National Post editorial board: Ottawa isn’t the oil sands’ enemy, Edmonton is | Full Comment | National Post

by the National Post Editorial Board - from the National Post

There’s an old adage in Alberta politics that when all else fails, bash Ottawa. Well, Alberta’s Tory government must feel itself at risk of failure, because it has begun making far-fetched claims about how its federal cousins ­­— Stephen Harper’s new Tory majority — have suddenly turned into anti-oil sands hypocrites bent on hobbling the project’s development with new environmental regulations just to win favour with central Canadian voters.

“The federal government has sat on the sidelines for years and years and years. Now they see their little golden goose is under attack and they want to be the voice for Canada on the world stage and we respect that,” Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove told Postmedia News this week. “We have tried to be team players on this. They’re saying Alberta should have been all over the world defending the oil sands, but only as long as they are holding the leash.”

These claims are overwrought. The Canadian government has rightly defended the oil patch on the world stage. And to the extent that excessive regulation might hobble the oil sands, it is Ed Stelmach’s government in Alberta that poses the greatest risk.

In the past, it is true that Alberta has had every right to be wary of federal intervention. Pierre Trudeau famously imposed his National Energy Program (NEP) on the resource-rich province, and in just over six years drained more than $70-billion out of its economy and sent the province into an economic tailspin that took 10 years to pull out of. At present, Alberta still annually contributes over $5,000 more toward Confederation than its residents receive in return for every man, woman and child in the province.

Even former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney became unpopular in Alberta for failing to end the NEP for 2½ years after assuming office, for foisting the GST on a province that had previously had no sales tax, and for attempting to amend the Constitution in such a way that would have appeased many of Quebec’s concerns, while also giving Quebec a veto over future change requested by other provinces.

But the current Alberta government has nothing similar to gripe about. It’s true that after being reappointed federal Environment Minister last week, Toronto MP Peter Kent announced Ottawa would soon introduce environmental regulations that would reduce the oil sands’ carbon footprint. But it is unlikely these regulations will devastate Alberta’s economy. This is the same federal government that in its first term proposed ignoring the UN’s Kyoto accords in favour of more sensible quotas that tied growth in carbon dioxide emission to growth in the economy. Moreover, the same week as he let it be known that oil sands regulations are pending, Mr. Kent also announced that a cap-and-trade scheme to cut carbon emissions was “off the table,” a very pro-oil sands move.

Indeed, in the past five years, the Alberta government under Premier Stelmach has done more to discourage oil sands development than anything done or proposed by the Harper Tories.

Read more...

National Post editorial board: Ottawa isn’t the oil sands’ enemy, Edmonton is | Full Comment | National Post

Raymond J. de Souza: Jason Kenney and John Baird are the Tories’ dynamic duo | Full Comment | National Post

By Father Raymond J. De Souza - from the National Post

It was mostly old, a few bits new, rather boring, and Tory blue. Prime Minister Stephen Harper had his new cabinet sworn in, and continuity was the theme. With few changes in major portfolios, it was rather dull, but Mr. Harper is successful in part because he offers as little drama as possible. Stable government was the campaign slogan. Stability was what Canadians got.

There was one major vacancy — foreign affairs — and one senior minister who had to move, John Baird, his talents no longer needed as house leader in a majority parliament. The two were matched up, and for the most part the other key players were left in place — Finance, Justice, Public Safety and Defence left unchanged.

Behind the scenes there was an important move, with Jason Kenney taking over as chairman of the cabinet operations committee. As the architect of the Tory majority, Kenney retained the same ministry but was rewarded with the powerful chairmanship. Cabinet government is something of a misnomer since the bloated cabinets of the Mulroney era; all key decisions are taken at the two principal cabinet committees, priorities and operations. The prime minister chairs the priorities committee. Kenney chairs operations.

One of the few spontaneous moments of the swearing-in was the hooting and hollering that greeted the entrance of the prime minister, a bit of partisan enthusiasm for the long-sought-after majority, albeit out of place in Rideau Hall. Understandably for the partisans, as it has been a long road back from 1993, the last time the last time conservatives were in a majority government position.

In several ways, Baird and Kenney symbolize that road back. Both in their early forties, they are young men who have been engaged in politics for a long time; I have known both of them since the early 1990s, so my presence at Rideau Hall on Wednesday had a rather personal dimension to it.

In 1993, during the summertime premiership of Kim Campbell, Baird worked on the staff of Perrin Beatty, then foreign minister. Eighteen years later, the minister’s chair is his. Back then he had recently graduated from Queen’s University, where his final year politics paper was about the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, entitled, “I have fallen, and I can’t get up.” Two years later, he was part of the Mike Harris team that swept to government in Ontario, going from third place to first. He served at Queen’s Park until running in the 2006 federal election. He knows something about working over the long haul.

In 1993, Kenney was at the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, an activist group belonging to the general Western rebellion that produced the Reform Party. Four years later, he was elected as Reform MP, and 10 years later led the outreach the brought the successor Conservative Party to majority status.

Read more...

Raymond J. de Souza: Jason Kenney and John Baird are the Tories’ dynamic duo | Full Comment | National Post

Persichilli: Harper and McGuinty called Quebec’s bluff - thestar.com

By Angelo Persichilli - from the Toronto Star

One of the most important axioms in Canadian politics was that nobody could win a majority government in Ottawa without winning big in Quebec. That axiom has now been erased.

The credit for calling the bluff on this self-serving rule goes to two people — Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.

This artificial Quebec veto on national majorities dominated politics for decades, branding francophone leaders as the only ones capable of winning majorities for their parties and keeping Canada united.

Prime ministers from Quebec have dominated Canadian politics for almost half a century because of this axiom. Lately this notion was strengthened because of the two back-to-back Conservative minority governments: “Harper will never lead a majority government,” many commentators wrote, “because he can’t win Quebec.”

The demise of this fallacy started to take shape in November 2008, at a time when Harper was still disappointed with the results of the October election, in which Quebec denied him a majority. This was also when McGuinty got the news that the Ontario economy was collapsing, with the manufacturing sector evaporating and the almighty auto industry almost bankrupt.

Provincial Liberals and federal Conservatives were fighting each other — and the federal minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, was accused of undermining Ontario’s economy by encouraging investors to stay away from the province.

But this was a fight mainly between Flaherty and his Ontario counterpart Dwight Duncan; McGuinty and Harper were just treading water at a distance.

A message that Harper, disappointed with Quebec, was ready to open up to Queen’s Park, was delivered to McGuinty on Nov. 7, 2008. The Ontario leader, just back from a trip to China, decided to act on the afternoon of the following Monday, Nov. 10, at the end of a federal-provincial summit in Ottawa. And he did.

After the meeting, when all the premiers were leaving, McGuinty stayed behind and informally approached Harper. He told the Prime Minister that it was time to work together for the sake of Canada and Ontario.

Read more...

Persichilli: Harper and McGuinty called Quebec’s bluff - thestar.com

Canada’s conservatives should ease up on Harper - The Globe and Mail

By Neil Reynolds - from the Globe and Mail

Throughout his two minority governments, Prime Minister Stephen Harper endured incessant carping from the right: especially from conservatives who wanted more ideological purity. Mr. Harper wisely ignored them. The purer the ideology, the more problematic the politics. Mr. Harper diligently pursued the political centre (with right-ward forays: for example, unequivocal support for Israel). It all worked out fine. The Conservatives took the centre, held it and won a transformative majority in Election 2011. But conservatives now need, once again, to relax a bit. Nothing extraordinary is about to happen.

Mr. Harper made this clear in his election-night comments. He would govern, he said, for the whole country – not (he implied) for hard-core conservatives or soft-core libertarians. These people have their own work to do, in moving the political centre, but this philosophical task is fundamentally different than governing. In Canada’s democracy, social and economic change will inevitably be incremental and erratic. After all, if the more than 14 million Canadians who voted wanted more radical change, they could have voted Libertarian – as 6,017 of them did.

This isn’t to say that Mr. Harper won’t make fundamental reforms: especially toward freer trade with Europe (and other countries) and closer economic integration with the U.S. It is merely to observe that Canadians themselves – and not the federal government – will determine how far and how fast the political centre pivots.

The political centre in Canada has been drifting to the right for almost 30 years – since the last Liberal government (1984) of prime minister Pierre Trudeau, whose excesses pushed the country toward conservatism. Every federal government since has governed to the right – with the single, ironic exception of Paul Martin (who had done so much for the country as finance minister). Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney (free trade with the U.S.), Liberal Jean Chrétien (fiscal restraint) and Conservative Stephen Harper (tax cuts): all remained firmly centred even as the country itself rotated, slowly, to the right.

Mr. Harper is the most impressive politician among all these small-c conservative prime ministers.

Read more...

Canada’s conservatives should ease up on Harper - The Globe and Mail

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

Fear and loathing among the eastern elites - The Globe and Mail

By Margaret Wente - from the Globe and Mail

I’m not crazy about Stephen Harper. He’s a cold fish. When he tried a little victory smile the other day, he looked like he was having an attack of gas. I’d rather share a beer with Jack Layton or a glass of chardonnay with Michael Ignatieff than a double-double with Mr. Harper. He strikes me as a guy with little sense of humour and even less small talk. I didn’t even vote for him this time around.

But the sheer animosity of many of my friends amazes me. They genuinely fear and loathe him. One of them unblushingly compares him to Hitler. Many of these otherwise smart, delightful and wise people sincerely believe that Mr. Harper wants to turn Canada into a right-wing theocracy where women have no abortion rights and petty criminals are executed at dawn.

“He’ll try to repeal gay marriage and privatize health care,” one of them predicted on Monday night. She was sitting next to me as we watched the returns on the CBC with a bunch of well-heeled downtown Torontonians. As the count of blue seats ticked steadily upward, the mood became funereal. They looked as if they wanted to don black armbands.

It’s not unusual for politicians to be loathed. In the last leg of Brian Mulroney’s reign, people took an irrational dislike to him. But the animosity displayed toward Mr. Harper is far more vitriolic. As Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick told British readers in The Guardian, Mr. Harper is “a Canadian version of George W. Bush, minus the warmth and intellect. … What happens now is the full-scale Americanization of Canada.”

The intellect part is false, of course (as is the Americanization). You need a very big brain to steer your party from outer darkness to a majority government. What Mr. Harper lacks is emotional intelligence.

What are the roots of this animosity? An obvious one is Mr. Harper’s public personality – dour, controlling and sometimes mean. He lacks a vision that calls us to a higher purpose. His leadership strength is managerial, not inspirational. He has many of the characteristics of those CEOs who succeed not through personal charm but by laying out a strategic plan and sweating the details. He is relentlessly determined to push the marble with his nose to get where he wants to go.

Many people have deplored Mr. Harper’s efforts to demonize Michael Ignatieff as an opportunistic carpetbagger. But the hatchet job the Liberals have done on him goes back years, and has been devastatingly effective. Mr. Harper is routinely depicted as a cross between Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort, whose soulless band of Death Eaters will destroy democracy in Canada if they get the chance. They have successfully convinced themselves (and a large but shrinking part of the electorate) that a vote for Mr. Harper is un-Canadian.

It’s not uncommon to find this paranoid streak in the smartest salons of Ottawa and Toronto. Strange to say, it reminds me of those Republican wing-nuts who believe Barack Obama isn’t really an American.


Read more...

Fear and loathing among the eastern elites - The Globe and Mail

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

John Ivison: Relaxed Harper misplaces the Secret Agenda | Full Comment | National Post

By John Ivison - from the National Post

For Stephen Harper’s critics, who warned he would announce plans to re-introduce the death penalty and two-tier health care as soon as he won a majority, Tuesday’s press conference must have been a huge disappointment.

The Prime Minister is now secure in his post for the next four years or so and could have afforded the mask to slip on his hidden agenda, if there was one. Yet, he was the very essence of the strong, stable, national government he has promised every day for the last month.

On healthcare, he said he supports Canada’s system of universal public health care. He confirmed his election pledge to increase spending by 6% a year. “We do want to sit down as we renegotiate to look at how to ensure better and clearer results and outcomes,” he said. There was room for experimentation but he said his government would not question the fundamentals of the universal public system.

He was asked how he would convince those who voted for him that they’d made the right move. He answered that he intends to move forward in the same way he has proceeded in the last five years. “One of the things I’ve learned is that surprises are not generally well received by the public. We will move forward with what they are comfortable with,” he said. “In minority government you face a hanging every day. We will try to gain more trust in places where we won and where we didn’t win.”

In a pre-election interview, Mr. Harper told the National Post that with a majority government he would be more concerned with governing than with self-preservation. And how would he govern? My take is that he will do exactly what he’s been saying he has wanted to do for the past five years — Senate reform, abolish the gun registry, get tough on crime and shrink the size of government. As someone who knows him well put it: “The hidden agenda has been sitting on the order paper in the House of Commons for five years.”

As one of his biographers, William Johnson, has noted: “Unlike most politicians, he almost always means what he says because he has thought long and hard about an issue before he speaks. He is consistent in his thinking and speaking because he is a conviction politician.” Read more...

John Ivison: Relaxed Harper misplaces the Secret Agenda | Full Comment | National Post

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.

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.

The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges - The Globe and Mail

From the Globe and Mail

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.

The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy. It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity. Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security. Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada's role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country's ethnic and cultural makeup – the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.

Whom should Canadians turn to? Read more...

The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges - The Globe and Mail

Kelly McParland: Tory record on hiring lapdogs needs improvement | Full Comment | National Post

by Kelly McParland - from the National Post

The Toronto Star has a big exclusive scoop on how an agency created by the federal Conservatives to help crime victims was “just a $6 million public relations stunt to score political points.”

Who says? Steve Sullivan, the former ombudsman appointed by the Tories to head the office. The big scoop seems to centre around the fact the office hasn’t released its annual reports in a timely manner. Two of the reports, for 2008 and 2009, should have been released earlier this month, but weren’t. Jeez, no annual reports! That may not strike everyone as the scandal of the decade, but we’re talking the Star here. The paper that ran a death notice from a man whose dying wish was that people should vote Liberal.

While not much of a scoop, the story does point to one of the contradictions of Harper-hatred in Ottawa. While the HH camp keeps reminding us how Mr. Harper wants to stuff the courts, the bureaucracy and other official and semi-official bodies with obedient Conservative lackeys, his record on that front has been anything but stellar. He seems to have trouble recognizing True Blue Tory lapdogs willing to tow the party line (a mistake Brian Mulroney would never have made). Read more...

Kelly McParland: Tory record on hiring lapdogs needs improvement | Full Comment | National Post

Harper promotes religious freedom - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

By Bryn Weese, Parliamentary Bureau, QMI AGENCY

MISSISSAUGA, ONT. - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is kicking off the final leg of the election campaign Easter weekend by promoting his party's promise to create an Office of Religious Freedom.

Later Saturday, Harper is to travel to B.C. where the party hopes to quell the rising NDP surge there.
Before a very ethnically diverse crowd at a Coptic Christian centre in this west-end Toronto suburb, Harper said a re-elected Conservative government would make defending religious freedoms a "priority" for Canadian foreign policy.
The new Office of Religious Freedom, which would be part of the foreign affairs department, would cost about $5 million a year.
Harper said in a statement Saturday that just because Canadians enjoy freedom at home, "we must not let our comfort be an excuse to shirk our commitment to the cause of freedom."
Invoking the memory of slain Pakistani Minister of Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti, Harper said, "(he) had asked us in Canada to shine a light on the persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan and around the world."
Bhatti, a Catholic, was gunned down in March of this year for his defence of Christians in Pakistan. Read more

Harper promotes religious freedom - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Sand in the Shorts: Heath Care Is Not a Federal Issue

This column appeared in the April 16th, 2011 Intelligencer


  During this federal election, a lot of the discussion 'on the street' seems to be focusing on issues like education (with Michael Ignatieff proposing his 'education passport' which will mostly help the upper middle class and wealthy) and health care.

  People are frustrated with what they (rightly) see as a dysfunctional health system, hospitals that provide slow and often mediocre care, and increasing concerns that, with the ageing of Canada's population, the whole system may be approaching overload and collapse.

  So they are turning to the government for answers. Unfortunately, it's the wrong level of government.

  According to the Constitution Act, 1867, these areas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: education, and health.

  As such, the federal government has no role in these areas except for what is allowed it by the provinces.

  This means two things.

  First, Mr. Ignatieff is meddling in provincial affairs with his 'education passport', which has already drawn some fire from the provinces.

  Granted, most of it has come from the government of Quebec, which would complain if a drowning resident were thrown a federal life preserver instead of a provincial one.

  But there are legitimate reasons for the separation of responsibilities which make such jurisdictional adventurism troublesome.

  These centre on the matter of confusion. If there is no clear distinction of responsibility, then there is the problem of holding the appropriate authorities responsible, and different levels of government could, and likely will, end up stepping on each other, and wasting tax dollars.

  Second, those who are complaining about health care during the election are barking up the wrong jurisdictional tree.

All the federal government does is fork over tax money to the provinces, who are then responsible for how the money is spent.

  The current funding system is based on the Kelowna Accord, signed by the provinces and (then) Prime Minister Paul Martin. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already said he will maintain funding based on the accord (which gives a six per cent increase every year to the provinces, an impossible to maintain growth rate over even the medium term) even after it expires, making that issue largely irrelevant in the context of the current election.

  Rather, let's lay the blame for the current health care mess where it belongs — with the provincial Liberal (McGuinty) government.

  This is a government which, rather than focusing on front line care, instead created the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) — a make-work program for expensive bureaucrats, and probably the most egregious contributor (in terms of lack of bang for the buck) to the Sunshine List (government employees making $100,000 or more).

  When a system has become as bloated and inefficient as Ontario's health system has, the idea of adding another level of pure bureaucracy is idiocy. And that is just what the McGuinty government, including our own MPP and provincial minister, Leona Dombrowsky, did.

  So if you want to complain about defence, foreign relations, or the postal system, complain to the federal government.

  But for health care, lay the blame where it properly belongs: Dalton McGuinty and Leona Dombrowsky.

Sand in the Shorts: Elections - Such a Hardship

This column appeared in the April 2nd, 2011 Intelligencer


So another election is upon us. While I know some are bothered by that, and much is made by the media of the idea that that this is some sort of massive imposition on Canadians, I enjoy them. As a longtime policy wonk and political junky, this is my idea of March Madness.

And is it really such an imposition after all. How will it impact you?

• Candidates and party leaders will come to town and give speeches, shake hands, and generally work to convince you they are just like you, care about you, and will share your views when you elect them to parliament.
  • Impact on you: Only if they come to where you work, or you choose to go and see them. As these are usually publicised in advance, it is really quite easy to avoid such an event unless it is in your workplace. If it’s in your workplace, and you don’t like the visitor’s party, why not try to make rabbit ears behind them while they pretend they actually enjoy being there for the cameras. Could be funny. Could get you fired - as it should if you do it to my candidate.
• When you turn on the news, you will see (or hear, on the radio) stories about people trying to bribe you with your own money, in touching and heartfelt ways. Stories about Libya and Japan will be pushed back (and CFTO News won’t be able to devote half of a one hour newscast to a transformer fire!). If you ignore the possibility of national bankruptcy as a result of an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition, that means the first 5 minutes of your news will be much less depressing.
  • Impact on you: If you want to get right to Libya and Japan, I’d like to introduce you to CNN and the Beeb (that’s the BBC - not Justin Bieber, in case there was some confusion - Bieber would be ‘the Bieb’, after all). And don’t forget the entertainment possibilities, such as “take a drink every time you see Jack Layton’s moustache”, pools on the colour of Steven Harper’s sweater in his next ad, or a race to be the first to document Michael Ignatieff’s flip-flop of the day (full documentation of the original statement required, with bonus points if you can find more than one about face in the same speech)
• You will be exposed to political advertising (see above about being bribed with your own money).
  • Impact on you: This will end as soon as you:
    • Mute the TV
    • turn down the radio
    • turn the page of the newspaper
• You will have to read smart-assed columns by writers who are of the opinion they are the ones who truly get it.
  • Impact on you: None, as soon as you turn the page. Which of course won’t be necessary in the case of this column.
• You really should vote. You don’t have to, but you should. Don’t use the ‘I don’t like any of them’ excuse. That’s irrelevant - choose the one you least dislike. Don’t say it doesn’t matter. Your vote could put a candidate over the top. And if you want to make a statement about your disgust, move your lazy carcass to the polling station and spoil your ballot properly.

And if you can’t be bothered to go to your polling place to make your mark on a ballot, don’t irritate those of us who cared enough about our great country to do so by sharing your clearly under-educated and irrelevant opinion. IF YOU DON’T VOTE, I DON’T CARE! (about your opinions)

So, if you will excuse me, there’s an election going on.