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?

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.

Kramp Relaxed, Educational McMahon, and Tinsley Bumps Into a Door

Monday night saw the six candidates for Prince Edward – Hastings coming together for an all-candidates meeting at downtown Belleville's Empire Theatre. Hosted by the Belleville Chamber of Commerce, and with Quinte Broadcasting's Jody Brooker handling moderator duties, this was the first, and maybe last, opportunity for voters to see all of the candidates for the May 2 vote together answering questions from the Chamber and the audience.

While I had an opportunity to talk to all the candidates except the Green Party's, my in depth coverage will come in the next few days. For now, here's my quick rating of each of the candidate's performances.

In alphabetical order:

Tim Hickey:

The lone independent candidate, Hickey was handicapped at times by questions which focused on national issues and what the party platforms were. When facing these questions, he spoke of his vision for Canada which, while entirely lacking specifics (he promised these would come later this week), was presented in a folksy manner which was appealing enough. Reality is, though, in the current electoral era, an independent is virtual roadkill unless they present themselves as aligned with one of the major parties ideologically. Bonus points for not jumping on the anti-Kramp express.

Grade: C+ Performed as well as expected with material available, but needs to make clear what his political ideas are.

Daryl Kramp:

The primary target of four of the other five candidates, the current Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings was hit by anti-Conservative rhetoric from the others. He was also the target of an unreasonable (my words) amount of heckling and catcalling from a part of the audience theatre audience. In the face of this, he was measured and clear in his responses, answering questions clearly, and ignoring the voices from the peanut gallery. He was clearly familiar with the Conservative platform, but also demonstrated a strong knowledge of his parliamentary bailiwick, answering with specific figures a question on changes in the trade balance between Canada and China. He also maintained a relaxed presence throughout.

Grade: A

Patrick Larkin:

The candidate for the Green Party came across as anything but a wild-eyed tree-hugger. Impeccably dressed, he was calm and professional throughout, and skirted most of the anti-Harper rhetoric. A revelation, and, aside from his party affiliation, a legitimate contender. The Greens should consider him when Lizzy May is given the boot after losing this election.

Grade: A-

Michael McMahon

The NDP candidate was clear and concise, coming across as the teacher he is while constructing a clear argument the sensibility of the NDP platform. That didn't fly, at least from the author's viewpoint, but he put himself forward as a serious candidate - until he neglected to rebut the Liberal candidate's blanket dismissal of the legitimacy of the other candidates as challengers to the Conservatives. Instead, he continued to attack the Conservatives, leaving the Liberal challenge uncontested. He did have the line of the night, though, when in response to a question about allowing voting on post-secondary campuses, he responded strongly in the affirmative, saying, "They wouldn't let their grandparents choose their dates. At least, they shouldn't”.

Grade: B

Andrew Skinner

The candidate for the Progressive Canadian Party happily tossed about ideas and suggestions which demonstrated the party is potentially as left-wing as the NDP, but without the maturity of thought and pro-American tendencies, and that he sees those who are of a more conservative bent as un-Canadian. He had rendered himself irrelevant by the end of his opening comments. But well spoken. A little experience might help tone down some of his hyperbole.

Grade: D

Peter Tinsley

When I read the campaign literature of Peter Tinsley, he came across as a strong candidate for the Liberals – even spoken of as a “star” candidate by some. Well, what a letdown. A shaky opening was lifted up slightly by a strong answer to a question about parliamentary coalitions – but with his complete dismissal of the other challengers to Daryl Kramp he ended a very weak evening. Strong on hyperbole, weak on the facts (making numerous factual mistakes) he was a complete disappointment. The clear loser of this debate.

Grade: F