The Case for Electoral Reform from a Liberal Perspective

This is something I actually wrote one week after the Oct. 14 federal election but never got around to posting (it's left unchanged). I've put off putting this up for some time, and I figure today is about as good of day as any to finally lay down my major thoughts on this issue. I think everything I wrote in Oct. has mostly stood the test of time and while my thinking on which system might be best to replace First Past the Post has changed a little, I feel just as strongly as I did then that our current electoral system needs to change. See below you can see my thinking before all the coalition business happened, I'll be following up with two more posts reflecting the current context and thoughts on the matter later today...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything below is what I wrote in mid-October and remains completely unchanged from what I wrote then (the last line of this post is probably the most outdated one):
Below are four good reasons why electoral reform from First-Past-the Post to a fairer system would not just be the right thing to do, but in Liberals’ partisan interests. Liberals at the federal level are overdue to have a discussion about this. Electoral Reform has been discussed and voted on in many provinces, some votes were complete failures (like MMP in Ontario), others qualified successes (like the 58% support for STV in BC, with another referendum coming in the May provincial election). But I think there is actually a much stronger case to be made for electoral reform federally, then there ever was in each of the individual provinces. So let me list four good overall reasons as to why Liberals should seriously consider pledging to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system to either Single-Transferable Vote (STV) or Instant-Run-Off Voting (IRV) (I would say MMP is off the table given the optics of sending that back to Ontario voters again). I will not be debating which is better of the two, though I recognize IRV is not really proportional representation and that STV does not guarantee proportionality but in practice STV has been far better at reflecting the popular vote than FPTP. Either way I believe the system that would end up a referendum ballot should be decided by broad public consultations. It is my hope that the progressive majority in this country can get behind the idea.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reasons Liberals Should Support Electoral Reform
1) Every Vote Counts:

People who want to vote Liberal in Alberta or in Francophone Quebec, or other rural communities consistently feel each election like their vote doesn’t matter. Sure there is the public subsidy, but not all Canadians are even aware of that, and for many they won’t venture out to go to the polls unless they feel their vote will matter to the overall outcome. We could put a stop to this with either STV or IRV.

You’d rank your choices and even if your top choice doesn’t win your ballot is never wasted as your other choices still contribute to the winner.

2) An End to Regional and Urban-Rural Divides:

I don’t think it’s good for national unity to see each election, the Liberals either wiped out, or severely diminished, in numbers in places like Alberta, Manitoba, Francophone Quebec, and much of rural Canada. When we form government in breeds resentment in all those areas where we are underrepresented. The current First Past the Post (FPTP) system however is a strong contributor to this. If we had IRV or STV any seat that Conservatives used to win with 40% or so of the vote due to vote-splitting would probably fall to the Liberals (or in some cases the NDP, since they might be the second choice of many Liberal and Green voters).

3) An End to Conservative Rule with less than 40% support:

I for one was saddened to see two elections in a row to see a party of the right win with still being opposed by over 60% of the population. Last Parliament the Conservatives governed as if they had a majority anyway and we’ll await what happens in this Parliament.

Reforming the electoral system to using IRV or STV would virtually assure that the Conservatives would never have a majority in the Commons and would likely always be unable to form a governing coalition, given that the Liberals have more in common policy-wise with the other parties than do the Conservatives.

Now I know some Liberals may be concerned that without FPTP we could then no longer appeal to NDPers and Greens to vote strategically for us to stop a Conservative victory, but even though I strongly believe in these appeals under our current system (as I happen to believe that those who voted Green especially have done harm to the prospect of a governing party adopting a Green tax shift again), there’s not much evidence that they worked much in our favour for the last two elections and working against a new electoral system on that basis would portray a lack of confidence in our own party to be able avoid bleeding votes further left.

Others might be concerned this would eliminate the change of the Liberals ever having a majority. Well Brian Mulroney’s PC’s got 50% of the nation-wide vote in 1984 (yes I know there was no Bloc then, but they might not be around forever), can we not equal that some day? The current system creates an incentive for parties to strive for only ~40% of the vote, a new system that is based more on proportionality would create an incentive for 50%, I think that would be an improvement. But with a system like IRV or STV, if we are the second choice of a majority of voters across the country we might actually stand a BETTER chance a majority than under First Past the Post. But we are looking at minorities at best for the next election, and probably the next 2 or 3 with the current system regardless anyway so the concern doesn’t have as much relevance for the short-term.

We remain the party that appeals to the broadest section of Canadians and I’m sure we could consistently win the popular vote within a new electoral system because a plurality agree most with our policies and approach to government. We also remain a party that would likely remain strong and in tact whereas the NDP, Greens and Conservatives would be much more likely to all break into separate smaller parties under a new electoral system.

4) An End to the Permanent Campaign – Giving Us MORE Stable Government:

I know one of the arguments against MMP in Ontario was it would lead to continual minorities, but federally minorities have become the norm with 3 in a row now with no end of them in sight. This has created an atmosphere of a permanent campaign where there are huge incentives for parties to all focus more on the next election than on providing good governance to Canadians in the meantime. This is a huge drain on party volunteers who are constantly forced to be in election mode and it diverts parties from providing the best policies for the lifetime of a parliament.

With electoral reform we could have informal or formal coalitions that could govern stably for 3-4 year periods. I know opponents of proportional systems say the coalitions are formed in backroom deals after the election but there’s no reason that if we had a new electoral system that coalition partners couldn’t be put out in the open in advance like most European countries with PR do. Far from PR creating unstable government, with the current pattern of unending minorities FPTP, government would be MORE stable. And if the Liberals got close to 50% of the vote as Mulroney did in 1984 under a proportional system or if they were the second choice of a large majority of voters in preferential balloting system there would be no need for a coalition either.
-----------------------------------
There are many more reasons for Liberals to support electoral reform at the federal level, but I hope that our party finally starts to take seriously the idea of giving Canadians a referendum on a system of electoral reform if they form the government next time. Obviously whatever system(s) are on the ballot would have to be decided based on wide ranging public consultations (not just a citizen’s assembly, and probably a citizen’s assembly is not the best route anyway). A referendum may not pass, but if we never let Canadians have a say in what electoral system they want I think Liberals and progressives on the whole will lose out in the long run.

Many Liberals will not agree with me on the need to change our current electoral system, but at the least I hope no one is opposed having a serious detailed debate on this issue.

Therefore, I strongly hope this will be a point of discussion among the leadership candidates in the months ahead.

Recommend this Post

Ontario PC's: Taking Pleasure in the Misfortune of Others

This story really says it all:
“PCs see opportunity in hard times”

the rapidly deteriorating economy....is widely viewed as an opportunity

"People smell blood," said a veteran Conservative backroom operative

"From 2008 to 2009, it's like somebody flicked a switch," said party president Ken Zeise. "It's like, `pinch myself.' This is an amazing year."

So let's get this straight, the Ontario PCs are HOPING that this recession stretches out for another 30 MONTHS so that they'll have an easier time convincing Ontarians to accept a party they resoundingly rejected in the last two elections? The economy takes a dive, unemployment sky-rockets and that makes for an "amazing year"? Well doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about how much John Tory's party really cares about all those suffering in the economic crisis? Oh yes they care, I guess they're just hoping the poor and newly layed-off workers suffer awhile longer so their partisan ambitions can be more easily satisfied.

The Mike Harris fan club want to replace the McGuinty government? Fine. I've yet to hear any compelling reason why they deserve to be anywhere close to government, but is it too much to ask that their try another route to argue their case than one that relies on the prolonged suffering of others?

I guess I should expect no less from the guys that seemed to take pride in beating up on the poor when they were last in power.

And should we be so unfortunate as to still be in a recession in October 2011, in case the PCs haven't realized, the LAST guys Ontarians will want in power in a prolonged recession are the same people that horribly managed the public purse (and blatantly lied about it) and decimated our social safety net.

But sure carry on hoping for Ontarians to suffer for longer and engaging in more Mike Harris adoration as you did this past weekend - you're just showing Ontarians how incredibly out of touch you are.

Recommend this Post

Harper and Co. Reveal to Ontario PCs Exactly How They'd Like to Govern: Mike Harris Style

Aside from Jason Kenney's troubling revelation this weekend (which many others have blogged about) that his colleagues (and perhaps himself as well) see his job as primarily wining and dining members of ethnic communities instead of actually helping them and providing sound immigration policy (which completely proves that Conservative "outreach" is a complete façade) , something else in his remarks caught my eye:
"But he reserved most of his praise for Tory's far-right predecessor, former Ontario premier Mike Harris, and his controversial "Common Sense Revolution" agenda".

We all know cabinet ministers don't say anything without it running it by the PMO so anything said by a cabinet minister can be reasonably assumed to reflect Stephen Harper's views.

So Harper and his ministers think that a recession where poverty and unemployment will rise dramatically is a good time to praise the Harris government that did everything it could to dismantle the social safety net?

And they think the Harris government provided sound economic management when they left behind a $6 billion deficit (and lied about it!) even after selling off every provincial asset they could get away? I guess Harper's easily on pass to top that.

Wow! Just one more reason why these guys could NEVER be trusted with a majority. Mike Harris did enough damage to Ontario, and as much Conservatives would like a national "common sense revolution" I have enough faith in Canadians that they will never give them the majority to do that with.

P.S. For those wondering more what went on at the Ontario PC Conventipon in Niagara Falls it seems Darryl Wolk is the only blogger who provided coverage (if you know of others add them in the comments).

Recommend this Post

When Egos Run Wild!

Apparently when the most popular President in generations makes his first visit to our country since taking office the main concern is not ensuring the President gets to have informed meetings with the most important figures in Canadian political life. Nope, apparently the top priority should be to ensure that our incredibly insecure Prime Minister gets to be the SOLE star of the show.

Have we ever seen a Prime Minister so afraid of others taking attention away from him that he feels the need to banish them to unseen quarters on a day where the world will have its eyes on us? Can anyone even picture any of our previous Prime Ministers acting this way?

No we can't have video footage of President Obama meeting with the Governor General or the Leader of the Opposition because that might take precious seconds away from clips that might be shown of the great Stephen Harper desperately trying to cozy up to President who is more popular that Harper could even hope to be. I guess Harper really thinks that people might buy the idea that there really is only one person of importance in Ottawa and that it's him. I guess this is how he's dealing with all the hits to his ego he's taken since December, so that with a day more about him than the guest of honour he can tell himself "I'm the star here, no one else!".

Unfortunately for Stephen Canadians know better and will see through these petty stunts. He looks incredibly small compared to all of his predecessors.

Perhaps the next time Obama visits (which I expect won't be for many more months, perhaps even a year) we'll have a Liberal government and Obama can see how vastly different things are done for a Presidential visit when the Canadian Prime Minister doesn't have an inferiority complex.

Recommend this Post

Restoring Faith in Canadian Politics

While I have the most FUN doing posts like my last one (thanks to all for the links! Over 2000 hits for that post and counting!) and teasing the CPC for their never ending failings, I've been meaning for awhile to get to some posts about what I'd like to see in the near future from my own party.

Canadians today are not impressed with what they've seen in Ottawa. They don't expect their governments to be perfect, they know governments make mistakes, they know not EVERY promise can be kept - it is politics after all. But at the same time, they expect a certain level of honesty, integrity and accountability. I'm very proud of many Liberal accomplishments from our time in government and believe we left behind a great legacy, but many Canadians came to believe (rightly or wrongly) that in 13 years of Liberal rule that we became too arrogant and out of touch. Yet in just 3 years, Conservatives have become worse than what they claimed to hate. Their only defenses today are "the Liberals did it too!" or "it's not much worse than what the Liberals did!".

Well in many cases it has been MUCH worse, I don't recall outright lies in the House of Commons from a sitting Prime Minister, and I don't recall the level of character assassination that was launched against Stéphane Dion (and soon I expect Michael Ignatieff) by a PM either. And I don't recall a party running on platform of being "holier than thou" and going and doing the exact opposite (and yet somehow seem proud of this complete reversal).

It's because of this negative trend that Canadians more and more are seeing politics as a dirty profession, where self-interest and dishonesty are necessary traits for getting ahead. They have little faith that politicians will do as they say or that they really have their interests at heart. But Canadians deserve better, especially in these tough times.

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals must demonstrate (and once in government ultimately prove) that we've learned lessons from both past Liberal and Conservative governments and that we want to restore honesty and dignity to public service again.

That we want Canadians to have a government they can be proud of, instead of one Canadians see as being more interested in helping their own than helping them.

The last budget wasn't really a popular one, but the best Canadians could expect from this tired government, and whether we liked or not, they didn't really believe a coalition would do any better (in fact out West they thought a coalition would be much worse). Canadians have become accustomed to mediocrity from Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and are just waiting for a better alternative to truly present itself. And it will, but Canadians aren't convinced yet.

In the next election and when we ultimately get back to power we will have a tremendous opportunity to restore Canadians faith in our party and our federal government. Conservatives have completely squandered their opportunity. We can seize ours.

So I hope Michael and his team will be putting together some proposals to "change the culture in Ottawa", because not only is it the right thing to do, it will resonate with Canadians just like it did with Americans last year.

Why not promise to set up an independent commission (perhaps similar to that used for deciding who receives the Order of Canada) to appoint Senators and make other public appointments (e.g., heads of Crown Corporations, boards, etc...) to get rid of the patronage the public thinks is synonymous with holding government? The Conservative promised it for non-Senate public appointments (and the Liberals I believe supported the process) but obviously Harper was never serious about it or he wouldn't have thrown away the idea just because he couldn't get first choice to lead it (someone I'm sure he knew was unacceptable to the opposition in the first place). We can get it done.

Why not promise to enshrine a code of conduct for MPs in the House of Commons? The Speaker could be greatly empowered to boot out MPs who made false statements, heckled or other types of behaviour that the public just shakes their head at.

Why not promise to eliminate the right of a PM to prorogue the House of Commons when he/she faces a confidence vote? What Stephen Harper did in December should be banned through legislation that would be very difficult to vote against or overturn later.

Why not promise to enhance Access to Information laws as opposed to trampling on them as Harper has done? Canadians shouldn't have to find out what their government is doing, or what knowledge it has at its disposal, through anonymous sources, trying to make sense of 50% blacked out reports or paying large fees up front.

Why not promise weekly (or bi-weekly) press conferences by the PM at the National Press Gallery so the press can finally do their job on the Hill?

Why not promise more transparency in how government dollars are spent? Quarterly reports shouldn't just be this year, but every year and perhaps it should even be more frequent than that.

Those are just a few suggestions, but there's much more that could be done and none of these cost much money (some cost none).

The biggest challenge will be convincing a cynical public that we'd actually carry out these promises, but it can be done. If we succeed, the country will be better for it and in fact I think it's the best ticket to boosting our popularity out West and in some rural areas where the term LIEberals is thrown around and actually taken seriously.

It's time for a government all Canadians can be proud of and that can be a model to the world. I'm hopeful Michael Ignatieff will give it to them this year.

UPDATE: Not sure how much press the initiative will get, but I would say this (www.recovery.gov) is a pretty good example of one of my suggestions in action (increasing transparency and accountability in government spending) that could be easily imported by the Liberals here.

UPDATE 2: I have to say that this Liberal website (onprobation.ca) is an EXCELLENT first step towards achieving what I was talking about in this post. Kudos to Michael Ignatieff and his team for putting this effort together!

Recommend this Post

Blogging Tories' Spin: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

A good source of mine (who shall remain anonymous) has leaked to me this e-mail chain to me of Blogging Tories' discussions that I think provides some good insight into why they've all been so silent on about Harper completely folding on the $3.5 million Cadman lawsuit that was supposed to be air tight. See below for all the details…
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:25:34 PM
To: Darryl Wolk; Christian Conservative; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Ok fine I see some of you guys are being difficult so why don’t we all just agree to say nothing then? I’ve always been able to rely on you guys to do that in the past on Friday afternoon news dumps so thanks in advance! I trust the MSN won’t see this as news anyway. Thank goodness they aren’t as Liberal as we say they are!

Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________________
From: Darryl Wolk
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:45:23 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Stephen Taylor; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen it’s time to stop the bs, it looks like we lost this thing and our party looks stupid now for starting the case in the first place. I think the best we can hope for is the media just ignores the story and that the Liberals keep quiet about it too and they don’t re-start committee hearings on this. I’m glad I haven’t blogged about this since May of 08 but I really wish I hadn’t bought into your spin at the case at the time. (http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuck%20Cadman).

-Darryl
________________________________________
From: Christian Conservative
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:25:18 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

OMG! Stephen I’ve swallowed A LOT from this party and have been a good soldier, even posting a lot of stuff I didn’t really buy that much, but this takes the cake! I”ll have no part of your HORRIBLE spin here!

Man do I feel dumb for listening to the party spin for so long on this and being so confident at the beginning (http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/harper-to-sue-liberals.html).
-CC
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 5:38:08 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Yeah I agree with Janke and Kate, we easily come out ahead here (and Kate I’m thinking of a Kinsella angle as we speak!), we can sell this as a win I know we can. I’m telling you the Liberals really thought they had us beat on this thing, they were hoping we’d actually have to give more testimony in court! And surely the media will see things our way.

Not to worry at all guys, I wouldn’t want to be a Liberal right now that’s for sure!
________________________________________
From: Angry in the Great White North
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 4:55:14 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Yeah please send some better talking points, I’m struggling to complete my post on this. I see how this is good you know we didn’t want the media or the Liberals digging deeper into the story, but I’d still like to get some better direction, so lil help pls!

-Janke
________________________________________
From: Small Dead Animals
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 4:47:14 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen you did tell us this was in the bag and I feel pretty stupid for all I wrote about this because of what you told us. But I’m willing to bite the bullet and go along with whatever message the party wants if you just send some better frigging talking points please! I’m sure we’ll beat the Liberals flimsy spin on this either way.

But is there any way we can turn this into a story about Kinsella? I’m sure we can all think of something here.

-SDA
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 4:37:13 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Ok guys I took Grumpy off, but why haven’t any of you posted on this yet? This is the best news we’ve had all week! We can’t let Liberal friendly CBC somehow put some sort of negative spin on this that works against us, we have to get in front of this thing!
________________________________________
From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 4:25:42 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right; Grumpy Voter
Subject: RE: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Alright Grumpy you’re gone from this group. We don’t take kindly to dissent around here, why don’t you try go joining Liblogs again you obviously don’t fit in here. Now that the Green Shift is gone (where you stayed on message with us from start to finish) you've outlived your usefulness. Let’s stay focused here guys, this is a win for us. Period.
________________________________________
From: Grumpy Voter
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 3:46:05 PM
To: Stephen Taylor; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right
Subject: Re: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Stephen WTF! You say the LIBERALS dropped THEIR case against us? Are you on glue? We launched the case against them and YOU told us it would bankrupt the Liberal Party and be one of the smartest political moves the Conservatives ever made! You assured us that the case was air tight and that we could confidently predict victory! You said they'd be on their knees in the end just begging for US to let THEM go with by just giving US a retraction and apology! We didn't even get a frigging apology from them!

Even when Harper lost his lawyer YOU assured us all it was just because he was looking for a better one and that we “shouldn’t believe the media spin” that it was bad news for our case.

Unbelievable!

-Grumpy
________________________________________

From: Stephen Taylor
Sent: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 3:21:54 PM
To: Christian Conservative; Darryl Wolk; Angry in the Great White North; Blue Like You; Crux of the Matter; ChuckerCanuck; Small Dead Animals; Gay and Right; Grumpy Voter
Subject: Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case

Hi guys,

I have awesome news for you all! The Liberals have agreed to drop the Cadman case and they didn’t even ask us to make an apology! This is complete and total surrender on their part!

The media are going to be ALL OVER the Liberals on this one for their frivolous lawsuit against us!

I expect to see you all posting about our great victory starting now so we can shape the news appropriately.

Cheers,
Stephen

______________________________________________
UPDATE: For those who aren't sure what to think of this post, I would invite you to read the labels/tags that were present the minute it was posted as well as the first comment to this post that I posted within minutes of when this went up. If you click some of the tags you might see this isn't the first time I've done a post of like this either, just this one got a lot more attention, but I'm glad most people enjoyed it!

Recommend this Post

Becoming Everything You Said You Hated

“For those Canadians seeking accountability the question is clear: which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to ensure political accountability in Ottawa? We need a change of government to replace old style politics with a new vision. We need to replace a culture of entitlement and corruption with a culture of accountability. We need to replace benefits for a privileged few with government for all.”
- Stephen Harper, Introduction, 2006 Conservative Platform

Political accountability and honesty in Ottawa?
“Auditor General says that feds hand out big bucks with no control”
“Budget overly optimistic about economy, Page (Parliamentary Budget Officer) says”
“Feds can't track green spending, says watchdog”

Old style politics replaced with new style? Benefits of a “privileged few” versus benefits for all?
“Tories bulking up own ridings with infrastructure funds”

How about say or do anything to get yourself elected?

And those examples just from yesterday! There’s A LOT more where that came from.

The Conservatives used to complain about wasteful spending and yet that's been the hallmark of their government! (yes paying Canadians to pave their driveways who were going to do it anyway is just what we need right now).

The Conservatives once believed in balanced budgets, now they have NO PLAN to get us back to one.

The Conservatives slammed the use of tax dollars for public polling to serve partisan interests and now they’ve done that worse than anyone!

The Conservatives complained about how too many benefits flowed to “Liberal ridings” and now gleefully promise to favour those held by CONSERVATIVES!

The Conservatives used to rail against an unelected Senate, now they’ve made the largest single amount of Patronage appointments to the Senate in a single day with MORE promised to come!

They fumed at “Liberal” appointments and promised to do better, but instead have done worse.

And I could go on…

The Conservatives Canadians thought they elected in 2006 are the polar opposite of what they’ve got. Since the 2008 election they’ve only abandoned what few principles they were thought to have left.

Is there ANYTHING Conservatives criticized that they haven’t now gone and done themselves?

So what do Conservative supporters “support” these days? I’d really like to know because it seems to me it’s just power and hatred of Liberals. That’s some political philosophy.

Recommend this Post

Mr. Tory's Last Ride?

So March 5 is the day for John Tory. While I'm sure he's conforted in the knowledge that he's running in a place where his party got 50% of the vote in the last election and he certainly goes in the favourite, Tory seems to have a habit of falling below expectations. It Tory thinks he's a shoe in he might want to think twice. Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock residents might actually be looking for a real representative over the next few years instead someone who will immediately go looking for a new seat for 2011 and focus all his attention there. They might looking for someone that actually knows the riding not someone who's only there to save his career. And given that it's a fairly right wing riding they might actually prefer ending Tory's career in the hopes that someone on the far right takes the leadership of the party from him. We shall see, but I guess John Tory is already gonna half to skip away from HKLB to see his party in Niagara Falls this weekend. Something tells me there's not gonna be as many happy campers there as he'd hope.
-------------------------------------------------
John Tory learns his fate March 5


The Canadian Press
February 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM EST
TORONTO — Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has called a by-election in a riding that Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory hopes will be his ticket back into the legislature.

The premier's office says voters in the central Ontario riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock near Peterborough will go to the polls on March 5.

Mr. Tory announced he would seek the seat after Conservative Laurie Scott stepped down last month to make way for him.

He's been without a seat since his ill-fated bid in the 2007 election for the Toronto riding held by Education Minister Kathleen Wynne.

Local school board chairman Rick Johnson will be running for the Liberals.

Three New Democrats — Lynne Boldt, Lyn Edwards and Stephen Woof — are each vying for their party's nomination.

Recommend this Post

Grading the Budget: Some Positive Short-Term Measures, but an Utter Failure to Invest in Our Future / Where Liberals Go From Here

This week has not allowed me any time to blog meaningfully up until now, but with the budget now passed first reading last night I thought it would be a good time to finally add my two cents and where we go from here. I had fully expected the budget to pass and it seems polls have validated the decision as something that enjoys widespread public support, particularly with the quarterly reports amendment. That said, given that we know there are many flaws in this budget, I would have much rather seen 50 Liberal MPs vote against it (and the rest stay home) and still let it pass than see any Liberal MPs stand up to support it (I just don't like the idea of Liberals voting for a Conservative budget, I took the same position under Dion, and I'm not sure Liberals have ever happened voted for a Conservative budget before). I also would rather have seen the caucus vote as one because I'm concerned about the precedent being set of allowing one province of MPs to vote different from another on a budget vote. But I can accept I may hold a minority view on those two fronts and I suspect the public really doesn't care (and may have very soon forgotten) about those latter two distinctions anyway. Above all it seems the public just wanted to see the stimulus money flow and Parliament to get back down to work.

So on to the budget itself...

1) Protecting the Most Vulnerable Canadians: Grade: C +

I had said I was hoping for significant investments in social housing, aboriginal communities and poverty reduction along with enhancements to EI.

On the first three in truth there was more there than I would have expected a few weeks ago from these guys, and while I would have liked to have seen more significant investments on these fronts (and I know the savings could have been found by eliminating funding for other less-pressing projects and subsidies of which there were many in this budget), it's a long overdue step in the right direction and Liberal must keep pushing them further.

However, where the budget really does fail on protecting the vulnerable is with EI. Harper himself says this could be the worst downturn since the depression and he doesn't think that warrants extra help for the unemployed? He doesn't think they deserve to get their first cheque sooner when layoffs are increasing dramatically? It was positive to see him extend the length people could be on EI, but it was not enough.

I also have huge reservations over their revival of the pay equity attack from the fall fiscal update which seems like a slap in the face from a party that claims to be more conciliatory now, but since that I believe would be dealt with in separate legislation I won't get overly hung up about it, but when such legislation comes Liberals must vote against it.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country: Grade: B-

I had said I was hoping for dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries to protect jobs in those areas, that there must be significant investments in job re-training, investments in infrastructure, the culture industry and new actions taken to address the credit crisis. I think the Conservatives did a reasonable/passable job on these fronts.

However, I'm not impressed with the scatter gun way it seems the infrastructure money will be distributed or that it will be need be matched by municipalities that may not be able to afford it.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
Grade: F

I said the budget should take major steps to begin greening our economy (though major investments in alternative energy and green infrastructure), provide greater aid for home retrofits, increase investments in early learning and child care (to invest in our children's future) and post-secondary education, and have a clearly mapped out plan to get us back to surplus that does not involve asset sales or ideological social program cuts.

With the exception of some money for home retrofits (that I believe only starts if you have $1000 to spend) the budget failed on all of these fronts. The investments in green infrastructure and the environment in general were paltry especially in comparison to what other countries are doing or even what past Liberal budgets have done. There was NO attempt to green the economy as our neighbours to the South it seems will be doing anyway in our absence.

There were no meaningfully investments in post-secondary education aside from helping build infrastructure on campus. Universities need much more than that to compete with the funding they get in the U.S. and to adapt to the reality of a growing percentage of the population seeking college and bachelor's degrees.

There were essentially no investments in early learning child care despite that fact that countries with national child care networks are greatly outperforming us economically right now and we were rated DEAD LAST in the western world in our investments on this issue.

The budget also inexplicably cuts funding for research councils and provided ZERO funding for the Genome Project (which Canada may now to have pull out of as an international partner) and other key medical research programs. That is a complete travesty and has to be addressed at the Finance committee. How do you justify taking away significant funding from key projects in the biggest spending budget ever?

And the plan to return to surplus was extremely brief, based on surely faulty estimates and did involve questionable asset sales. I have no faith in said plan to return to balanced budgets whatsoever. I do believe deficits were inevitable given the global economic downturn but the Cons terrible management of the public finances with reckless spending and their GST cuts (that few people have really noticed and haven't helped economic productivity) have made the deficit far worse than it ever had to be and it's appalling that they really seem to have no idea of how to get us out of it.

I'd love to hear a sound argument from anyone as to how this budget really helps "create the jobs of the future" or doesn't saddle future generations with debt. The budget is an monumental disappointment on that front.

Overall Grade: C-

This budget lacked any clear focus and was just so all over the map that they lose points for that because Canadians deserve so much better in these tough times. There's also many subsidies in there for people to do things they would already be doing and others will be out reach to those at the lower income spectrum. To boot there are modest middle income tax cuts financed by deficit spending (which never makes sense for funding tax cuts) that won't stimulate the economy and will make it more difficult to get back to surplus (much better as economic stimulus while also helping the poor would have been to increase the GST rebate). At the same time, the Conservatives went a lot farther on some progressive issues that I had thought they would so the budget wasn't a complete disaster. But given that I agreed with Michael Ignatieff's statement before the budget that the most important criteria to consider was "will it create the jobs of tomorrow?" I can't help but give that the biggest weight in the big picture of how good this budget is for Canada. It's for that reason I cringe where I hear this being called a "Liberal budget" as the Liberals would never have produced something so shoddy. While I'm sure the Conservatives really could care less what a lowly Liberal blogger thinks or how she grades their budget (or how Calgary Grit or economists grade it for that matter), we can't forget where this budget fails badly and have to keep reminding Canadians why they deserve better.

So given that the budget badly underperforms in key areas, but Canadians badly seem to want to see a budget passed ASAP that provides economic stimulus I hope we propose sensible, reasoned, amendments in committee after second reading (which is what I suggested as well before the budget was tabled). Committee votes aren't votes of confidence and there is no threat of bringing the government down there. The opposition has a majority and should set aside differences to get meaningful results and if the Conservative obstruct reasonable proposals and delay their own budget they will be the ones looking worse for it. If the other opposition parties refuse to support progressive committee amendments that's just as unforgivable.

We obviously can't overhaul the budget but we can fix many holes. For instance, funding can surely be found for the Genome Project it would be travesty not to when so many other projects were funded. The budgets of the Tri-Councils (SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC) for research should also not be cut. We could also remove the two week waiting period for EI and remove the need for matching funding from municipalities for infrastructure funds to be doled out. We could attach greater strings to ensure infrastructure money goes to more green projects to make up the budget's major shortfall on the environment. As well, I honestly believe the home renovation rebates should only be for green home renovations that increase energy efficiency and not for things like paving your driveway. That would SAVE the government tons of money to free up elsewhere while also being better for the environment. Those are just a few possibilities (though I know the last won't happen because there would outcries from people who had already gone ahead with plans for non-eco related renovations, but it would be far better public policy).

But regardless of what pans out with this budget, a very sad political reality remains: time and again, it seems is that to be successful politically means placing priority on the "here and now" well above any considerations of the long-term. I believe that is a major reason why a carbon tax, amongst other sensible policies (e.g., large investments in Green infrastructure projects), have been difficult to sell. And I believe it's why this budget that does reasonably well on the here and now front is popular, despite its failure to look beyond the horizon. But until we get a Prime Minister that has his/her eyes on the next decade ahead, and not just the next election, our country will remain in deep trouble.

So where do we go from here? If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that with the passage of this budget (regardless of any amendments in committee) we return to a 1993 financial situation (I believe the deficit numbers will turn out much worse than the budget currently predicts: Bob Rae provided some good reasons why here). It took Liberals at least 5 years to be able to start making any major social investments again once we took power and it required very painful decisions in order to bring us back to that situation of being able to make such investments. The passage of this budget (and of course the economic realities that have decimated federal coffers apart from the budget) means our platform in the next election will likely only be able to promise a fraction over the next 4 years of what we promised last fall. So within that reality we need a long-term vision badly (and not one based on vagaries with specific ideas for the future and that won't be drop after just one election), but we also need the short-term ideas that win elections. People mocked the 10 year $70 billion infrastructure plan because of sticker shock but in reality 10 year plans are what the country needs, but it's a big job to convince the public of that, though it's not one we should shy away from.

So I hope the Liberal Party can find the right balance between short-term political gains and long-term policy goals in the months ahead, because Canada desperately needs it to. This government doesn't get it, they won't get it, and with each year they remain in power the further the rest of the Western world will be leaving us in the dust.

Recommend this Post

What Kind of Budget Does Canada Need?

In a little under half an hour we will see if Stephen Harper has learned any lessons from the past several weeks and whether he finally realizes he has a minority government. I know the Liberals will face a difficult choice. I do not subscribe to the view of oppose the budget no matter, but nor do I think we should approach the budget as a blank slate, as we can’t forget all the deception and gamesmanship that preceded this. We have to ask not only is this a good budget but can Harper be trusted to govern responsibly and implement it appropriately in the months ahead. Harper has to send out very strong signals that he gets it. And the budget he puts forward has to be what’s necessary for the time ahead as the coalition document outlined last fall.

I think the Liberals have some pretty good broad tests of what’s acceptable, but within the broad tests, the budget should in my view have the following:

1) Protecting the most vulnerable Canadians:
- Investments in social housing. The $2 billion proposed is actually less than at least the provinces have asked for which is unfortunate, but this could be amended in committee.
- Investments in Aboriginal communities. A re-commitment to carrying out the Kelowna Accords (I don’t care if they use the name as long as the money and goals are the same).
- Investments in poverty reduction. Tax changes along the lines of Dion’s 30/50 poverty plan are more than appropriate in these tough economic times.
- Employment insurance must be enhanced and distributed more quickly.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country
- There must be dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries
- There must be significant investments in job re-training
- There should be new actions taken to address the credit crisis
- There should be significant investments in the cultural industry which always returns more in revenue than government pays out and that Conservatives have badly neglected.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
- The budget must start the business of greening our economy and invest in alternative energy and green infrastructure, such as high speed rail and public transportation projects. I’m disappointed to hear that it sounds like there will only be $1 billon over two years dedicated towards green infrastructure. Isn’t that the same amount that has been in previous budgets? Hopefully the Liberals propose an amendment in committee on that front as well.
- The budget must help individuals retrofit their homes with greater aid that has been there before.
- The budget should have increased funding dedicated to post-secondary education.
- There should be increased funding given to the provinces for child care. Increased funding for early learning and child care allows more parents to enter the work force, but also enhances our competitivess for the future and helps build a brighter generation for the future. The Scandinavian countries with national child care programs are also doing better economically than us now, it’s time for us to start catching up and get serious on this issue and not stubborn ideology get in the way.
- The budget must avoid a structural deficit. That means no middle class tax cuts that don’t have a sunset. The Budget Office said that cutting $6 billion a year from foregone revenues (e.g., through tax measures) would create a structural deficit so that can’t be allowed.
- There must be plan to get us back to surplus that does NOT include asset sales or ideological cuts to social programs.

I don’t expect all these will be in here and I’m sure I’ve forgot some things (wanted to get this posted before the budget was actually released), but since I expect many of them to be in there and I don’t think Harper is so dumb as to put in the large middle class tax cuts Ignatieff said he would vote against, I expect the budget will pass. That doesn’t mean I think it should pass, but I recognize the difficult decision being made and that our MPs have been inundated with calls against a possible coalition and urging them to pass the budget, not to mention the last polls that say the same. On the whole I think the mood among Canadians is just to get a stimulus package passed as soon as possible so we must live within that context, but not forget that Harper alone was who prevented such a budget from arriving much sooner and that this is the most important budget in over a decade and can't be decided to vote up or down easily. We shall see very shortly how this will all play out.

If there are large middle class tax cuts that don’t sunset in a couple years (which would no doubt cause a structural deficit) then I think the Liberals will have no choice but to vote against though. Otherwise, I hope at the very least they propose amendments to include all those things above that Harper didn’t put in the budget. We have the majority in committee and if Harper is really going to be about “consensus” he should let the will of the majority prevail there and if he doesn't allow any such amendments then that would seem the like the same old Harper that hasn't learned the lessons he has to.

Recommend this Post

The Steady Hand for the Economy

For a bunch of reasons I haven’t been able to blog much this month, but I should be back in the swing of it again with Parliament returning this week. With our MPs coming back today one issue will at the top of everyone’s mind: the economy. And is there a single remaining Conservative who can say with a straight face that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty's party have been good economic managers?

The entire last election was about them convincing us that they would be “steady hand” to guide the economy through rough waters. Instead, they’ve steadily guided us deeper and deeper into a ditch and it’s still not clear if they’ve taken us to the bottom of it yet.

Can anyone name a single sound economic decision this government made? A single one?

How about their introduction of 40 year mortgages and other reckless lending practices that first triggered the financial crisis south of the border? Was that sound economic management?

How about cutting the GST by two points when ZERO economists recommended it and taking approximately $12 billion a year more out of general revenues? Does anyone really believe that benefited the economy?

How about Stephen Harper’s encouragement to buy into the stock market before it fell another 20%? Does this make you think he should be managing the country’s money?

How about Stephen Harper’s saying in September that “if we were going to have a recession we probably would have already had one by now” before later saying we could face a depression. Does this make you think that this “economist” really understands the economy?

How about pronouncing there would be surpluses in the four years ahead and turning around just a few weeks later to say there would $100 billion in accumulated debt (with $13 billion of that coming BEFORE any stimulus) instead? Does this make you feel confident in their forecasts for the future?

I won’t be surprised if we hear in today’s throne speech about how these guys “saw the storm coming” and are providing “sound economic management”. But that’s nothing more than a massive lie and Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty know it. You can read here on this blog and many others quotes from news stories predicting “worse than a recession” during the election campaign while Stephen Harper was still out singing from his “don’t worry, be happy” songbook. We’ve grown to expect our Prime Ministers to play politics now and then, but we’ve never seen them be so willfully dishonest. And in my book we don’t reward people who pathologically deceive, while being abysmal at the job everyone expects them to do.

We face the toughest economic crisis in a generation. The next six months of government action will play a major role in determining when Canada will see an economic recovery. The Liberals will face a very tough choice this week and will be under overwhelming pressure to pass whatever Conservative budget is put forward, and while I’m willing to see that budget before pronouncing it should be defeated we still need to ask ourselves, if we truly put the interests of Canada and our economy first, do we have confidence in Stephen Harper to get us out of this economic crisis?

Recommend this Post

A New Voice of Hope

Today, 8 long years of mismanagement and disappointment came to an end and a new era has begun (see inauguration/speech video and other photos below). Barack Obama faces impossible expectations and no doubt he cannot meet them all and no doubt he will make some decisions that I disagree with and that he obviously won't still have an 80% appproval rating in 2012. But as I’ve been saying for a for a long time now the United States and the world desperately need a major overhaul from the approach of the last 8 years. But in these trying times the world also doesn’t just need change, but hope and optimism. And nobody embodies change and hope better than Barack Obama. As Nelson Mandela said today in a letter to the new President: “Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done. Amidst all of the human progress made over the last century the world in which we live remains one of great divisions, conflict, inequality, poverty and injustice…You, Mister President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make of it a better place” I share the hope of Mr. Mandela and so many others today…

The hope that the United States will stand up for human rights and not against them.

The hope that the United States will engage the world and embrace multilateralism instead of unilateralism.

The hope that the United States will tackle the crisis of climate change instead of denying it.

The hope that the United States will provide health care for all its citizens instead of being the only western nation that doesn’t.

The hope that the United States will truly become an accountable government by and FOR the people instead of a government consumed by secrecy.

The hope that the United States will look after the impoverished and help left them out of poverty instead of seeing the poor as a burden to be looked down upon.

The hope that the United States will do its part to solve the economic crises instead of being an enabler of the policies that started it.

The hope that the United States President will work to heal the divides at home and across the globe rather than exacerbate them.

The hope that the United States will play a more positive role in the world than it ever has before.

I may not be an American but I can say I’m as optimistic about America’s new direction as I was the election night I won't forget in Chicago.

The Chase for Change is now over. Change has arrived and while actions will speak louder than words, I hold out hope that 4 years (and even 8 years) from now Barack Obama will still represent change we could all believe in.

Recommend this Post

A Faint Hope of Getting it Right on the Environment

Happy New Year everyone! I hope the year for you is getting off to a good start! On the political side of things my spirits were brightened a bit to see this story on National Newswatch (which I’ve included below). One of the leading climatologists at NASA is openly lobbying the incoming Obama administration to impose a carbon tax, arguing (as Liberals did in the last election) that it is the ONLY feasible approach in the short term to make the reductions we need in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though I still think the odds are slim Obama will impose a carbon tax, this climatologist isn’t the only leading figure to call for a carbon tax, as both Al Gore and Bill Clinton have called for it recently too. IF Obama did decide for this more sensible and needed approach I would LOVE nothing more than to see the reactions of the Conservatives and the NDP.

A carbon tax in the U.S. would mean Canada would be STRONGLY compelled to have one as well (as we should regardless). Even though the idea is probably even a tougher sell in the U.S. than here, Obama will have an unprecedented honeymoon to bring in sweeping policies in his first 100 days. It’s either now or never for him for a carbon tax though, if he doesn’t move on it immediately, it won’t sell nearly as well later. However, if Obama opts for an exclusively cap-and-trade approach, I’m afraid we will be doomed to the same here in Canada for at least the next few years (even though I still think it’s a poor precedent for Liberals to reject a sound policy after just one election in which dozens of other issues and our own organizational weaknesses were big factors in our loss as well). Cap-and-trade over a carbon tax might seem like good politics, but it certainly isn't the best policy. But for now I’ll hold out the faint hope that Obama will get it right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality Bites
Halifax news, politics and snark, by Tim Bousquet

Hansen: Dion was right
January 01, 2009 04:34 PM

James Hansen is the NASA scientist who first testified to the US Senate on the climatic challenges facing the globe in 1988, and continues to be one of the leading climatologists researching the issue.

Today, New Year's Day, Hansen releases a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama:, in which he underscores the importance of taking quick action to address global warming. The letter's worth reading in its entirety, but of special interest to Canadians may be the section that deals with the need for a carbon tax. Hansen argues not just that a carbon tax is necessary, but also that a cap and trade system is not a viable alternative.

As you'll recall, Stéphane Dion campaigned on a carbon tax. Jack Layton condemned it, saying he would prefer a cap and trade system, and Stephen Harper ridiculed it as an economy killer. There were no doubt many reasons why he lost in the polls, but Canadians overwhelmingly rejected Dion and therefore the carbon tax. But here we are, three months later, and the man who arguably knows more about global warming than any other human tells us we can't avoid cataclysmic climate change without a carbon tax:
The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the 'greenest' countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, 'goals' and 'caps' on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.
It's hard to read these words and not think that Canadians have made a terrible blunder.

Adding: Hansen says more about the issue here:
"Goals" for percentage CO2 emission reductions and "cap & trade & dividend" are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes' idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a 'gas tax' suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) "Cap & trade & dividend" creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the post- fossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply 'caps' cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: 'shortages'. All a utility has to say is 'blackout coming' and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.

(5) Wouldn't it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.

Tim Bousquet

Recommend this Post

Harper Leadership: Leading From Behind

The end of the year is an ideal time to take a look at how you’ve done in various areas of your life and where there’s room for improvement. Unfortunately, in the case of our government, I’m sure Stephen Harper puts his fingers in his ears whenever he’s reminded of his performance so that leaves it up to others to give him his year end performance review on the major issues facing Canadians. For a guy who’s campaign slogan was “Harper Leadership” (a slogan that has conveniently been banished from the website since the election), his record sure doesn’t seem to be one of a “leader”. On issue after issue, he’s content to be at the back of the pack and only doing anything positive when he’s forced to. It’s why I’m not optimistic he can really change for the better and why Canada would be better off with him gone. But on to the review…
---------------------------------------------
On the Economy
- While Dion and the Liberals proposed economic solutions to get our economy rolling again in the last election, Harper offers no plan and said basically only "don't worry, be happy" when more and more experts were saying Canada had serious troubles ahead that need to be tackled. Harper STOLE the Liberals plan after realizing he was LAST to the party in realizing the economic crisis Canada faced.

- While every other western nation has put forward massive stimulus packages and are acting NOW to help their economies, Stephen Harper’s only response was to try to crush his opponents and pander to his base and then shut down Parliament for seven weeks. Stephen Harper is content to be the LAST western nation to bring in real solutions for the economic crisis.

On the Environment
- While every other western nation is focused on greening their economies and meaningfully tackling climate change, Stephen Harper has his head in the sand and prefers to obstruct than help tackle the problem. Stephen Harper is content to see Canada have the WORST record in the Western world on the environment.

On Early Learning and Child Care
- While other countries invest in early learning and child care and realize how conducive such investments are to a strong economy, Stephen Harper is content to literally have Canada be ranked DEAD LAST on our approach to this issue.

On Ethical Investigations
- When the more shady aspects of the Mulroney-Shreiber affair came to light, Harper railed against holding any real investigation before caving (but of course showed real leadership by stalling the inquiry until after the election). Stephen Harper only acted when outside voices were UNANIMOUS that he HAD TO. Hopefully he’ll be pushed in to doing the same for the In and Out and Cadman scandals.

On Foreign Affairs
- Maxime Bernier had to make a dozen mistakes before HE resigned as Harper couldn’t even bring himself to fire him. Stephen Harper is content to have incompetent ministers representing us on the world stage.

- Canada used to be a respected voice on the world stage. Under Stephen Harper we've pulled out of the race for a UN Security Council seat because Harper has made it so it's a virtual certainty Portugal would beat us. Stephen Harper is content to have us seen as being a Bush-like pariah on the world stage.

On Aboriginal Issues
- While virtually every other nation supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indiginous Peoples, Canada was one of the few countries opposed. While all 10 Premiers supported the Kelowna Accords, Stephen Harper tore them up. While other countries and provinces take dramatic steps to improve the lives of Aboriginals, Stephen Harper is content to leave them at the back of his priorities.

On Food Safety
- While every independent voice has called for a public inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak, Harper still insists on a private closed door one and staunchly defends his incompetent and horribly insensitive Agriculture minister (even re-appointing him after the election). Stephen Harper is content to be LAST to the party on food safety.

On Health Care
- While other provinces tackle wait times Stephen Harper has forgotten about it entirely. He promised wait time guarantees for 5 procedures and settled for one out of 5 (with a different one in each jurisdiction). For Stephen Harper, accomplishing less than 20% of what you promised is considered a major accomplishment.

On Human Rights
- As Barack Obama is about to close Guantanamo Bay and EVERY OTHER western nation has repatriated their citizens who were interned there, Stephen Harper is content to be the LAST supporter of Guantanamo. While EVERY western country that officially opposes the death penalty advocates clemency for their citizens abroad, Canada is now the ONLY country that doesn’t. Stephen Harper is on pace to see Canada have the WORST record on human rights in the western world.

On Culture
- While other countries invest in their culture industries to bolster their economies and promote their national identity Harper thought it wise to cut and censor them. Harper was eventually dragged to make an embarrassing reversal, but once again Harper was LAST to realize the importance of the cultural industry to our economy and identity.

On Gender Equality
- While other parties ran more female candidates, Harper ran less. To boot, Harper slashed funding for Status of Women Canada and weakened its mandate, his party passed resolutions removing gender equality as goal for the government, against pay equity and bring back Ken Epp’s “unborn victims of crime bill”. Harper had a chance to change course and instead brought in a fiscal update that attacks pay equity and then appointed an abysmal 4 out 18 women to the Senate in his history making patronage spree. While other countries make strides in moving towards gender equality, Harper is ALONE in having us move BACKWARD. Harper is dead LAST in his commitment to women’s issues and giving an equal voice and equal representation in the House of Commons and Senate.

On Poverty
- While an economic crisis ensues that could see poverty rise to historic levels and while our neighbour to the South is ensuring it does all it can to soften the blow for those hardest hit, the word poverty can’t even cross Stephen Harper’s mouth. Stephen Harper is content to be DEAD LAST in poverty reduction efforts.

On Plans for the Future
- While out campaigning for a majority, Stephen Harper had NO INTENTION of releasing a platform. He ONLY released one in the end when it became embarrassing for him not to. What he released has more photos than ideas and While running a campaign based on “leadership” Stephen Harper had (and in all likelihood has) NO REAL PLANS of his own to lead us into the future.
--------------------------------------------------
And that’s far from all the examples where Harper’s failed. We need real leadership from our government during the biggest economic crisis we’ve faced in decades and Harper has a huge mountain to climb to show he’s up to the times and deserves to govern in the year ahead.

We have to ask ourselves what kind of government do we want in 2009? One that leads from the front or from behind? We must demand much better of our government or it must go.

Recommend this Post

Top 10 Canadian News Stories of 2008

Every year has its big stories, but this year had many that I think Canadians will still be talking about years from now. You may not agree with the top 10 Canadian stories I’ve chosen, but it’s hard to say each of these weren’t major stories when they hit and that most of these don’t still resonate. I’ve reflected on each one (some “reflections” I guess could be posts in themselves) and they are listed in rough chronological order rather than importance.

1) Chuck Cadman Scandal: You don’t hear about it as much now, but you can’t say it’s not huge news when you hear allegations (which seem to be backed up on tape) that the Conservatives tried to literally bribe an MP to vote with them. And don’t forget Harper’s libel case against the Liberals over this is still before the courts, but given how that’s fared of late I’m thinking Harper’s hoping we do forget about that one.

2) In and Out Scandal: The RCMP raiding the governing party HQ and the ensuing frantic (and failed) attempt to control the media spin over the Conservatives apparent over-spending and shady dealings with local ridings during the 2006 election was certainly a sight to see. Conservatives are STILL spending millions fighting this in court so obviously they realize how bad it will reflect on them when Elections Canada does finally rule officially AGAINST them

3) Maxime Bernier's Bungled Foreign Affairs Tenure: I’m someone who believes it’s extremely important for Canada to maintain a positive reputation in the world and so it’s big news to me that this year we came to fully realize that Stephen Harper had appointed among the worst (if not the worst) foreign affairs ministers in Canadian history. From not knowing who the President of Haiti was, to blowing private negotiations to get a troublesome Afghan governor to step down, to promising C-17s that didn’t exist for deployment, it was clear the guy was just not up to the job. Amazingly enough it took him leaving confidential documents at his girlfriend’s place to bring him down, but even then Harper wouldn’t fire him, Bernier instead resigned. This was also the first and only cabinet resignation I believe we’ve seen so far from this government. That’s not a good thing given how many of Harper’s ministers have done things that should have warranted their dismissal.

4) The Green Shift: Like it or hate it, it was the most bold policy proposal of the year. Sadly the Conservatives AND NDP smeared it with disinformation and the Liberals were unable to successfully combat the onslaught. I’ve still yet to hear one person credibly argue how a cap-and-trade system would be a superior approach to tax shifting for reducing GHG emissions over the next several years when a cap-and-trade system could easily end up being (in the words of Andrew Coyne) "just as costly...twice as complicated… and probably half as effective (as a carbon tax)" and when we know that Europe has had a terrible time getting cap-and-trade off the ground and that the Western Climate Initiative here in North America isn’t scheduled to start till 2012. Yet as of this time an exclusively cap-and-trade approach seems to be the approach all parties (except the Greens) now want us to head in.

I HOPE the Liberals show some courage again and revive the Green Shift policy in a different more saleable form down the line (certainly the Green Shift policy on the whole could stand for some tweaking). After all it was originally Michael Ignatieff’s idea when he was the only leadership candidate in 2006 arguing for it. I understand how given the results of the last election he doesn’t want to touch a tax shift with a ten foot pole and I guess I can’t blame him if he doesn’t go back to it, but to date I’ve seen ZERO evidence in polling or anything that Canadians were voting against us SOLELY BECAUSE of the Green Shift. Is there really more than 1-2% of Canadians who would have said “I definitely would have voted Liberal but didn’t only because they were proposing a carbon tax”?

I think it’s foolish to boil down the election loss to that policy (or just who our leader was for that matter) when people could have voted against us for literally dozens of different reasons (I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually went to the polls thinking the Liberals were going to ban the bible or some other crazy nonsense perpetrated by Conservatives) and such a simplistic view allows us to learn little. I think we lost much more so due to weaker organization and GOTV efforts, the smearing of Stéphane Dion with millions of dollars in ads that we were unable to combat (due to our weaker fundraising abilities) and Harper successfully (falsely) portraying the Liberal platform as planning to spend tens of billions more than was available in the treasury (e.g., the infrastructure policy was portrayed as $70 billion over the short-term rather than over 10 years).

I hope Ignatieff thinks long and hard about what’s best for the country in the long-term, because the environment may not be top of mind for Canadians now but in 2-3 years it will definitely be back and I fear cap-and-trade alone simply won't be sufficient to make the greenhouse gas reductions we need to make and to avoid being seen as a laggard in the world eye on this issue.

Liberals ought to take a look at Norway, an oil-producing nation with HIGHER GDP per-capita (highest in the world right now), economic productivity and living standards than us and yet who have a dreaded carbon tax (though the Liberal Green Shift was actually a superior approach to what Norway put in place as I believe they had too many exemptions). We can catch up to them or we can fall further behind (the environment isn’t the only issue we can look to Norway on either).

If we KNOW the Green Shift (or an improved adaptation of it) is the best approach for the environment (combined in time with cap-and-trade), how can we as the “natural governing party” just abandon it completely just because of one election? If we used one election as the basis for whether to discard different policies then that really sets a bad precedent for any party to be bold. Trudeau discussed implementing a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1979 and lost, it’s a good thing we didn’t abandon it in the next election. I hope we don’t so easily discard tax shifting once and for all.

But alas, I feel this little tirade will fall on deaf ears and tax shifting will not be proposed again by any major party in Canada for a long time to come…So then on to the next news story of the year….

5) 2008 Federal Election: I honestly believe that if the election were held a week before (when polls had it at 33 Cons -30 Libs) or a week after (when Nanos again had it 32 Cons – 30 Libs) October 14 the result would have been dramatically different, but Stephen Harper called the election for when he did for a reason and it paid off. He wanted to avoid by-elections losses while having an e-day before the economic downturn he knew and before Obama could be elected in the US. Harper was clearly going to lose all 4 by-elections (and from what I heard on the ground we were on the verge of winning St. Lambert on the eve of Sept. 8) and he waited till the very last day before the by-elections so he could run ads unopposed outside the writ (to do an end run around election spending limits), wasting the maximum amount of public money possible. That he could do that AND break his promise not to call an election before October 2009 and almost not even release a platform and not be punished at the polls for any of that still bothers me.

As for the campaign itself, it started off slow for us, but I believe we did eventually hit our stride and our platform had the right priorities (I’ve still yet to hear a single Liberal state any specific policy aside from the Green Shift that we shouldn’t keep in the next platform), but perhaps we promised too much (in $ terms at least) or perhaps we didn’t communicate well enough what we were going to do. As I said above on the Green Shift, it’s simplistic to blame that for our loss or to blame just Stéphane Dion. In the debates everyone praised his performances and to me that still represents the real Dion, but in the end he could not overcome the negative caricatures (bought my an unprecedented character assasination campaign by the Cons) that even he recognized had been cemented in Canadians’ minds. That certainly hurt us, but what hurt us more was being outmatched in organizational and GOTV efforts and simply not being in play in many less ridings than the Conservatives. We have a lot of work to do to fix that in time for the next election (I’ll propose some more thoughts on how to do that in the new year). Apart from that, I think a lot of voters by the time e-day arrived were just looking for a steady hand to manage the economy and a plurality for whatever reason thought that would be Stephen Harper. I’m sure he was helped by the strong final weekend he had and the major market rallies that occurred on the final two days of the campaign.

Even so, a MAJORITY voted against Harper and if we had a system of proportional representation then the results would have translated into the Liberals, NDP and Greens having a majority of seats between them without needing any support from the Bloc to have formed a coalition. Only the Conservatives and the Bloc won a greater percentage of seats than their percent of the popular vote and that’s the second election in a row that’s happened. I hope the time will have finally come for the majority of Liberals to realize that electoral reform is not only the right thing to do but is also in our own party’s interests (I’ll also have more to say about that in the new year).

6) The Economic Crisis: It’s not quite true that no one saw an economic crisis coming (in fact I give Garth Turner credit for making dire predictions well before the bottom fell out on the market), but I think the magnitude of it has taken just about everyone by surprise. If you had said a year ago that Canada would have a $30 Billion deficit in 2009 and that all parties would agree that a fiscal stimulus package getting us to that point would be necessary (not forgetting the fact though that if it weren’t for Harper’s reckless GST cuts the prospective deficit would be MUCH smaller) you’d have been called crazy. Thankfully previous Liberal governments ensured that our banking system was one of the most solid in the world and Stephen Harper has a minority or else Canada would be in a HUGE amount of trouble that might take a decade or more to get out of. Liberals can’t let Canadians forget that the Harper Conservatives brought in 40 year mortgages and other reckless practices (before abandoning them when it was clear how damaging they were) that were the original source of the financial meltdown in the U.S. that dominoed into a global economic crisis and we can't let them forget either how recklessly Harper and Flaherty and Co. frittered away a strong surplus that would be have been enormously useful at a time like this.

These guys don’t know how to manage the economy and the evidence is overwhelming, we just have to make sure Canadians understand just how bad they have been and how disastrous it would be if they got a majority.

7) Fiscal Update/The Liberal-NDP Coalition: Stephen Harper came into Parliament enjoying the good will of the opposition parties. Many people were predicting he would likely get to govern until at least 2010. It’s his fault alone that he squandered that and now has the lowest ratings for “Best PM” than he’s ever had. The fiscal update had no solutions for the economic crisis, proposed bizarre (e.g., a firesale of public assets in a horrible market) and offensive (e.g., weakening pay equity and banning public strikes right after a collective bargaining deal was reached) policies while having the central goal of crushing the Conservatives political opposition through the elimination of the per vote subsidy.

Had the coalition not come about I have no doubt in my mind Harper would have dug in his heels on the update, as without a coalition, voting down the update would have meant an election that the opposition parties weren’t prepared to face. In all likelihood with no coalition one of the opposition parties would have been very likely to cave. Thankfully, because of the deal Dion negotiated with Layton, Stephen Harper had to shelve every negative aspect of that update. But for putting it forth in the midst of a crisis and at a time when the opposition was willing to work with him, Stephen Harper should have lost power. The coalition in turn would definitely have brought in a strong and popular budget by now instead of us having to be the last western country to bring in fiscal stimulus to revive our economy. I’m confident that even though they would have started with only about 40%-45% public support (which is still more than Stephen Harper enjoyed) their policies would have proved popular over the year ahead. Unfortunately, the Governor General was put in the unprecedented situation of being asked to allow Harper to dodge the will of Parliament. Stephen Harper’s head would have exploded if Paul Martin had tried the same thing, but I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind now that he will do anything to retain his hold on power.

Now the coalition looks unlikely to happen because Stephen Harper’s scare tactics and disinformation have knocked its popularity down to below what we would have hoped for (though I think it’s disingenuous of this Globe article to call 40%-45% support for the coalition “widely unpopular” without also calling Stephen Harper “widely unpopular” after receiving only 38% support in the last election) and because Harper now desperately wants to survive past January so he can regoup without the threat of any looming coalition (as that threat can't really exist past February).

Though I do hope that if Stephen Harper doesn’t take dramatic steps to show he’s changed (that go beyond just putting out a strong budget) that those worried about voting him down realize that we may live to regret allowing him to live another day and that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc decide to end his career right at budget time in January. If the Harper Conservatives won’t be a responsible government in the worst times our country has faced in decades then there is ample justification for the coalition taking on that role instead and every single precedent that exists would compel the Governor General to allow that.

8) Provincial elections in Alberta and Quebec: The status quo prevailed in Alberta, but it was definitely surprising and disappointing (I’m sure all the more so for any Liberals living in Alberta) just how resounding Ed Stelmach’s victory was. Now that oil is plummeting to lows not seen in years and it seems like Stelmch spent the cupboard and never planned for something like this, I wonder if Albertans will finally see that perhaps they aren’t being best served by Conservative government after all. I’m sure somehow all the problems Alberta is facing for low oil prices will be blamed in Trudeau somehow.

As for Quebec, Jean Charest completed his political comeback with a majority, but Stephen Harper’s Quebec/separatist bashing the final week of the campaign almost blew it for him and definitely has helped revive PQ fortunes. Had Charest only won a minority I think his career in Quebec would have been over (since the only reason he called an early election was to win a majority) and I wonder if he wouldn’t have tried to go back to Ottawa to end Stephen Harper’s. The things will never know since a majority is a majority and I’m guessing Charest will retire at the end of his term (has any Premier ever won 4 consecutive terms in Quebec?), but I won’t be surprised if he tries some bold initiatives in next 4 years to cement his legacy.

9) New Liberal Leader: I was I was sad to see Stephane Dion go and not got the second chance every one of our other past leaders received, but I do believe he played important positive role as our leader and even as interim leader with the creation of the coalition. I think he would have made an excellent PM and still could have grown into the job of party leader (as was evident in the last half of the campaign) , but as he recognized the Conservatives so badly tarnished him that it would been very difficult to reverse that impresssion and thus he felt the mountain would be too high to climb.

While the ensuing Liberal leadership race was much shorter than expected and cut out what likely would have been some valuable debates, Liberals are now able to turn their guns away from each other and squarely on Stephen Harper MUCH sooner than expected.

10) Senate Patronage Spree: Ordinarily Senate appointments by a PM are hardly big news, but that changes when it’s done by a man who’s spent a lifetime campaigning against Senate patronage and who just shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote and when it also happens to also be the largest number of appointments in a single day. There being no gender or partisan balance in these appointments and the overwhelming number of hardcore party loyalists being appointed just made all the more cringe inducing. Whether the galling nature of these appointments will turn public opinion against him remains to be seen, but it was a pretty dramatic example of Harper will abandon any principle to hold on to power and use all the perks that come along with it.

Honourable mention: The inevitable end of John Tory’s leadership of the Ontario PC Party, though it comes a lot later than I, and the poll I conducted, had predicted. But since it’s not official yet, technically it can be a story for 2009. My endorsement for their leader still has not changed though: Randy Hillier all the way! And here’s hoping Baird, Flaherty, Clement and/or Van Loan (the more of them better) also race back to try to grab the Ontario PC Party brass ring as well - they will be doing their country a HUGE favour by leaving Ottawa for Queen’s Park and going back to the opposition benches where they belong!

World News Note: Obviously the biggest worldwide story (that eclipsed all Canadian stories) was the was the 2008 Presidential Election and the election of Barack Obama as President, but Canadian politics is still where my heart is so that’s what I stuck to in this list just like I did last year.

Recommend this Post