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

National Post editorial board: Harper’s chance to shape the Supreme Court | Full Comment | National Post

By the National Post Editorial Board - from the National Post

With the retirement of Supreme Court of Canada Justices Louise Charron and Ian Binnie announced on May 13, Canada’s high court will boast two vacancies in the near future. And with three more justices on track to hit the court’s mandatory retirement age of 75 over the next few years, Stephen Harper will have a total of five spots to fill over the lifetime of the current government. Add to that the two appointments that Mr. Harper already made in 2006 and 2008 (one of whom, Marshall Rothstein, will have to be replaced by 2015), and by the end of Mr. Harper’s term, six of nine sitting judges likely will have been appointed under his watch. These judges will influence public policy for decades, rendering decisions not only on appellate cases that come up through lower courts, but also on direct government references, such as the 1998 secession reference made by the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien.

Whom will Mr. Harper put on Canada’s top court? If his previous nominations provide a guide, judges who have at least a decade of service to give, who enjoy a good reputation among their colleagues and who don’t subscribe to judicial activism — from either the right or the left end of the political spectrum.

Which is as it should be: The high court should not be a political instrument of the government of the day. As Justice Rothstein put it during the hearings into his appointment in 2006, judges should “apply the law, not depart from it and not invent it.” When courts are “forced” into policy decisions by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as they inevitably will be, they must take “the least intrusive approach,” and when asked to overturn democratically passed laws, “approach the matter with some restraint.”

Much of our social landscape has been shaped by court decisions — such as the 1988 decision in R. vs. Morgentaler that struck down the country’s existing abortion law, the series of decisions that led to the legalization of gay marriage in the middle part of the last decade, the de facto proscription of the death penalty and the decriminalization of marijuana for medical use. Until the Conservatives came to power, in fact, our federal government actually encouraged aggrieved groups in society to pursue judge-made law through the publicly subsidized Court Challenges Program. But with the Charter turning 30 next year, the pendulum has swung back in the other direction — in part because so many contentious social issues already have been litigated (though a few, such as prostitution and polygamy, remain to be settled). Indeed, conservatives might worry less about the Supreme Court and more about quasi-judicial bodies such as human rights tribunals, which employ laxer evidentiary requirements and mete out more activist judgments than do regular courts.

Read more...

National Post editorial board: Harper’s chance to shape the Supreme Court | Full Comment | National Post

Left and right can unite to end corporate welfare - thestar.com

By Mark Milke - from the Toronto Star


“While they publicly denounce increased government expenditure, particularly in the form of social welfare, these champions of free enterprise actively lobby the government for incentive grants, research grants and tax concessions, and all manner of assistance at the individual taxpayer’s expense.”
— Then federal NDP leader David Lewis, on corporations and corporate welfare, in his 1972 book, Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums


Over the last three years, federal Conservatives have run up $102 billion in new debt, with the forecast for the next four years at another $59 billion. In total, that’s $161 billion in new red ink over seven years.


Given the rancour likely to occur over various attempts to balance the books with a Tory majority government and an NDP opposition in Parliament, here’s a modest proposal they should jointly act on: end corporate welfare.



By corporate welfare, think of direct cash payments to business — not for goods or services, but simply because a government wishes to retain or attract a particular business or industry. Sometimes the money is a grant, or a “repayable” loan (often never repaid), but it’s the same strategy: Governments pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Grants and loans to the aerospace and automotive sector are prime examples.


There are plenty of reasons to stop the practice, starting with the cost to taxpayers. Between 1994 and 2007, Ottawa, the provinces and municipalities spent $203 billion on corporate welfare, or $15,216 over that 13-year period for every tax filer who paid tax. (At just the federal level alone, Ottawa doled out $67 billion during that time.)


Beyond the cost, consider other reasons. Corporate welfare creates an uneven playing field between businesses and industries that do not receive taxpayer support and those that do. The result is an artificial, politically created advantage. When Chrysler and GM received a bailout in 2009, it came at the expense of additional sales that would have gone to a more prudent and better-run Ford or Toyota. Money is thus taxed away from all of us and given to a specific company — and diverted from more productive uses.


Read more...




Left and right can unite to end corporate welfare - 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

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

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.

Senator Hugh Segal at the Kingston Event for Prime Minister Harper

Your humble reporter (right) with Senator Hugh Segal

Senator Hugh Segal

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

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.

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

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.