jamesphieffer.com Goes Radio

At 9:30 PM EDT tonight tune to CJBQ AM 800 Belleville, or online at cjbq.com to listen live as I join their news team to cover tonights election.  I'll be providing some analysis and commentary, as CJBQ covers results in Belleville area ridings as well as ridings across the country.  And if you haven't yet,  get out and vote!  'Til later, then...

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

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

Elections Canada’s Twitter ban shows why bureaucrats and social media don’t mix

BY KATHRYN MARSHALL - from CANADA.COM

Elections Canada has decided to take on the Twitterverse. It has announced that it will apply a law from the 1930s to prevent election results from Atlantic Canada being posted on Twitter before the polls close in the rest of the country. Elections Canada claims that it is merely enforcing the law, but it applies it so unevenly that its argument does not hold water. This is why bureaucrats shouldn’t be let anywhere near social media—their instinct is to control it.

Section 329 of the Elections Act states that “no person shall transmit the results” from one riding to another before the polls are closed. The fine for breaking this can be up to $25,000 – and Elections Canada has a history of prosecuting people under this section. After the 2000 election it raided the home of a man who had posted the early results on his website, fined him and seized his computer.

So posting results on a website is taboo, but Elections Canada says it is ok to share them by email, phone call or even a Facebook message. Still sounds like transmitting to me. But it is forbidden to post the results to your Facebook profile or on your Twitter feed. Read More

Elections Canada’s Twitter ban shows why bureaucrats and social media don’t mix

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.

Catholics, Protestants leaning toward Conservatives, poll finds - thestar.com

Les Whittington - From the Toronto Star

OTTAWA—As Canada heads into Easter Sunday and the final week of the federal election campaign, half of English-speaking Catholics outside Quebec are poised to vote for the Conservatives, a new poll says.

The Angus Reid survey for the Toronto Star says 50 per cent of self-described Catholics outside Quebec will vote Tory on May 2.

The Liberals can count on the support of about one in four Catholics, while 19 per cent said they would support the New Democrats and 4 per cent favour the Green party.

Protestants outside of Quebec expressed a similar preference, with 56 per cent poised to vote Conservative. Support for the Liberals among Protestants stands at 22 per cent, with 18 per cent in favour of the NDP and 4 per cent behind the Greens. Read more

Catholics, Protestants leaning toward Conservatives, poll finds - thestar.com

Sand in the Shorts: Seniors Behaving Badly

This column appeared in Saturday's (April 23rd, 2011) Intelligencer


On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.

All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.

While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.

Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.

As if this wasn't enough in the category of strange machinations on the part of CARP, though, they then decided to spring an ambush on the candidates in the form of a “rapid fire” question and answer session to conclude the evening. This would involve local CARP board member Mary Robertson throwing questions at the candidates with responses limited to “yes” or “no”. Daryl Kramp and Peter Tinsley both objected to this, stating they couldn't give a simplistic answer for potentially complex issues. This should have been a “no brainer”, as the saying goes, because if politics were about simple answers, the issues faced at each election, and between elections, wouldn't need such thorough debate.

Ms. Robertson, when asked if she thought Kramp and Tinsley's objection to the format was reasonable, answered, “not really”, stating that the candidates also could have just said pass if they couldn't answer in the required manner. This, though, would have given the advantage to the candidates for parties with little chance of election. If the odds of victory are slim, one can promise the moon without fear of being called upon to fulfill that commitment.

She also mentioned the format was accepted the night before at a similar meeting in Quinte-Northumberland riding, and that it was well received by the crowd there. While I am sure the crowd at Loyalist would have liked the format, the matter of it's previous acceptance by candidates of another riding is irrelevant. If she wanted the format in so badly, it should have been in the proposal.

This and that: With just over a week left in the election, there are hints starting to appear in some polls that disaster may be nigh for the Liberals. With a new poll putting the NDP in the lead in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc, there is a question if some “blue-dog” (centre/centre-right) Grit voters may move their vote to the Conservatives. The blog “Sort of Political” suggests this may lead to a gain of 9 new seats for the Tories in La Belle Province. Regardless, a re-engagement of Quebec voters in the House by way of a rejection of the Bloc Quebecois can only be seen as good news for Canada.

The Second "All Candidate's" Meeting, Hosted by CRAP - er, CARP

I attended the second all-candidates meeting for Prince Edward – Hastings tonight. As I have a more important turkey to roast this evening (see my column for the Intelligencer on Saturday, also available on jamesphieffer.com early Saturday morning) I will be brief.

Tim Hickey - Independent

After a solid debut on Monday night, his performance slipped, but with mitigating circumstances (see Saturday's column for more on this, as well as Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner's non-appearance). He played to the crowd but was seriously missing specifics. He kicks off with the presentation of his platform in downtown Belleville's Market Square on Thursday April 21 at 11 AM.
Grade: D

Daryl Kramp – Conservative

In spite of a crowd with some real idiots in it (yes, I mean you, guy with gray hair and a pony tail who hurled crude invectives at random intervals), he did well, never losing his cool regardless of being misquoted, etc. Calm, friendly, measured, clear.
Grade: A




Patrick Larkin – Green
After a strong outing Monday night, he was reduced to political/Green cliches in a performance which left me wondering who the real Larkin is.
Grade: C-

Michael McMahon – NDP

Another candidate who posted a strong performance on Monday, but seemed to fall off tonight. He continues to pursue a virtual 'hands off' approach to the Liberal candidate, focusing his attacks on the Conservatives. The problem with this approach is even if he is able to convince a voter not to support the Conservatives, he has neglected to point out why the NDP is the superior choice vs. the Liberals. A strong presence, tactically strong but strategically weak.
Grade: C

Peter Tinsley – Liberal

After a lackluster performance on Monday, the Liberal candidate came back with a vengeance. Demonstrating a strong grasp of the issues, and staying away from political cliches and invective, he demonstrated himself as a strong candidate, with the calm, steady demeanor which was missing for much of Monday night, but which his biography had led me to expect. He has moved himself to the head of the group of challengers to Daryl Kramp.
Grade: A-

Andrew Skinner – Progressive Canadian Party

As much as I was unimpressed with him Monday night, his absence is part of a massive issue with this event for which the blame lies with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, for whom the acronym CARP has never been so appropriate on so many levels (see Saturday's column). As such, he and those who might have considered him were done a grave dis-service, as was the cause of democracy itself.
Grade: Not present due to actions of CARP organizers.

Suspend health act to save system: study

Kevin Libin (from the National Post)

Canadians have witnessed a dot-com bubble, housing bubbles and a green energy bubble. But now, the country is experiencing a "medicare bubble," says a new report being released today by the Fraser Institute, and it's got the provinces headed toward severe financial trouble if the federal government doesn't loosen the constraints of the Canada Health Act.

Like a too-hot housing market, costs for health care are rising at a rate appreciably out of whack with economic and provincial revenue growth rates, the study finds. Over the last decade, medi-care spending in Canada inflated at 7.5% a year, compared to just 5.7% growth in provincial revenue and an average yearly expansion of 5.2% in GDP.

"We are facing a period of unsustainable growth in health-care expenditure, which has been increasing over time," said Mark Rovere, Associate Director of the Health Policy Research Centre at the Fraser Institute and the study's coauthor. "We're really facing a dire need for change. The status quo is simply not working." Read more...

Suspend health act to save system: study

David Frum: Ignatieff signals a return to duplicity on israel | Full Comment | National Post

By David Frum

Michael Ignatieff used this week’s English-language leaders’ debate to send dog-whistle signals to anti-Israel voters.

One occurred at about the 20-minute mark:

“Canada has lost its seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. First time it ever happened … ”

Another at minute 29:

“The fact remains, Mr. Harper, that you are the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to lose the seat that we were eligible to occupy on the Security Council of the United Nations … Talking about [the aid group] Kairos, talking about aid agencies who work in Africa, you’ve muzzled them, you’ve shut them down … For ideological reasons, you shut them down. When Rights & Democracy, an independent organization trying to represent human rights around the world, gave you a little trouble, you basically destroyed the organization.”

The word “Israel” does not appear in these remarks. Friends of Israel who want to vote Liberal can continue to remind themselves that Ignatieff condemned “Israel Apartheid Week” in a speech at the global anti-Semitism conference a year ago.

But people who follow the issues more closely will hear a very different message encoded in Ignatieff’s remarks.

Kairos and Canada’s Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development did not become notorious by “working in Africa.” They became notorious because of their attacks on Israel and their too-close associations with anti-Israel extremism. Read more

David Frum: Ignatieff signals a return to duplicity on israel | Full Comment | National Post

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.

The Politics of Possibility

An interesting quote from Pope John Paul II:
"The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency. Be not afraid!"
It may be that the capitalist, market driven society we live in today is less than perfect.  Indeed, only a blind man could miss this fact.  But the reality of history has shown us this system is, at worst, the best of a bad lot and.  At it's best, it is the only system that allows for, and indeed promotes, the progress of each individual towards blossoming into the essence of all we can be as persons created in the very image of God.

"‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada?"

It seems Mr. Ignatieff is lying to someone. He has been quoted at different points as having in the past referred to himself as an American. Now, though, he is quoted as having both referred to himself as an "American Democrat" and having voted for John Kerry in 2004. How can he be lecturing the government on ethics when he is apparently a proven serial liar?


‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada? Or Another Non-citizen Caught Voting in U.S Elections? - Big Government

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

• The coalition issue is one that hasn't completely gone away for the Liberals, and it won't, and it shouldn't. In our parliamentary system, there is nothing legally stopping Michael Ignatieff governing at the head of a formal or ad hoc coalition if the opportunity arises. Why he expects us to take his word when he wouldn't suggest we take any other politician's is beyond me. Especially when he was so equivocal in the months leading up to the election when it came to this matter.
• Iggy says he wants to have a 'fly-off' to decide what Canada's next fighter will be. His platform says the fighters aren't necessarily going to be replaced immediately regardless (shades of Chretien's helicopter cancellation – still waiting for those, twenty years later, thanks to the Liberals). Question is, how can you have a fly-off when there are only 2 fifth-generation fighters in the world, and one of them, the F-22, is not for sale. There is no other contender. As to the numbers being thrown around by the opposition, the numbers from the Department of National Defence are, quite frankly, more credible. The parliamentary budget office priced the planes over 30 years to get it's higher estimate, amongst other matters (the DND numbers are over 20 years – the extra 10 years significantly increase the costs, as these will be the most expensive maintenance-wise – as aircraft get older, the ratio of maintenance hours to operational hours grows), which, along with costing critiques from other sources, leads me to be quite sceptical of the basis for the higher numbers.
• The Green Party has no place in the debates amongst the party leaders. They have no MP’s, and the major raison d'etre of the party seems to be getting Liz May elected. This as she runs in her third different riding in the last three elections. And of course there's her tendency to endorse Liberal party leaders as Prime Minister. When she and her party get serious, and the party ceases to be a one issue noisemaker, we'll talk. It should be said that the Bloc shouldn't be there either – listening to Gilles Duceppe, while occasionally amusing, is a waste of what little space cheapskate networks will devote to the debates in the first place.
• How can Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, and Leona Dombrowsky look Ontarians in the face and say their government has done a good job. Government spending has exploded, meaning even with increasing revenue in the middle of the last decade Ontario ran massive deficits, and these got worse as the economy tanked in 2008-10. Now we are celebrating a deficit of 'only' $16+ billion dollars, we are a 'have not' province, the 'Sunshine List' is exploding... In terms of fiscal management, the McGuinty government since 2003 has been an unmitigated disaster.
• Saw my first robin this spring. It was frozen solid.
• In a day and age where discrimination is supposed to be illegal, how does Loyalist College get away with having new student housing which is unaccessable for those in wheelchairs? And what about the Picton courthouse? The front door doesn't open wide enough to allow a wheelchair through, and the very heavy door itself has no power assist.
• Toronto Maple Leafs fans are out, after grimly holding on to a slim chance their team might make the playoffs. While there may be some hope for next year, folks, the only good thing about this run is it means the Bruins won't get another top 5 pick courtesy the Phil Kessel trade.
• When I think of the late, great Liz Taylor (who apparently hated being referred to as Liz), I will think of an actress who dominated the scenes she was in. Are there any actresses today who can dominate a screen in that same way?
• Best tv show you've likely never watched: Justified. The boss and I download and watch it. Timothy Oliphant is great as Kentucky-bred US Marshal Raylan Givens. Great supporting cast as well, featuring Nick Searcy as Chief Deputy Art Mullen, and Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder, who grew up with Raylan, but is not as concerned with obedience to the law, so to speak.

Sand in the Shorts: I am a conservative

This column appeared in the April 9th, 2011 Intelligencer


  I am a conservative.

   Contrary to the suggestions of some, I do not sport horns, carry instruments of torture, and hail from Hell. Nor am I possessed by such.

   I am not a closet American, nor do I have a Republican party membership( but I do admire some for being true to their conservative beliefs) and a secret shrine to Karl Rove at which I pray daily, nor are my ideas inspired by a desire to emulate our southern neighbours.

   I have never been in the pocket of big business, sought to emulate Benito Mussolini, or dreamt of world domination (at least not seriously – outside a board or video game).

   I am not un-intelligent, un-Canadian, anti-woman, anti-science, or anti-environment.

But, unfortunately, I am portrayed as such by some, and so I thought it worthwhile to share a little about who I am.

   I believe in small government. Not no government. I believe that the government should be as small as possible, while being able to fulfil the roles assigned to it by Canadians. I believe those roles should be carefully considered, because sometimes the private sector simply can do a better job than the public sector, at a better price for taxpayers. My belief in being open to private sector involvement in the delivery of public services may be partly ideological, but my decision will ultimately be based on pure pragmatism.

   I believe in small government because I believe in individual freedom, and as government grows, history shows us, personal freedoms are infringed. I don't believe a bureaucrat in Ottawa or Toronto should be able to make decisions which arbitrarily restrict my ability to live as I see fit, and to exercise my basic human rights of speech and belief as I choose.

   I believe in the importance of education. An undereducated populace is always a danger to the continued good health of a vibrant democracy.

   I believe I am 'my brother's keeper', that I have a real responsibility to work to make sure those who are least able to care for and defend themselves in our nation are looked after – but not treated as pets, unable to care for or decide for themselves, but instead as independent human beings, with an eye towards giving a hand up so as to allow those in this situation to become self sufficient to the greatest degree possible.

   I believe in ensuring that Canada remains “the True North, Strong and Free”. That means I believe in maintaining a strong enough, modern and well equipped, military to carry out the duties required of it, and able to ensure our nation's ability to maintain the security of it's borders. I also believe that means it is important to be vigilant in the defence of our civil rights as individuals. The preservation of the Canadian nation is of no value if we as a nation have abandoned that which is essential to the very notion of our Canadian-ness. This means I believe in redistributing seats in Parliament on a regular basis to reflect changes in population.

   I believe we are a nation of individuals, not groups, so my value is neither diminished nor enhanced by my membership in any group, be it religious, ethnic, linguistic, etc., and as such the government should not attempt to diminish or enhance my position in society based on these same memberships.

   I believe that, as beings in time, we don't live in a vacuum. Canada has been shaped by cultural, geographic and religious forces, and we ought not ignore these as we seek to move forward, lest we risk the essence of the nation we have become. Part of this is the expectation that, while newcomers to Canada must have the freedom to build their new lives with minimal restrictions, there is an expectation that newcomers adapt to Canada and not the other way around, and that this expectation must be made clear to potential immigrants, so that they can have a clear picture of what to expect as they become Canadians.

   I believe Canada is the greatest nation on earth, and I believe these ideals are the ones which will help move our nation forward. How these ideals are understood or implemented is a separate matter. I hope this contributes to the political discussion now taking place in our country.

-first published in The Intelligencer, Belleville, ON on April 9, 2011 (under title "Who I Am and What I Believe)

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.