Here’s why Stephen Harper really won - The Globe and Mail

By Margaret Wente - from the Globe and Mail

Thanks to the central Canadian punditocracy, I now know why the Conservatives won an overwhelming election victory, and why the Liberals were pulverized. It was those nasty attack ads on TV.

So powerful were they that they persuaded millions of gullible voters to rise up against Michael Ignatieff and vote for someone else. Mr. Ignatieff himself blames them for his demise. Fellow Liberals think their leader was just too darn high-minded to strike back. “This is a blood sport,” griped Jim Karygiannis, one of the last Liberal MPs standing. “There is no Mr. Nice in this business.”

Liberal-minded opinion-mongers have been twisting themselves into pretzels to explain Stephen Harper’s completely unexpected whopping victory. They’re obsessed with the attack ads. Besides, they say, the Conservatives just got lucky. They reaped a windfall from the collapse of the Bloc Québécois and unexpected vote splits. Another reason is that Mr. Harper successfully appealed to “voter fatigue,” “fear” and an uninformed electorate that’s sadly oblivious to the destruction of democracy in Ottawa.

Anyway, they argue, it really wasn’t such a victory after all. Mr. Harper, they say, failed to broaden his base (even though he conquered Fortress Toronto, where he’d always been shut out), and won only 40 per cent of the popular vote (just like Jean Chrétien and Bill Davis). One commentator compared his win to George W. Bush’s “stolen” election of 2000.

If you want to understand why Mr. Harper loathes the mainstream media, look no further. But if you want to understand why he won, you’ll have to look elsewhere. One problem is that the media demonize the very qualities that have made him a success. They hate him for his micro-managing, control-freak ways. But those same qualities have been crucial to his success. Without them, he’d never have survived five years in the bear pit of minority government.

In fact, the Conservatives won because they did the sorts of things the Liberals used to do. They built broad coalitions among disparate groups. Take the so-called ethnic vote. When the Liberals courted new Canadians, it was smart. When the Conservatives do it, it’s sleazy. During the campaign, the CBC assembled countless panels of ethnic people to express their disgust at this condescending and divisive tactic. Amazingly, however, ethnic voters seemed glad to have important cabinet ministers show up in their ridings. They liked the focus on stability and a strong economy. Besides, the Liberals hadn’t been around for years.

The Conservatives’ years of efforts paid off spectacularly. To get results like that, you need a long-term strategy, passion, and someone willing to drink 15,000 cups of tea. The Liberals no longer have any of those things.

The Conservatives profited from vote splits. But they were also able to get out the vote where it mattered. They were focused and had ground troops who worked hard. For this, they’re being accused of running a soulless and technocratic campaign. (When Liberals ran things this way, they were called “professional.”)

Read more...

Here’s why Stephen Harper really won - The Globe and Mail

Sand in the Shorts: After the signs have come down...

Dedicated to the memory of Betty Albrecht, wife of Conservative MP Harold Albrecht (Kitchener - Conestoga), who passed away as a result of a brain hemorrhage on Wednesday. Mrs. Albrecht collapsed Monday night as the couple were about to leave their home for a campaign victory party. Married for 39 years, Betty Albrecht was 59.

The election is over. The signs are coming down, offices being cleaned out, supplies going back into storage for the next four years or so (October 19, 2015 is the next scheduled election), the winners – especially the new crop of MP's, including the NDP Kiddie Korps - are organizing their offices and staffs, and generally preparing for a throne speech expected to come around the end of the month. A month of hard campaigning rewarded by victory and the opportunity to go to Ottawa and serve the people of their constituency.

But what of those who wont be going to Ottawa. For every one Member of Parliament elected, three or more candidates now deal with their defeat. Men and women from all backgrounds who gave their time, money, and effort only to be turned away at the ballot box. For these, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

For some, who lost a seat in the Commons, there is the cleaning out of offices in Ottawa and back in their riding, winding up their affairs and residence in Ottawa, and returning to the life they had before first being elected. They are now unemployed, and while hardly destitute, they face the same challenge many ordinary Canadians have over the years – job change. And as anyone who's gone through this will know, the psychological ramifications can be immense, affecting self worth, etc.

For others, who ran for office from outside Parliament, they go back to families they haven't been able to spend much time with, jobs which they may have taken a leave from, and likely a significantly depleted bank account. Depending on their workplace, some may have been forced to take a leave of absence, meaning they've been living on their savings for the last month, increasing the economic cost of running to them and their family. And the loss itself can impact their psychological well-being. No-one wants to lose, no one runs without the goal, and hope (no matter how slim) of winning. For some, the impact of a loss can hit hard, affecting their self worth, and their picture of how the world sees them.

So as we fete the winners, consider the ramifications of the outcome on national policies, and discuss possibilities for Cabinet and shadow-Cabinets, spare a minute for those who cared enough to run, but weren't successful. While they lost at the ballot box, they should have won your respect. Without them, our democracy could not work, and we would all be the worse for that.

Quick hits: 

• Expect rookie MP Chris Alexander (Ajax-Pickering) to be named Foreign Affairs minister in the new cabinet. With the defeat of current minister Lawrence Cannon, and Alexander's experience as ambassador and in other roles with Foreign Affairs, it's a near certainty.

• And have traffic engineers in Belleville heard of sensors? I have repeatedly had the traffic lights at College St W and Heartwood turn red on College late at night, when there was no pedestrian or vehicle traffic anywhere on Heartwood – or anywhere else in sight. Traffic lights at this corner would be best set to flashing red for Heartwood and amber for College after 10 or 11 pm – with pedestrians able to call a red with the crossing button. How about it, Mayor?

The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Layton imagined Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities. It was adorable.

By Scott Feschuk - from Macleans.ca

The most surreal moment of election night 2011 took form as it became apparent to one and all that Jack Layton, leader of the Opposition, had lost his mind.

It’s well and good to celebrate a historic surge in one’s popular support. A wide smile and a jubilant bit of cane-waving are undoubtedly in order. But a few lines into Layton’s speech, a nation gaped as it grew clear the NDP leader had mistaken his moral victory for, you know, an actual victory. He seemed to labour under the impression that he would hold sway in the next Parliament. Indeed, Layton went so far as to imagine that Stephen Harper would be psyched to meet with him to discuss NDP priorities.

It was kind of adorable, like a kitten pawing at a vacuum. One envisioned Layton’s aides whispering between themselves:

—Should we tell him?

—Nah, it’s cute. We’ll put it on YouTube and call it “I Can Haz Influence?”

All campaign long, Layton had ended his speeches by vowing theatrically that, as prime minister, he. Would not. Stop. Untiltheworkisdone. He stuck to this rhetoric on election night. But the Opposition leader doesn’t get to do the work. At best, he gets first dibs on criticizing the work. With more than a hundred seats in a Conservative majority, Jack Layton has never been so undeniably relevant—and so utterly inconsequential.

Layton’s wild imaginings were merely the evening’s most flamboyant. The Night of 1,000 Delusions had gained momentum only a few minutes earlier, when Elizabeth May of the Green party ventured a curious interpretation of her own election to Parliament. “Today we proved that Canadians want change in politics,” she told supporters.

Is that what we proved? Because when the governing party wins a third straight election, and does so with a strengthened mandate, some of us are tempted to resort to the familiar Latin of status quo. Although to be fair to May, her party did attract 40 per cent fewer votes nationally this time—so that was change of a sort. Read more...

The Night of 1,000 Delusions - Scott Feschuk - Macleans.ca

Siddiqui: How Harper won and Ignatieff lost - thestar.com

By Haroon Siddiqui - from the Toronto Star

In a parliamentary democracy, no election is unnecessary, really. Elections bring clarity, even those that don’t change party standings much — the government gets a new mandate, the opposition becomes more constructive. Sometimes, elections spring surprises. Stephen Harper, who derided this election as “unnecessary,” has ended up its biggest beneficiary.

Any prime minister who strategizes his way to a majority deserves credit — Harper more so, since he’s the first in seven years to have done so. This is all the more remarkable considering that he campaigned on what he had assiduously avoided in 2006 and 2008: asking for a majority. This time he read the public mood right, tapping into the broadly held sentiment that political shenanigans in Ottawa were trumping the nation’s business.

Those downplaying his majority say he won only because the NDP resurgence drained away votes from the Liberals, especially in the Toronto area. So what? Them’s the breaks in three-way races — just as the Liberals used to benefit from the splits between Progressive Conservatives and Reformers.

In fact, not all Tory wins can be explained by the splits — in many ridings, the Conservatives amassed a record number of votes. Read more...

Siddiqui: How Harper won and Ignatieff lost - thestar.com

Ontario gave secret wage hike to public-sector workers, documents allege - The Globe and Mail

By Karen Howlett - from the Globe and Mail

The Ontario government struck a “secret deal” with the province’s largest public-sector union, awarding its members an additional wage increase of 1 per cent for 2012, according to documents revealed Wednesday at a labour board hearing.

The revelation that the 38,000 workers received a quiet wage top-up in a contract spanning a fixed election date is likely to draw criticism from the opposition. The previously undisclosed deal also calls into question other wage settlements with public-sector employees. At least one union says it treated the public version of the OPSEU agreement as a benchmark.

Documents entered at a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board reveal that the government agreed to pay the “adjustment” to 38,000 members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, on top of a scheduled wage increase of 2 per cent for 2012.

The documents were presented after Diane Gee, chairwoman of the hearing, rejected the government’s request to permanently seal correspondence outlining the across-the-board adjustment, which was over and above a four-year collective agreement reached between OPSEU and the government in December, 2008.

The government agreed to top up the wages for OPSEU members 15 months before it called for a voluntary wage freeze for teachers, nurses and other public-sector workers who bargain collectively, according to the documents. Public-sector unions and arbitrators have all but ignored that request.

Government lawyers argued that there would be “significant detrimental impact” on labour relations if confidential agreements or undertakings were disclosed.

“Confidential agreements are of paramount significance in labour relations and have proven to be a highly productive means by which to resolve difficult issues,” the government’s written submission says.

Ms. Gee disagreed and asserted that open proceedings are a cornerstone of Canada's justice system. “Sealing evidence heard and considered in a legal proceeding is antithetical to openness and transparency,” she said in her written decision.

The deal for extra pay is spelled out in letters from an official in the Ministry of Government Services to the chief negotiator for OPSEU. In a letter dated Dec. 24, 2008, the ministry official says the government appreciates the union’s approach to labour relations and the atmosphere of “mutual trust” that helps to resolve issues and problems.

“The parties recognize the current economic climate poses significant challenges to government,” the letter says.

In a second, unsigned letter with a hand-written date of Dec. 23, 2008, the ministry official says the 1-per-cent adjustment will not be part of the collective agreement, but that OPSEU can file a grievance if the top-up payment is not implemented.  Read more...

Ontario gave secret wage hike to public-sector workers, documents allege - The Globe and Mail

Election Day Cometh

So it finally comes - Election day 2011, the day of the 41st General Election in Canadian history.  After starting off with a whimper, looking like it was a Question of a small Conservative majority or a return to the ante electione status quo, a political earthquake appeared to take place (according to polls), this election has turned into something of a horse race, for lack of a better metaphor.

Right now, the polls are open, Canadians are voting, and we don't know what will happen.  Until 9:30 PM EDT,  NDP leader Jack Layton's dreams of 24 Sussex Drive on the shoulders of the other opposition leaders live on in the candy-coloured (think red smarties) lands of his imagination.  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe can tell himself the feelings of impending doom are nothing but the dim memories of a bad dream.  And Green leader Lizzy May can tell herself she will in a few hours she will be leader of a party with as many seats as an independent.

Liberal and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff can tell himself that forcing this election wasn't such a bad idea, and won't necessarily lead to the annihilation of his party and political career.  Prime Minister and Conservative leader Stephen Harper can imagine the possibilities of helming a majority government.  These dreams may or may not come true, but until 9:30 PM tonight, the possibilities are myriad.

So let your dreams run wild, political leaders, for some time tonight, at least some of you are in for a most rude awakening.

Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

I think it is important, as the election draws near, that the willingness of the NDP to act not in accordance with what's best for the people of Canada, but rather to seek what's best for them and their big labour cronies, and the other interest groups which drive the NDP forward. They care not for the little guy who is concerned about union dues being used for political purposes, or the new guy just hired, or the small and medium sized businessperson trying to create jobs for Canadian workers. They care about lining the pockets of their special interest supporters with taxpayer dollars.

In light of that, I will post here part of the transcript from an NDP meeting which took place as the Coalition sought to hijack the House of Commons.

Jack (Layton): Thank you very much, uh, keep the myth alive that I’m exhausted and working incredibly hard (laughter) I appreciate you relaying that, I was asleep by ten o’clock last night, and had a very good night, a very good sleep, and that was my Friday night. So, an update on where we are, the, uh, we’re in the middle of a very historic time, and we’re playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day. At the same time, negotiation processes are underway, and in fact as we speak, our negotiating team that I’ve named to meet with the Liberal negotiating team are discussing the mechanics of a coalition government, and the form that it would take, the structure of cabinet, the way in which the logistics of a coalition government with the Liberals and the New Democrats would work, the key roles, and dispute resolution mechanisms, timelines, et cetera.

05:23 -
All of the logistics issues that you would expect would be a part of such a discussion are being negotiated now we hope that that part of the negotiations would be completed today. Our negotiating team consists of Brian Topp, who negotiated as a senior member of the Romano team in Saskatchewan, negotiating a similar coalition with the Liberal party there, and of course you know Brian is our campaign co-chair director. Ann McGrath, in her chief of staff role, she’s also wearing the president of the party hat still, and so she’s got several hats on at the moment. Ed Broadbent, Alan Blakely, Dawn Black, as a member of caucus I’ve selected to participate in this process, someone that I happen to know is also respected and trusted by key Liberals, Tom Mulcair, as our Quebec lieutenant, and Carl Belanger. Tom and Carl are the negotiating team with the Bloc team, and Brian and Dawn Black are negotiating with the Liberal team. We’re starting with two party talks, this will resolve itself into a tripartite conversation before the weekend is up, and the goal is to produce by the end of the weekend, an agreement on the machinery of the coalition, which would be signed off, particularly by the NDP and Liberals, but endorsed by the Bloc, and an agreement on policy program for the coalition, that would have three party agreement. I can’t go into the details on all of this stuff, particularly the machinery, but it’s in the process of negotiation, and we could consume an awful lot of time speculating about it, so I don’t propose that we spend that time today on this particular matter of question. But instead, there’s a golden opportunity today, for you to provide input on the policy matters, you can be assured that we have looked at our program, we’ve looked at our platform, we’ve looked at what I’ve been saying about economic stimulus, we’ve been in close consultations with the leadership of the labour movement around some of their key ideas and they’ve been providing terrific support, including at a high-level early morning meeting this morning, so much of what you would have want to see, it’s probably already there, you’ll hear a bit more about it later, but there’s an opportunity to touch base with all of you, because in the end, you’re going to be intimately a part of the delivery of all of this, and so that’s why we’re having this meeting at this point in time.
08:32 -
Jack: I made a list Judy, so I’ll take a whack and you’ll say if I’ve missed any…
Judy: Ya. Meetings, confidentiality, what can be said. Go ahead.
Jack: First, do MP’s have to be in Ottawa until we have a better sense of the potential confidence motion stakes. You have to remain agile. And with Ottawa being the base. Uh, and so when you’re organising your community meetings make sure there’s a speaker phone facility, or a webcam. Secondly, I believe that we should get immediately into the driver’s seats on organizing these community meetings, you have people who worked on your campaign who are exactly the kind of people, whether in labour movements, labour councils, uh, childcare groups, environmental groups, these are people that need to be pulled together. You get them together, and then they’ll take it from there, it doesn’t have to be your meeting, it shouldn’t be your meeting, but of course you’ll be there as the MP, and you’re part of the coalition, and you’re consulting with the community to make sure they’re open, so if anyone wants to come and protest and say it’s a bad idea, be there to make a real news event out of it, the youth comes with the emotion in favour of the coalition and an action plan coming from Thursday night, particularly focused on the weekend, with petitioning, and phone in shows, and god knows what else, a letter writing, one of the goals here is to of course, recruit as many names, addresses, emails, phone numbers as possibly can, because this coalition will need the support of these people, and then we will need their support when we get an election. Now, will there be an independent NDP caucus, yes. BQ stability issues, worry about BQ potentially being off-side, we’re taking that very much into account. We have numerous strategies designed to deal with it, I actually believe they’re the least of our problems, but in case I’m wrong, let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details, and the managing expectations, lists from groups, actually, the wisest people in the groups are already coming to the conclusion, some of them are in direct contact, saying probably wouldn’t be too helpful if we had long lists of stuff, right? What we really want is just to get Harper out and get the new group in because it’s going to be a hell of a lot better for everything we believe in, correct? Correct. So let’s stay on that track, and not start debating whether or not it’s twenty five percent change or fifteen percent change over here, let’s get them out, on the basis of unity not the basis of division. Somebody asked about Bill Casey, absolutely, in the game, uh, on confidentiality, we now have to get out and defend the idea of the coalition. This is not a secret that it’s been discussed, the various elements that are in it, you can say it’s all about getting the economy going, and transforming the economy for the twenty first century, use everything that you’ve seen in my speeches up until now, that you’ve all been using so well particularly when I’ve seen you on panels, and by the way, our team on panels, everybody, staff and MPs, rocking, absolutely rocking doing us proud, so yes, there is a coalition, we’re fighting for it, we’re trying to make it happen, we think it’s a good idea for Canada, the majority of Canadians voted to go in a different direction than Harper’s taking us, you can’t trust him, no matter anything, throw him out. What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us. So do not be defensive, to work among what we are doing is to give effect to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, have no doubt about that. The coalition for Canada, I love the idea, it could be a deal-breaker for the Bloc (laughter) so if we don’t go, we call it “The Coalition for Canada and Quebec,” (lots of laughter). Well, welcome to the real world of….that’s not funny
Jack: And let me come to, I know it’s complicated, so let’s just be wise about how we put this thing together. I think that there were many good comments that were developed from this, right from Aboriginal, which was on our mind, right through to many of these other suggestions and we will do our very best to put this together. And I’ll just say one other thing about the issue of the Bloc: nothing could be better for our country, than to have the fifty members who’ve been elected to separate Quebec to actually helping to make Canada a better place. I think we just approach it on that basis, and say we’re willing to make Canada happen, here’s other things that we’re going to be investing in and transforming together, they’re willing to work with us, we’ll accept that offer. What will be important to point out is that this will be an NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supported by the Bloc, with policy ideas that the coalition is bringing forward. Okay? And that’s going to be helpful to you in your dealing with those that have concerns, because they, you can see where Harper’s going here, he’s going to say it’s the socialists and the separatists and the opportunists getting together. You know? Those are their talking points, and so we just need to push back. I want to thank everybody for the input, I would get going this weekend on getting groups together, start talking about organizing those Thursday meetings, act as the catalyst to make it happen, and then just let it go, it’ll roar, and it’ll be very exciting. If you’re in a larger city, and there’s several of you, or if you’re in the largest city and you’re on your own, act as the catalyst anyway, chances are there’s a bunch of Liberals in the other ridings on whom we want pressure placed, as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation. I guess we’re at the end.
Judy: I just want to add one thing, and that is so the major thing is here that the message we’re focused on the message, so that’s not confidential, what’s confidential is strategy, the discussion, details, the speculation about the other parties and their motivation and what they will or they won’t do, we should not talk at all about war rooms, or campaigns in that sense. We’re building, trying to create a coalition government that will be a Liberal-NDP coalition that will be supported by the Bloc and that’s the message that we want to get out, nothing about the discussions in the background, and when in doubt, call, probably Brad, and Brad on that issue and on the whole issue of the campaign, and organizing meetings, people will want to reach you quickly, what’s the best way?
Jack Harris: Judy, Jack Harris here, I know it’s a structure question, but I’m at a loss at this point to know whether we’re talking about a short-term, quick economic stimulus coalition, or are we talking about something that could last two or three years, this is kind of important in our own minds, as well because aside from economic stimulus of course, this coalition will have to govern on every part of the government, of the legislative of the -
Judy: Okay, let me ask Jack to answer that and then Brad, you give the best contact information.
Jack Layton: Longer term. Not short term...
Fore the entire transcript, follow this link: Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

Sand in the Shorts: Hysteria Aside, Kramp and the Conservatives Are Canada's Best Bet (Full Version)

This column appeared (in edited form) in the Intelligencer, Saturday, April 30th, 2011


With this being my last column before the election on Monday, May 2, I figured I would join so many others in endorsing my candidates of choice, for both MP for Prince Edward – Hastings, and for Prime Minister of this great nation. Now, I realize that most of you can guess who these will be. While I always strive to be even-handed news wise, I have never made any attempt to hide my beliefs on the opinion side. So rather than simply saying whom I shall vote for (for the one position I can vote for), I will try to explain why I made this choice, in hopes my logic will motivate you, dear reader, similarly.

First, I am heartily endorsing Daryl Kramp for another term as Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings. Mr. Kramp has continued the trend of strong MP's for this riding, vigorously acting on behalf of his constituents whenever the need arises. It is noteworthy that even many local voters who might not support the Conservatives as a party, look upon Daryl as a quality representative, and the man they've voted for before, and will again. He is someone who, through his involvement in municipal politics, as well as being a small business owner, has gotten to know many people in the constituency.

While Peter Tinsley's CV is impressive, and he is clearly a smart man, he has yet to develop his place in the community as fully, and as such needs some seasoning (I know the issue well!). Michael McMahon is known by many after teaching them science, but in this riding the NDP, barring a miracle, has not moved beyond third party status, and Mr McMahon's demonstrated intensity when dealing with some issues might not fit the riding's make up either. Patrick Larkin, the Green Party candidate, is, like Mr. McMahon, a strong candidate for a party with little to no chance in this riding, but left me wondering where he stands on many issues of importance locally. Tim Hickey, the lone independent candidate, has a vision for the nation, but neglected to share one of what he sees as being important for local constituents, and where he stands on key issues. Andrew Skinner, the Progressive Canadian Party candidate, the last of the candidates, needs to work on toning down his use of anti-American rhetoric as a means of contrasting himself with the other candidates, and make sure he boosts his knowledge of the issues and the area.

Moving on to my endorsement for Prime Minister, I believe Stephen Harper is the best candidate for the job. Having governed already since January 2006, he has done a good job of governing through a vicious global recession, maintaining a non-ideological stance where necessary to govern, but not abandoning the principles which have driven support for the Conservatives since 2003. While his time in office hasn't been without problems, it is important to consider what his strengths are, and also who the options are.

Stephen Harper comes from the libertarian stream of Canadian conservatism, seeing a need for a preservation of what is essential to our nation but unwilling to die for issues which, while important to some, aren't essential. He is the quintessential small-c conservative, working to limit the growth of government spending, while careful not to cut away programs which are necessary for things other than making work for bureaucrats sucking at the public teat.

He is a supporter of human rights, demonstrating that all the more with his proposal for an office to advocate for religious freedom internationally. He is a strong proponent of opening up Canada's Arctic and of having a strong national defence, as demonstrated by his decisions to purchase new main battle tanks for the Army, build new icebreakers and an Arctic deep water port, replace the aging CF-18 fleet, and bolstering Canada's Special Forces capabilities. And he has returned us to an era when Canada was a respected player internationally by working with the Liberals in a minority parliament to extend the Canadian contribution to Afghanistan, and by sending Air Force and Navy assets to help protect Libyan civilians and rebels.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant man, with, based on his writings before he came back to Canada, strong, principled views on areas such as human rights. Unfortunately, since his return he has flip-flopped on issue after issue, which has only served to highlight the fact that the Liberal party needs – for all of Canada's sake – a ground up rebuild. This is a party which has lost it's way, has lost it's principles, existing now only to be elected. Canada needs two strong, electable parties. Hopefully the Liberals take this opportunity to leave Trudeau and Chretien behind and give a total re-think to what their party stands for.

Jack Layton is probably a nice guy, and pretty smart. But his ethical choices have not always been well thought out, and his opening up of the Quebec-Constitution can of worms shows him to be a dumb opportunist. No good will come of this, and indeed it could stir up a waning separatist movement – never a smart idea. He also abused publicly subsidized housing in Toronto while serving as a city councillor, and more recently refused to take action when deputy NDP leader, and House Leader, Libby Davies questioned the right of Israel to exist. These are not the makings of a Prime Minister.

As to the Green Party, Elizabeth May needs to get herself elected before they deserve to be considered a legitimate party in the sense that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are. At least the nut-bar separatists of the Bloc Quebecois have seats in the Commons (hopefully many less, soon) – even if they are illegitimate leeches feeding on the Canadian body politic until they reach satiation and retire.

That, then, is my take. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, please remember this: if you don't vote, you don't matter. Get out and vote for your candidate of choice – it's the very least a Canadian who loves their country can do.

Kevin Libin: U.S. group crosses boundaries in urging Tory defeat | Full Comment | National Post

by Kevin Libin - from the National Post

This election may go down as the one where the Internet broke Elections Canada’s control over our electoral process. It’s already fairly certain that social media users will make hash of s. 329 of the Canada Elections Act: defiant Facebookers and Twitterers are promising to flout the ban on reporting eastern poll results early, despite the risk of fines.

But a U.S.-based Internet activist group is also shaking up traditional boundaries on the influence that foreign groups can bring to bear on Canadians’ voting intentions.

The Avaaz Foundation, a left-wing non-profit organization registered in New York and Delaware, isn’t hiding the fact that it’s crusading to defeat the Conservatives, buying ads urging Canadians to “vote strategically” in their riding to ensure “all the opposition parties together … win a huge majority of Parliament.”

And on Tuesday, the group announced it was bankrolling a lawsuit demanding the release of the Auditor General’s report into G8 spending, that might show the previous government “illegally handed 50 million taxpayer dollars to a Conservative riding and covered it up.” It’s even using Canada’s Charter of Rights to back its argument, claiming access to certain government documents are guaranteed.

Avaaz has turned up before in the midst of an election to campaign against Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. But its reappearance highlights how our elections laws seem increasingly ill-fitted to the digital era. In 2008, Avaaz registered as a third-party with Elections Canada, subletting space in Ottawa, only to decamp back to New York after the vote. It ran ads in ridings across Canada encouraging readers to vote strategically for whichever candidate stood the best chance of beating the Tory incumbent.

One target, former environment minister John Baird, called the group a “shadowy foreign organization” and complained to Elections Canada that Avaaz was demonstrating “possible” violations of restrictions on ad spending and foreign interference. Avaaz’s third-party returns did reveal some curious items: what the Tories alleged were breaches of spending limits by riding; ads bought in Halifax newspapers seemingly allocated to allowances for B.C. ridings; and while its American tax return reported US$137,724 of “political expenditures” in Canada in 2008, an Elections Canada third-party filing listed just $57,733.83. Nothing came of the complaint. Read more...

Kevin Libin: U.S. group crosses boundaries in urging Tory defeat | Full Comment | National Post

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

by Daniel Kaszor - from the National Post

While preparing for a trip to Canada, I have learned that many Canadians consider my country, Sweden, to be a model for good family policy. After all, Sweden has a universally accessible, government-funded daycare system, and a 2006 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Sweden at the top and Canada at the bottom in childcare provision. Indeed, Swedish family policies are internationally admired, offering comprehensive and affordable daycare, gender equality and a high percentage of women in paid work. This, however, is only one half of the story.

True, parental leave in Sweden is a generous 16 months. There are no babies in daycare. But when parental leave ends, practically the reverse is true: A full 92% of all children aged 18 months to five years are in daycare. Parents pay only a symbolic amount for this; tax subsidies for daycare are $20,000 per child, annually. Swedish taxes are among the highest in the world, and the tax system was designed to make both parents seek employment in the work force. Read more...

Jonas Himmelstrand: Universal daycare leaves Sweden’s children less educated | Full Comment | National Post

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post

by Jack M. Mintz - from the Financial Post

After the May 2 federal election, some politicians should sign up to a boot camp on corporate tax policy. Our election banter reminds me of the 1960s, with populist views that corporations only benefit the rich and powerful and should therefore be taxed to the hilt. The many myths about corporate tax policies being propagated are deplorable.  Read more...

Jack Mintz: The campaign’s top corporate tax myths | FP Comment | Financial Post

John Sainsbury: Rewriting history for political gain | Full Comment | National Post

by John Sainsbury - from the National Post

In a televised town hall-style infomercial, paid for by the Liberal party and aired on Sunday, Michael Ignatieff assures us that he is not “a standard-issue academic.” In sharp contrast to that tedious breed, he portrays himself as an interesting man who has led an interesting life. He’s been “out where it’s mucky and dirty and violent and scary,” dodging bullets as a war correspondent.

In 1993 he related one of his tales of derring-do in the introduction to his book Blood and Belonging. The setting is the war-torn Balkans, in the conflict zone between Serbian and Croatian territory. Our intrepid correspondent describes what happens when he and his film crew try to cross a UN checkpoint into Serb-held territory. Two Canadian infantrymen, whom Ignatieff dismissively refers to as “anxious adolescents,” man the checkpoint.

The Canadians wave Ignatieff’s party through, but their van is immediately surrounded by 15 Serbian paramilitaries, drunk from a wedding in a neighbouring village. They accuse the crew of being Croatian spies. The drunkest one (“with dead eyes and glassy, sweat-beaded skin”) seizes the van’s steering wheel and starts to drive off.

One of the Canadian soldiers, “breathing heavily,” attempts to stop him. “We’ll do this my way,” he says, pulling and cajoling the drunken Serb out of the driver’s seat. But the Canadian soldier is in turn pushed aside by a young Serb in combat gear, who seizes control of the van, arrests Ignatieff and his crew and takes them to a Serbian police station. There they wait anxiously, until an order for their release arrives, apparently from “a local Serb warlord.”

The anecdote captures Ignatieff’s thesis in Blood and Belonging, a thesis he summarizes as follows: “The key narrative of the new world order is the disintegration of nation-states into ethnic civil war; the key architects of that order are warlords; and the key language for our age is ethnic nationalism.” International agencies such as the United Nations are powerless to intervene and Ignatieff is contemptuous of their attempts to do so. Read more...

John Sainsbury: Rewriting history for political gain | Full Comment | National Post

Tory majority could hinge on where votes bleed to NDP in final week - The Globe and Mail

By Eric Grenier - from the Globe and Mail

There is only a week left in this unexpectedly surprising election campaign and the final outcome is still unpredictable. But when the votes are counted May 2, where the surging New Democrats make their gains and whether the Liberals can hold on to their own seats could mean the difference between minority and majority government for the Conservatives.

According to ThreeHundredEight.com’s updated seat and vote projections for The Globe and Mail, the Tories are still on track to fall short of a majority, with 150 seats and 38.6 per cent of the national vote. The Liberals are likely to place second with 27.4 per cent and 76 seats (a loss of one since last week), while the New Democrats follow with 19 per cent and 36 seats (a gain of two). And the Bloc Québécois has dropped two seats to 45 in Quebec.

But the final week of the election campaign will almost certainly see these vote and seat numbers change significantly. Read more

Tory majority could hinge on where votes bleed to NDP in final week - The Globe and Mail

Matt Gurney: Liberals love democracy, except when it’s ‘unprincipled’ | Full Comment | National Post

by Matt Gurney - from the National Post

For a party that’s running in large part on the fact the the Tories hate democracy and don’t respect Parliament, the Liberals sure have a weird way of staying on message. Rattled by the surge of the NDP in the polls, which has made it possible (if unlikely) that the NDP will form the official opposition atop a decimated Liberal caucus, the Liberals have shifted their attack ads to focus on Jack Layton’s NDP. This will of course take some of the pressure off of the Tories, leaving them to stay focused in a final week of campaigning while the parties on the left savage each other. But if the Liberals want to hold onto their remaining influence and legacy, they need to strike back — hard — at the party that’s threatening to become the left-wing alternative for Canadian voters.

Hence their new attack ad, “Not so fast, Jack.” The Liberals use the 30-second clip to attack the NDP on a variety of issues: Inexperience, nonsensical economic policies and, intriguingly, not being principled on the long-gun registry vote. So, apparently, the Liberal Party of Canada, God’s gift to democracy, consider allowing free votes in Parliament to be … unprincipled. Good thing they’re here to make Parliament work and counter the Tories’ disrespect for our democracy. Read more

Matt Gurney: Liberals love democracy, except when it’s ‘unprincipled’ | Full Comment | National Post

Kelly McParland: Liberal remedy to Layton is to look in the mirror | Full Comment | National Post

By Kelly McParland - from the National Post

Here’s something for Liberal party worthies to think about as they pass the long holiday weekend wondering what on earth to do about Jack Layton: Maybe they shouldn’t do anything about Jack. Maybe they should do something about themselves.

The Liberals are caught in an identity crisis, and have been since the old caudillo, Jean Chretien, retired to the corporate uplands. Chretien didn’t stand for much either, other than winning, but at least he was in a position to pull that off. Since his departure, and Paul Martin’s defeat, Liberal strategy has consisted of two streams: painting Stephen Harper as a stooge of the U.S. corporate-military complex, and reminding Canadians that the Liberals introduced universal health care.

Is it really a shock that the recipe has failed to excite people? The 2008 campaign was a disaster, the party having tied itself to the hare-brained Green Shift and a leader who got more incoherent by the day. Since he replaced Stephane Dion two years ago, Michael Ignatieff has been all over the map, a conservative-minded academic running a party that has moved steadily to the left, but which zigs and zags with each new headline. Now Layton appears to have passed them on the left, and taken the NDP into second spot. What to do?

Answer: Quit reacting. Find a reason for the Liberals to exist. Read more

Kelly McParland: Liberal remedy to Layton is to look in the mirror | Full Comment | National Post

Who's Afraid of Virginia - or the Rest of the United States?

 “U.S. style...”

“American style...”

And every time these words are spoken by the Liberals, NDP, Greens or Bloc, they are used as pejoratives. And yet, when confronted with this fact, the same candidates who just used the terms to bludgeon the local Conservative will deny any anti-American intent in their usage. And yet, there is no other way it can be understood.

Because of the history of Canada, a certain latent anti-Americanism is to be accepted. This is, after all, a country which had one part invaded by the American rebel armies during their Revolutionary War (Quebec), had another part principally populated by refugees from the nascent United States (and in some cases suffered significant atrocities and economic loss in the process – Ontario) and was then attacked by the still young United States during the War of 1812.

Since then, there have been a few American politicians preaching a “Manifest Destiny” that included Canada, and the influx of thousands of American draft-dodgers and leftists during the Vietnam era. The last of these, often well educated before they came to Canada, have exerted a significant social pressure within Canadian society as they became teachers and assumed other positions of social influence in the decades since.

So it isn't a radical concept to expect that at least some voters might, at least in the right circumstances, might respond to the use of the United States as a land of negative examples. And the opposition parties have done so at every opportunity.

New super-sized prisons are “American style”, arguments against the purchase of new fighters are couched in terms such as “American militarism”, and of course the one of the most over used, abused, and misunderstood quotes in the history of the United States presidency, “military-industrial complex”.

Oppose corporate tax cuts? “American style”, or “Bush-esque”.

Military spending? “We are peacekeepers, not warmongers like the US”

Don't want changes to the current health care system? “US style healthcare, bankrupting people for care...” etc.

Why not just oppose issues based on the interpretation of the merits of a given issue? If the purchase of new fighters is wrong, make the argument logically – don't say “we aren't the US”. Same with health care reform or any other issue.

Canada as a nation has matured since the Trudeau years, when as Prime Minister he took the art of political anti-Americanism to heights not seen since the early years of Confederation. Canada is capable of pursuing policies, or not, based not on any similarity or lack thereof to American policies, but instead based on whether they are good and appropriate for this nation.

So argue the merits of military spending based on costs, missions, and national interests. Argue health care based on what is economically viable and best cares for Canadian patients. Base taxes on what will best work to build Canada's economy and job market.

And leave the name calling to poorly-behaved children. At least, as kids, they have an excuse.