talk of internal troubles and he was right to do so. Internationally you want to project strength, no matter what the issue. Instead, Harper talks tough one day, then absolves himself of any longterm relevance the next. I guess you can chalk this inconsistency to lack of experience, but given the stakes in Afghanistan it serves as a bad blunder. Harper's purpose in visiting Afghanistan was supposed to clarify our commitment on many levels, to different audiences. Instead, there is still confusion because political uncertainty is now part of the equation, undercutting any appearance of unity.

Conservatives Commit To Kyoto

I guess this new stance is a good sign:

Despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public misgivings about the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the federal environment minister says Canada will not opt out of the accord.

Rona Ambrose said Tuesday the Conservative government will work within the protocol, but she said there is a need for a separate, made-in-Canada solution to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution...

We are going to be working within Kyoto," Ambrose said, clarifying lingering uncertainties about the federal government's plans.

Ambrose still holds the view that we need a "made in Canada" approach to emissions. I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, the Kyoto Accord is far from perfect. However, I think we should remain sceptical of what the Conservative plan really entails. Will Ambrose distance herself from the oil and gas interests she has previously defended? If we are serious about emissions, any arrangements that don't have specific legislation is a toothless exercise. Simply arguing that the private sector will be the one's to come up with solutions, defies the logic of a capitalistic enterprise, where profit trumps all.

That being said, the fact that Ambrose, and by extension Harper, have finally recognized the Kyoto Accord serves as a positive. I am curious to see how practical the much anticipated Tory "Clean Air Act" turns out to be. That initiative will show if the Conservatives have really evolved on the environment, or prefer useless propaganda akin to the Bush "Health Forests" nonsense.

Bob Rae Advocates Liberal/NDP Merger?

Bob Rae's speech yesterday highlighted the need for progressive unity:

Former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae cast his first public -- but unofficial -- pitch for the federal Liberal leadership yesterday, suggesting that Canada's progressives must consider joining together to win a majority in the Commons...

But he told reporters he is worried about "what a Harper majority government would do" and suggested that it is time to unite the left in Canada to win power.

"I think it's important for people who call themselves progressive to really think about the situation.

"There's a progressive record that's shared by a majority of Canadians, but so far, we have not succeeded in becoming a majority in the House of Commons, so we must think a bit about how that can happen."

The obvious implication of the need to unite progressives is to do so under one party banner. Rae accurately assesses the current political makeup, wherein conservatives are a distinct minority, yet are able to thrive because of a divided center-left. This problem wasn't a serious concern until recently, when the conservatives recognized there own need for a merger to enhance their relevance. I hope Rae does decide to run for the Liberal leadership, because I think he is uniquely positioned to articulate the need for a formal rethinking of the political system.

Unquestionable, by any measure, Canada is decidedly a center-left electorate. Unlike the American political system, social conservatives don't have the numbers clout to dictate policy, except in a scenario where the center-left remains divided and they can exploit the split. Rae doesn't come right out and argue for a merger of the NDP and Liberal Parties, but he sure implies it and this idea deserves serious consideration.

I can see how many NDP supporters would resist any blending with a Liberal Party that is prone to stray and only exhibits progressive tendencies during election campaigns. However, any synthesis would necessiate a shift to the left, simply as a result of bringing a strong progressive voice into the fold. The centrists, and the marginal moderate conservatives, who inhabit the present Liberal Party would be marginalized in any formal policy planks. The left-wing of the Liberal Party, coupled with the mainstream NDP would essentially rule the roost and progressive ideals would become the party mantra.

You could argue that the Liberal Party could lose the soft centrist vote to the conservatives with any formal alliance with the NDP, but I would suggest the political landscape still allows for some erosion, while still maintaining enough support to govern. If you did a detailed analysis of each riding in the last election, you would find a circumstance, wherein even if you were to slice 5% of the Liberal tally and give it to the Conservatives, you would still have electoral success. Another by-product of a NDP/Liberal merger would be a Conservative Party which would be forced to completely abandon their extremist tendencies if it were to have any chance at success.

I haven't addressed the idea of proportional representation, although it could be another avenue to get us to the same place, without the formal blending. The more I think about it, the more I would like to see Rae jump into the race, if for no other reason than to bring the issue of divided progressives to the forefront. Canada can't afford to let a minority dictate policy simply as a function of a splintered majority.

New Afghanistan Poll

A new Strategic Counsel poll offers some insight into Canadians thoughts on Afghanistan:

The poll found 78 per cent of Canadians surveyed think that the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will improve the lives of people there, while 14 per cent don't.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents think that casualties are an acceptable price to pay while 39 per cent disagree.

Seventy-three per cent of respondents said they are emotionally attached to their troops, while 26 per cent are not.

Of those who are emotionally attached, the vast majority, 83 per cent, are proud of them, while 13 per cent are not.

Overall, 55 per cent of Canadians support sending troops to Afghanistan, while 41 per cent do not.

On the surface, you would conclude that Canadians are largely supportive of the mission in Afghanistan. However, this finding suggests why the numbers are skewed towards support:

70 per cent of respondents think Canadian troops are in Afghanistan as peacekeepers, rather than in a combat role.

This result may explain why an overwhelming number of Canadians think we will improve the lives of the people. The fact that people view our role as "peacekeeping" is a combination of our traditional role internationally, coupled with a lack of understanding. When Canadians are asked a more realistic question pertaining to our actual role in Afghanistan the numbers are different:

47 per cent of respondents think Canadians should not be involved in a combat role in international conflicts, compared to 51 per cent who think they should.

The poll also finds that, despite the perceived support, an overwhelming 69% think we should debate a prolonged engagement. The main conclusion I take away from this poll is that Canadians support our troops, but are certainly not clear as to the true nature of our mission. The shift in support when the mission changes from peacekeeping to a combat role should worry the Harper government, because invariably we will see combat casualties and the sober reality of our role will crystallize in Canadians minds. I'm not convinced Canadians really understand the nature of the mission, that being Canada is now the military vanguard.

Wanted: Prime Minister

It seems we have elected a Prime Minister with a Premier's mentality. Harper doesn't seem to understand that the role of the federal government is to provide leadership, act as a check on ambitious regional agendas and offer a sense of uniformity that gels the nation. Instead, Harper has articulated his contempt for the federal government's "incursions" into provincial terrorities. Harper has offered a "renewed" federalism which translates into fractured regionalism, within a loose federation. The current situation in Alberta, where Klein is clearly on a path that threatens the Canada Health Act serves as a frightening example of a Prime Minister more concerned with not making waves than upholding his constitutional role. Where is the counter voice to reign in the belligerent bull?:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to be backing away from a confrontation with Alberta over its Third Way health proposals...

"I think the (Third Way) health policy framework, for all its vagueness, is pretty clear about where it wants to go," said Harvey Voogd of Alberta-based Friends of Medicare.

Voogd said the lack of response from Ottawa has raised questions about ,"what the heck he (Harper) meant when he said during the federal election he would stand up and abide by the Canada Health Act and protect it."

Many critics say a simple statement by the prime minister that Alberta is violating the rules of medicare could have a major political impact - perhaps more impact, in this case, than a cut in federal transfer payments to the province.

Tom Noseworthy, director of the Centre for Health and Policy Studies at the University of Calgary, said Ottawa should speak now or risk losing any ability to influence the outcome.

"We'd better be careful, or the federal government may be looking at a fait accompli - and then trying to make a change is going to be very difficult."

Harper seems more interested in not alienating his Alberta base than he does in doing his job. You can argue about the threats to public health care with regards to the Quebec's and British Columbia's plans. However, there is no doubt that the Klein government proposals are in clear violation of the Canada Health Act requirements. This isn't a "wait and see" proposition, the discussion demands a clear rebuke and sadly Harper is silent. Who provides the check on Klein? If not Harper, then nobody for all intent and purposes.

Harper promised to protect the Canada Health Act, clearly his words were hollow. I'm sure, when the issue reaches a head, Harper will do the symbolic dance and garner some meaningless concessions to look relevant, all the while the system crumbles. Votes trump vision.

Harper's Dodge and Weave On Afghanistan

Instead of defending our mission in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper takes no responsibility:

"The previous government made an important decision to help the people of Afghanistan and to support our troops in a very dangerous mission, and this government has no intention of questioning this mission while our troops are in danger," Mr. Harper said last week. "In such a debate, such a lack of strength by any Canadian party would weaken our troops, and possibly place our troops in more danger."

Honoring the commitments of the previous government, that's all. Okay, assuming that logic is valid, then how can Harper scrap the previous government's commitment to daycare? Doesn't that commitment deserve Harper's support too? Harper is just using a convenient argument to dodge and weave so as to not implicate his own government, should the mission go astray. I expect to see Harper fall back on this argument everytime there is a question about Afghanistan.

When the daycare debate comes back to the forefront, I hope the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals, use Harper's own justification on Afghanistan to show the hypocrisy. If you honor commitments, you honor commitments. Period.

Harper Offers Bad Reasoning On Afghanistan

I was reading a online piece, which outlines Harper's defense of the Afghanistan mission. Now, I realize Harper was probably tired from his long and extensive trip to Afghanistan, but surely our mission in Afghanistan is more than this:

Harper said the Canadian force in Afghanistan serves the national interest because:

1)International terrorism is rooted in the country. "It was in Afghanistan that Sept. 11 started."

2)The country is a major source of narcotics, which have a terrible impact on Canada.

3)It shows Canada providing international leadership and humanitarian aid.

Harper points to stopping terrorism, which is valid and completely justifiable. However, fighting the drug trade?? Can we expect to invade Colombia soon? How about a joint mission with the Americans into British Columbia to stop the evil weed that is corrupting our youth. Harper trivializes the mission by pointing to the heroine trade as some validation. I seriously doubt that Canadians would support a "war on drugs" argument to justify the bodybags. In Bush lingo, that is tantamount to "stop the drugs over there before we have addicts over here".

Harper also mischaracterizes the present mission, by falling back on the standard "humanitarian" angle. Interesting that Harper makes these comments, while at a base where hundreds of soldiers are absent because they have launched a major military offensive in the Afghan countryside. We are at war, this is not the UN dropping food rations. Our primary role is not about building schools and safe water, it is about ridding the insurgents from the landscape. The Americans are also involved in "humanitarian" efforts in Iraq, but no one would suggest they are not at war. Don't sugar coat it, don't introduce nonsensical arguments, just the facts please- Canadians can take it.

A Dangerous Sign in Afghanistan

Canadian troops returned today to the site of last week's axe attack in Afghanistan. I think it important to look at this one village as a microcosm of why our mission may ultimately fail. Canada had entered this phase with lofty goals, a combination of military objectives against insurgents, coupled with a outreach to Afghan tribes to gain trust and bring stability. The issue of trust is the key element, if Afghans come to view the Canadians as occupiers then the insurgency finds greater relevance and the resistance grows. Despite the Canadian military's best intentions, incidents like last week place a wedge between the forces and the people out of necessity:

Armoured columns of edgy Canadian troops rumbled Sunday into the town where an axe-wielding teenager nearly killed a Canadian soldier.

The soldiers first sealed off the mountain town, cutting off all exit routes and sending scouts high into the mountains to prevent the potential escape of any insurgents.

Along with the Afghan National army, the troops made a house-to-house search that yielded only two shotguns and ended with the brief interrogation of a suspect who was carrying Pakistani cash...

The show of force was a markedly different operation from the meeting a week ago when Capt. Trevor Greene sat down for a friendly gathering of townsmen...

The village elders were gathered together when Croucher told them their town was about to be searched inside-and-out.

"It was a little tense," said Capt. John Croucher, the platoon commander who led troops into the village.

"That's the second time I went to that village. I'll be honest, the
first time I went in there it was a laissez-faire attitude. When I went back this time Trevor's incident was in the back of my mind. It was there, I was worried about my guys."

Is the military justified in conducting house to house raids, coupled with an intimidating show of force? No doubt it is under the circumstances, but the signal it sends is counter-productive and will only cultivate hostility. The villagers have essentially been violated by the foreign army, while the Canadians are suspicious of the villagers true allegiance. This distrust is inevitable, as shown in every military operation over history that attempts to suppress a homegrown insurgency. The problem is, despite the diplomatic overtures, your mission is too kill Afghans and that has consequences.

With each attack, Canadian troops will inevitably become more paranoid and suspicious of the people they are supposed to engage. With each search, detainment, firefight the people begin to turn on the "foreigners", in effect developing sympathy for the insurgency that didn't exist previously. Today's return to the same village is a minor development in the grand scheme. But, if you look at the changed dynamic in such short order, you are justified in wondering if this isn't a precursor of things to come.

New Liberal Leadership Hopeful?

Why not? He needs a job, has name recognition and is uniquely Canadian. While some might argue his annoying character would work against him, I would suggest a quick review of our last few Prime Ministers- annoying seems a prerequisite. He has massive charisma and a disarming sex appeal that would project well. The Canadian Tire guy has shown a natural propensity for problem solving and quick decision making, which are essential in today's political environment. He is a tireless(no pun intended) community servant, always willing to lend a hand to a person in need.

Just imagine Stephen Harper in debate with the Canadian Tire Guy. Harper wouldn't stand a chance against this industrious thinker, quick with rebuttal and alternative viewpoints. So, with that in mind, I think a draft the Canadian Tire guy grassroots effort should be initiated. Canadian television's loss, may well be federalism's gain. Think about it.

NDP Makes A Mistake On Stronach

I think the NDP has badly miscalculated by drawing Stronach into the ethics investigation. The obvious motivation appears to be an attempt to eliminate the partisan aspect of the story, using Stronach to portray an even standard. If New Democrat MP Pat Martin's desire for a joint investigation is simply a personal view, without political consideration, then he is entitled to his opinion. However, if the NDP has done the political calculation on this issue, and I suspect they have, then they have made a mistake.

First off, the timing is terrible. Why distract from Emerson by introducing the media darling Stronach, in effect clouding the waters and letting Harper off the hook? I don't think the case against Emerson is particularly strong, but Harper has turned this inquiry into a question of accountability and adherence to law. Introducing Stronach changes the channel, which is stupid politically. The first rule of politics is if your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, get out of the way.

The NDP also opens themselves up on the ethical front. Why wasn't this matter engaged at the time of Stronach's crossing? It would seem the importance of this defection has a direct co-relation to the NDP's own political reality. There is no formal alliance with the Grits now so Stronach is fair game, but during the last parliament the NDP was protecting their own interests, first and foremost. Introducing Stronach well beyond any reasonable timeframe makes the NDP look opportunistic and adds a cynicism to the entire inquiry. If the NDP is banking on portraying themselves as the only "pure" party on ethics, the dynamics of the Stronach angle suggest otherwise.

There are certain aspects to the Emerson affair that are unique, with no resemblance to the Stronach matter. What the NDP has done is blend the two so that any discussion of one necessitates the comparison. On substance, the NDP may be right on Stronach, but politically I don't see the benefits to offset the obvious negatives.

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.