The Northern Liberal

Things that are annoying me today

2007-12-14T11:11:00.001-05:00

Some days the sheer ridiculousness of the world in which we live effectively paralyzes me. How can I care about my upcoming exam when so much nonesense is going on unchalleneged? Well with two exams next week I can't afford to take today off so hopefully a quick venting of the steam in my head will allow me to focus. So here is the silliness that is annoying me today.

- The U.S. Republican Primaries--or what I prefer to call "America's Next Top Douchebag"--is a surefire way to give yourself a migraine. Apparently Mitt Romney's mormonism is an 'issue' in the race. According to Mike Huckabee supporters mormonism is "strange", and therefore Mr. Romney is effectively disqualified from the race. The idea that mormonism is "strange" is odd given that the GOP primaries are being contested by a group of candidates who regularily imply that God is sitting up in Heaven red in the face over the sexual preferences of those who he allegedly made in his image. Who is "strange" again?

- A little closer to home Dan Gardner has a column in the Ottawa Citizen today in which he admonishes us all for our puritanical and ultimately destructive stance towards the sex trade. According to Mr. Gardner:

Every night on the street, women are robbed, beaten and raped. We almost never hear about any of this because prostitutes almost never report these crimes to the police. Why would they? The law says they are criminals and the job of the police is to catch and punish criminals. For women on the street, the police are a threat to be avoided whenever possible...

... It is the criminal law that makes street prostitutes especially vulnerable. It is the criminal law that aids and abets the likes of Robert William Pickton.

Well now I just feel like an ass and rightly so. Our society's treatment of sex trade workers is absolutely shameful.

- Blogging Tory "Unambiguously Ambidextrous" a self proclaimed "centrist" actually has the gaul to call harm reduction programs like Vancouver's safe injection sites and a proposed crack program on the Island "Rewarding Drug Use".... **Eye's rolling**. When Insite presents you with your clean needle on an Olympic podium, and your fix is followed by a raft of endorsement deals then we are "rewarding drug use". Until then we are merely helping these down-trodden and marginalized people live another day. Mr. Ambidextrous's solution:

The simple solution is the most blunt. Don't treat drug addicts. Don't assist them in taking drugs. Don't provide medical aid. And don't pay for their drug-related illnesses. If a person wants to enter into a government sponsored rehabilitation program, then by all means, we should help that person who is showing the initiative and desire to seek help and counsel. But those who abuse our society, our government, our public coffers, and our hospitals? Well, cruel as it may sound, they can drop dead and save us the extra money for those who actually care about their existence.

Really compassionate. Maybe we should apply the same logic to those who eat fast food. What a hopeful world we live in. No wonder I have become so pessimistic and cynical.

- Last but certainly not least if either the complaint against the Western Standard or the complaint against MacLean's magazine are successful freedom of expression is a dead letter in Canada. The right to criticize and (yes) ridicule religion is an indispensible right in a liberal democracy. In the former case I am literally in shock that the Alberta HRC actually agreed to accept the complaint and it will go to the tribunal. I support Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals but don't believe they should be policing expression.

Update: Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan have a great piece laying the smack down on the CIC while pointing out the flaws in Mark Steyn's arguments (Dan Gardner does the same here). The authors rightly blame Elmasry, et. al. for setting back his own cause by attempting to censor speech:

the reaction of the CIC has only given credence to [Steyn's] premise—that Muslims in the West cannot accept the values of individual freedom, a free press and the right to offend.

Rethinking Intellectual "Property"

2007-12-11T11:39:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has went to see a movie at the theatres in the last decade has probably been exposed to an ad sponsored by the music or film industry equating downloading a song or video with stealing tangible property from a retailer. I don’t see how it can be claimed that each is equally unethical. You see our society has long granted to certain protections to inventions, works of art, writings, etc. which we have dubbed “intellectual property”. By calling these protections “property” we have been able to equate infringing these rights with “stealing”.

Personally I am not persuaded that intellectual property is really property in the true sense of the word. Property to me requires exclusivity. “Stealing” involves depriving someone of the whole benefit of their property. Downloading a song does no such thing. The copyright holder is still free to listen to their song or attempt to sell it to someone else. They are deprived of nothing except a potential sale. Property law does not normally operate to ensure that an owner enjoy the sole benefit of their own property. If by its use some of the benefit of that property flows to an outside party it is the obligation of the owner to take such steps to prevent that from happening. Society does not normally play a role in doing so. In other words it is one thing for a record company to put digital rights management software on CD’s, it is quite another to insist that no one be allowed to attempt to get around them.

Furthermore, IP presupposes that it is possible to cordon off an extremely intangible portion of the universe for private benefit. I have never believed that IP can be brought into the traditional individual rights model with which we understood other property, and I continue to be skeptical. To me IP is nothing more than a package of statutory entitlements granted to individuals by society that can be qualified or taken away without any deprivation of so called “natural” property rights. From my view no “injustice” in the true sense of the word is visited upon a copyright holder whose music is shared on the internet. This is not to say that we should abolish our IP regime. My only point is that it needs to be recognized for what it is—a social contract where society decides what rights IP holders possess.

Either way all rights are about balance. We accept (save for certain portions of the fringe left) that stealing is “bad”, and that society legitimately interferes to ensure that theft does not occur or at the very least that thieves are caught and punished. Even if you are like me and don’t believe that IP is “property” per se, that does not mean that you can’t accept that the statutory rights we have extended to copyright/patent/etc. holders should be preserved. After all society has an interest in rewarding creative people to ensure that they continue to create. There is a public interest in ensuring that businesses do not begin to engage in the mass sale of pirated CD’s, or other such activities—as doing so would almost inevitably leave us with very very little music to listen to.

But like I said all rights are about balance. Our social commitment to fighting “theft” does not mean that we perform random, door-to-door searches of people’s private residences in search of stolen property. After all there is a point at which the theft victim’s property rights end and our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure begins.

The same applies to IP—and in particular copyright which is my main focus. While it is one thing to pursue businesses like Napster, it is quite another thing to pass legislation prohibiting private consumers in their own homes from attempting to circumvent crappy software put on their computers against their will that restricts uses. It is not acceptable, IMHO, that a record company be able to access my personal information to make an example out of me and ruin my livelihood through litigation. Such IP-fascism has no place in a free society.

Now it doesn’t surprise me that the CRIA or RIAA would pull out all the stops to protect their economic interests. They are after all behaving just like any other industry association in demanding that government stop at nothing to defend their ability to make a buck. This should be unsurprising. But last time I checked one of the endearing traits of capitalism is its intolerance for inefficiency. We do not generally accept as legitimate the use of heavy handed state action to crush the rights of private citizens just to ensure that a particular out of touch industry that refuses to adapt to changing circumstances continues to profit. That is not capitalism at least in the way I understand it.

The simple fact is that good music continues to exist—and to the extent that there is a lot of “crap” out there we have only the CRIA’s members to blame. It has been 8 years now since I first learned of this thing called an “MP3” and there are still plenty of bands and artists out there doing their thing. Maybe they make less money now but once again that is how capitalism works. We are paid what the market is willing to bear for our labour and if we don’t like the compensation we receive we are free to go and pursue work elsewhere. If artists do so en masse then maybe we will have to take a second look at the protections we are affording copyright, but for the time being there is no evidence that the scope or quality of available music is declining which is all we should really be concerned about. Industry revenues are not the proper measure of a healthy music industry. If they are indeed suffering then I say good riddance for inefficiency. It is the quality of the music produced that matters, and until there is evidence that that is suffering then Jim Prentice and the Conservatives should avoid heavy handed legislation aimed at combating music sharing. The wide net cast by some of the measures demanded by the record industry involve a truly frightening advance of the state into our respective private spheres.

I encourage all of you who are on Facebook to join the Fair Copyright for Canada group and oppose any move towards a copyright regime that ignores the interests of private citizens.

Pot meets kettle.

2007-12-01T12:01:00.000-05:00

Hmmm:

Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticized atheism in a major document released Friday, saying it had led to some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known.

Right. Because religion comes with such clean hands. Oh and I almost forgot this one.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. -- John 8:7.

Signs of intelligence at CFS after all...

2007-11-29T13:10:00.000-05:00

I don't have much time or patience for CFS and part of my relief when I graduate in 5 months will undoubtably be rooted in not having to hear about the Crackpots For Socialism anymore.

... Having said that let no one think I can't give credit where credit is due:

An anti-Israel motion was rejected by the Canadian Federation of Students.

More than two-thirds of the voting plenary Nov. 22 at the federation's annual congress rejected the call for an investigation into the feasibility of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. The motion was proposed by the Ryerson Student Union.

With all the human rights abuses going on around the world I've never quite understood the desire among some to single out Israel.

What is CFS doing debating this motion anways? What this middle east conflict has to do with advancing the cause of Canadian post-secondary students is beyond me.

Breaking the silence on the CUPE strike.

2007-11-28T11:39:00.000-05:00

Until now I haven't written about the irritating strike at the UofS. I have opted not to for a number of reasons. For one thing I feel a certain degree of sympathy for all those striking workers out there walking the line. Saskatchewan winters aren't exactly hospitable and believe me I understand the desire to extract the best contract one can hope to obtain for their labour services. I am no marxist but am keenly aware that there are many of us 'non-capital controlling' folk who only have our labour to sell and we seek a reasonable price for it.

I also have no interest in stoking anti-union sentiment. I generally support the notion of collective bargaining, and don't want to give fuel to those who would like to see it done away with. I shudder at the thought of what the world might look like if employees had never asserted themself and said taken a stand against exploitative employers.

Perhaps most importantly I had previously been convinced that asking that employees accept that a substantial chunk of their pay should be subjected to subjective performance evaluations with no available appeal is a lot to as. But as of last Tuesday the University has offered to allow the decision to withhold the raise to be grieved. I thought that would end it. The purveyors of disinformation, however, continue to carry on as if the two main universities in the union-friendly province of Saskatchewan (where Canadian social democracy was born) are running modern day sweatshops. Then the union membership rejected the latest offer with a resounding 85%.

Now I'm annoyed.

The primary cause of my annoyance is the continued assertion by the union that the university is only offering its employees 8.25% over three years. Its true that an employee who doesn't perform will only recieve 8.25% but

Performing employees will recieve 17% over three years provided they recieve "performance increments".
During the last contract 99% of employees at UofR and 100% at UofS recieved their performance increments.
The performance reviews that determine whether or not you recieve the performance increment are "grievable", which means employeess who have the increment withheld are able to challenge the employer and claim the raise was withheld unreasonably.

I can't see how anyone who reviews all these facts could conclude that the university is only offering 8.25% The overwhelming majority of CUPE workers will receive 17%. The only workers who wont will be those who 1) were found to be "underperforming" by their supervisors, AND 2) failed to demonstrate that the decision to withhold the pay was "unreasonable" through the grievance process. Even then they will recieve 8.25% which seems to be quite fair considering that most "unperforming employees" aren't given a second change to change their ways.

The other bone of contention seems to be some minor reductions in the benefits available for employees. In a vacuum this might be an argument to which I was sympathetic. But the provincial average income increase over three years is 12%, and nominal GDP growth in Saskatchewan is expected to be only 9.1% over the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. In other words, CUPE workers will take almost double their per capita share of economic growth in Saskatchewan and will outpace the average employee in the province by 5%. Even the "underperformers" (all 5-10 of them out of 1800 employees) will recieve raises only slightly less than provincial economic growth and thats if they get the increment withheld every year!. Which is impossible at the UofS because the latest offer promised that no performance increments will be withheld until 2009!

Given the big gap between the CUPE raises and the provincial averages forgive me if I think the minor benefit reduction should be a non issue. Even blind CUPE devotee Saskboy has calculated that the amount of lost benefits to be around $200. Well even an employee who only makes $20,000 (I'm shooting low here) is recieving about $1000 than the average provincial wage earner in raises. You do the math.

Anyways thats my two cents. I don't really have a say in the matter but it seems to me athat after reading all the material available to me (I have extensively reviewed the documents on both the CUPE and UofS website in arriving at my opinion) the only reasonable conclusion is that CUPE is being offered a really good deal here. I think the continued strike is bad for the labour movement everywhere. When powerful public service unions resort to hyperbolic rhetoric about 'bad faith' and 'unfairness', and continue to disrupt the learning of tens of thousands of university students in a dispute over dollars and cents it further diminishes the standing of unions in the public eye.

And that is a really bad thing in my opinion. I would like to see unions expand to give protection to employees in the real low-level service jobs--places like Wal-Mart, and McDonalds. These are not the 1930's and CUPE workers are not being attacked by employee-hired strike breakers on the picketline. Lets save the pro-union energy for the real battles. Quit extorting tuition paying students and taxpayers, and accept the fair offer that is on the table--which gives raises above and beyond what the average Saskatchewan resident will recieve.

Quote of the Day

2007-11-23T12:05:00.000-05:00

"During the Cuban missile crisis, Charles de Gaulle famously refused an offer to see the spy photos of Soviet missiles on the grounds that the word of the president was all the proof he needed; today, he'd want the photos, an affidavit and a polygraph." - Dan Gardner

(Wow I can't believe I blogged about GWB. He has became so irrelevant that Id hardly thought of him lately.)

Creating the illusion of Senate reform.

2007-11-17T12:00:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper wants us to believe that he takes the issue of reforming Canada's upper house seriously. He has proposed term limits and senate elections to cure what ails the democratic deficit in the red chamber. What he has proposed is a lot like fixing a broken leg with some surgery, and a few pain killers. The leg will stay broken without a cast and some crutches.

For the life of me I can not understand how a legislative chamber whose membership is elected for fixed terms is any better than one whose membership is appointed for life as long as each's distribution amongst provinces and territories bears no resemblance to the actual makeup of the country. As long as the people of New Brunswick have 10 Senate seats for a population of 750,000 while the people of BC have 6 for a population of 4.3 million, elections and term limits will do absolutely nothing to enhance democracy in the Senate.

Elections are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for democracy. A true representative democracy requires some sort of principled method for distributing seats. Representation in the House of Commons is based on the principle of representation by population. It is imperfect to some extent, and we have allowed minor deviations to allow for representation for sprawling, yet sparsely populated regions. Nevertheless there is a guiding philosophy there.

The argument has been made that the principle guiding distribution of seats in the Senate is regional representation. Fair enough, but I disagree. To start one of these supposed "regions"--the least populous I might add--has 30 seats, 6 more than any other. But more importantly we must ask: do the regional breakdowns accurately represent a community of interests? How does lumping coastal BC with the prairies of Manitoba, or oil-rich NFLD and Nova Scotia with oil-poor New Brunswick ensure that eastern and western interests, as a collectives, are served? Other than being part of the same province what does Toronto have in common with Kenora? Not a lot.

Further putting to lie the notion that our Senate is intended to reflect regional interests is the fact that seats are distributed to provinces not regions. There are no "Western Canada" seats in the Senate. There are BC seats and Saskatchewan seats. This reality creates gross inequities for the provinces of Western Canada. Even if we accepted that the Senate might be legtimate under the principle of provincial (rather than regional) representation the fact still remains that some provinces have just over half the representation of their less populous neighbours out east.

Which brings me back to Stephen Harper. Before I even begin to entertain the notion of supporting the Prime Minister's proposal to make the Senate more democratic I want to hear what his vision is for the makeup of the upper chamber. I don't frankly see the point of having a second body like the House of Commons that functions on the basis of rep-by-pop. So what "principle" would guide a reformed distribution of Senate seats Mr. Harper?

Should Senate seats be equally divided amongst provinces? If so how on earth do you propose getting Quebec and Ontario to surrender their respective control over 24% and 34% of the political power in Ottawa? How do you convince them (remember you have to convince them to change the distribution in the Senate) to each accept 10% or less of the seats in the reformed Senate?

I would also like to know how far you are willing to go to see true equality. Even as a proud Yukoner I see how patently ridiculous it is for my territory of 30,000 to have political power equal to a province of 11 million. But on what principle can we say that a territory is less equal than a province? And if we grant "equality to all" we must grant "equality to all" which includes the territories. If you think that sounds ridiculous I agree. But then again I think the whole notion of equal distribution of seats amongst provinces is ridiculous to begin with. The federal government is the government of all Canadians. It is Canadians that should be treated equally in the distribution of political power not provinces, and they are (crudely so) through representation by population in the House.

Some have suggested that equality ends at provinces and does not extend to the 100,000 Canadian Citizens who live in Canada's territories. They propose things like 10 seats per province and 1 or none for each territory. Thankfully amongst people who actually matter in Canada the idea that the territories could be left with a seat count proportionally less than PEI in a reformed Senate would be a non-starter. Surely if PEI is "equal" to a province 80 times it is also "equal" to a territory a fifth to a quarter its size.

Is it any less patently ridiculous for a province of 135,000 to have the same political power as a province of 11 million? I would say no.

But I digress. It is the non-existence of a workable arrangement to reform Senate seat distribution that stymies real reform, not the intellectual quandries that come about when you try to compare two or three unlike things. Quebec and Ontario will not surrender an inch of their own power to reform the Senate (why would they?) and if they won't real Senate reform is effectively dead in the water. Which is why Stephen Harper hasn't told us his vision. Because he either doesn't have one, or he does and realizes it is unattainable in the foreseeable future.

So he takes a few token actions that do nothing to really cure what ails the Senate. Elections and term limits do not alone make democracy. Legitimacy is dependant on legislative bodies having compositions that are distributed on a principled basis.

In fact as long as we fail to deal with the seat distribution problem an argument might be made that it is better to leave the Senate as is. It is currently a body that recognizes its own lack of legitimacy and as a consequence rarely seriously impedes the governments agenda. By holding elections we run the risk of having a Senate that asserts itself and interfere's with the House's agenda. As long as we have an arbitrary seat distribution in the Senate--elected or not--it is an affront to democracy when it impedes the work of the House. I would submit that this risk is considerably higher with elected members.

We cannot have democracy in the Senate without an principled distribution of seats which we are lacking. No election will cure this. At the moment at least meaningful Senate reform is hopeless. The Prime Minister needs to admit this and stop pretending that he is bringing about real change.

I'm holding you to your word Steve.

2007-11-02T16:44:00.000-04:00

I'll remember this if the Prime Minister ever launches any sort of investigation into alleged acts of past Liberal governments:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed calls by opposition parties for a public inquiry into reports about cash payments made to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, saying allowing the government to launch probes against former political adversaries was "extremely dangerous."

"Do they really want to say that I, as prime minister, should have a free hand to launch inquiries against my predecessors?" Harper asked reporters Friday in Halifax following a speech to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

My first reaction was to ask when were PM Harper and Mulroney ever "adversaries" until I remembered Mr. Harper's Reform roots.

Hey Dippers and Tories! Spare me your sanctimony.

2007-10-17T21:10:00.000-04:00

Isnt it a bit rich for Conservatives and Dippers (the latter in particular) to be heaping scorn on Dion for proping up Harper when both parties at one time or another propped up Paul Martin's government when their own poll numbers weren't hot?

Conservatives Should Beware of Hubris

2007-10-17T19:43:00.000-04:00

One who is overly proud will certainly meet defeat. – Anonymous

It is common belief these days that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party are on the up and up while the Liberals are sliding into oblivion. Nowhere is this view more common than among members and supporters of Mr. Harper’s own party.

Indeed there is undeniably something behind this truism. I can’t help but think that there must be a significant shift in the political make up of this country before the Liberals are a competitive entity at the nation level. We have failed to adjust to the new political financing reality, and trail the Conservatives in fundraising. We’ve tried to wash away the stain of sponsorship but it is proving quite difficult to restore the Liberal brand to its former glory. Our new leader, Mr. Dion, has thus far failed to capture the imagination of Canadians. We need some bold, inventive policy if we ever want to govern this country again.

I don’t think it is fair to place the blame solely with Mr. Dion. Ironically, the rough ride that Mr. Dion is getting in Quebec (part of which coming from those within our own party) stems in part from his refusal to adhere to the decentalist, “two-nation” conception of federalism—precisely why many of us who attended last December’s leadership convention choose him over Mr. Ignatieff. In other words, Mr. Dion is getting hammered for doing exactly what those of us who voted for him wanted him to do.

Having said that there is no doubt that these are tough times for the Liberal Party of Canada. Our “big red machine” is broken, our brand of federalism is not popular in our second most-populous province, our “brand” has lost its goodwill, and our leader desperately needs to do more to inspire Canadians.

That being said, I think it would be ill-advised for supporters of Mr. Harper to let it get to their heads. It was arrogance that ended 12 years of Liberal rule. So when I see stories like this: I start to think that the Tories might need a little lesson in humility.

I’ve never really understood why the Liberals have made a point over the last year of trying to paint the Prime Minister as a bully. It comes off as weak and whiny. “No one likes a crybaby”, so to speak. Very bad strategy in my opinion.

Having said that no one likes bullies either, and that is how the Conservatives look when they pull stunts this. Mr. Dion would be well advised to simply take the abuse, stand his ground and let Canadians judge for themselves.

Hubris is risky business.

As a Liberal I have seen that first hand as my preferred party has fallen from grace over the last few years. Canadian’s may not yet be enamoured with Mr. Dion or ready to forgive the Liberal Party but they won’t take kindly to this type of arrogance either. If Conservatives are this arrogant this early in their tenure I have my profound doubts that Stephen Harper will be Prime Minister as long as Mr. Chretien.

Throne Speech Thoughts

2007-10-16T19:22:00.000-04:00

- Introducing "legislation" to restrict the federal spending is a meaningless gesture. No parliament can bind a subsequent parliament.

- How will the plan to assert the federal trade and commerce jurisdiction to lower trade barriers between provinces go over in Quebec? I can't see Stephen Harper imposing a TILMA-like regime on Quebec without a fight.

- It occurs to me that the tit-for-tat spending power for trade and commerce class plan seems to be saying that federal intrusion of a variety that advances so called "left-wing" policies (the spending power) is bad while intrusion of a variety that advances so called "right-wing" policies (trade and commerce) is good. Doesn't sound particularly principled to me.

- Who would have ever thought they would hear a throne speech written by Stephen Harper saying how much his government is committed to Canada's supply management system.

- I hope Stephen Harper doesn't try to put his drug reforms and violent crime reforms in the same bill. If the Conservatives really care about making violent criminals accountable they shouldn't play politics by tying this to things the opposition can't support.

- Regulating green house gas emissions, asserting the Trade and Commerce clause... Starting to sound more like a centralist than decentralist government in spite the spending power promise.

Why I preferred McGuinty's status quo to Tory's "faith" based schools.

2007-10-11T13:19:00.000-04:00

I think I should preface my remarks by saying I didn't like the Liberal position on faith based schools one bit. I believe quite strongly in both secularism and equality and would have liked to see McGuinty promise a phased elimination of public funding for Catholic schools brought about by a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, I liked John Tory's proposal even less. It became a common refrain over the course of the campaign that Ontario must "fund all or fund none". With respect, I disagree. There was only one option--fund none. The "fund all or fund none" slogan presumes that only one principle--equality--should guide this debate when in fact there are several. The most important of these (in my opinion) is secularism.

I am starting from the premise of course that publicly funding religious schools stands in opposition to secularism. I believe this fact is self evident and in the interest of brevity will not further expound my reasoning behind believing so. I would be more than happy to debate this assertion in another venue if anyone does not agree.

Simply put, while McGuinty's position promised to retain an unequal status quo, Tory's threatened to further erode secularism already impinged by funding of Catholic schools. As someone with an extremely dim view of religion, who fears more than anything the mixing of state and "faith" I put a high premium on secularism, and thus don't summarily subordinate that principle as many others were willing to do. When judging the respective positions of the Liberals and the PC's it is forefront in my mind. Equality did not win by default as it did for many people. It had to compete with secularism.

In the end, I decided that the long term goal of eliminating public funding for all religious schools was better served by the status quo than full funding. I believe that once all schools have funding it will be that much more difficult to attain a fully secular school system than it is today. The status quo may not be wholly secular, but it is more secular than what was being proposed by John Tory.

Many have said "how can you just sit around and ignore such a blatant inequality?" I have two responses to that question. The first would be to retort "how can you just sit around and ignore the further erosion of secularism in our society? Why is equality the only principle that is important?"

The second is "how does John Tory's proposal eliminate inequality? He is merely promising to bring equality amongst religions. Why does religion enjoy privilege over other non-religious belief systems? Why can't I have funding for a school that excludes religion entirely (ie no overt displays of religiosity period--students, teachers, anyone)? Why can't I have funding for a 'liberal' school or a 'conservative' school or a 'socialist' school? What is so bloody important about religion that puts it above any and all other forms of belief?"

In the end, the principle that ruled the day on the "faith" based school question was democracy.

As an aside I have to comment on a cynical accusation that has been directed towards Dalton McGuinty relating to his stance. Ever since John Tory put his party on a course towards disaster by promising to expand "faith"-based funding for schools, the talking heads have been accusing Dalton McGuinty of pandering to latent Islamophobia in modern Canadian society. I happen to believe that such an accusation is tremendously unfair.

If McGuinty was doing such a thing wouldnt it also be fair to accuse John Tory of pandering to racist sentiment by promising to crack down on First Nations protesters? It seems to me that many of those who loudly screech "rule of law" when it comes to First Nations occupying disputed law sing the opposite tune when it comes to the civil disobedience of groups they are more favourable towards--such as Farmers blocking major highways, or gun owners who refuse to register their weapons. I have little doubt that the motivating factor for many of those who were attracted to tough talk by the PC's on this issue was racism towards Canada's first people not a true and unwavering belief that we have one law for all that must be followed.

I don't actually believe that John Tory made a concious attempt to appeal to such distasteful sentiment. Gaing the votes of racists was merely an unfortunate ancillary "benefit" that came along with John Tory taking what he believed was a principled stand in favour of the rule of law. I happen to believe in taking a more diplomatic approach to relations with First Nations but I can't blame John Tory for doing what he believes is right.

The same applies to Dalton McGuinty and faith based schools. McGuinty was appealing to the secularists in Ontario (apparently there are a lot of them) who don't want to see any more government money going towards the funding of religious schools. That he got the votes of the Islamophobes was merely incidental to the ultimate target audience. In fact he couldn't take the position he did without appealing to these prejudiced individuals. As with John Tory and rule of law, sometimes taking a position in favour of some principle will result in getting the votes of less savoury individuals. That is what Dalton McGuinty did.

Anyways... Congratulations Dalton McGuinty!

Quote of the Day

2007-08-08T14:02:00.000-04:00

John Ivison on Quebec's renewed demand that its distinctiveness be recognized in the constitution:

All of this makes Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's pronouncement that federal-provincial bickering was "fini" after his budget look as wildly optimistic as a personals ad looking for a double-jointed supermodel who owns her own brewery.

More Barley Shenanigans -- Shoe on the other foot

2007-08-07T16:08:00.000-04:00

In the interests of balance I think its only fair that I take issue with this Liberal Party press release which accuses Harper of "disrespect[ing]" and "insult[ing]... the Federal Court" by stating that he will end the Wheat Board's monopoly "one way or another".

I see nothing disrespectful or insulting about Harper's comments--at least in so far as they are being reported by the media. Could it be that "one way or another" includes seeking the approval of Parliament? Because that certainly wouldn't be insulting or disrespectful. In fact it would be exactly what the Court implicitly told him he needed to do.

It might be bold and premature to suggest that he can get the change he seeks given Parliament's current makeup, but last time I checked overconfidence and partisan posturing were hardly insulting to our courts. Such political bluster in no way disrespects the letter or the spirit of of Justice Hansen's ruling.

The courts have weighed in and the issue of barley monopolies has been punted back to our elected representatives. It is no less dishonest to suggest that as a consequence of the recent ruling Harper's desired reforms are dead as it was for conservatives to suggest last week that the courts ruling was an example of liberal activism.

Conservative barley shenanigans

2007-08-01T17:14:00.000-04:00

By now I'm sure everyone has seen this story about the Federal Court reversing an undemocratic attempt by the Conservative government to abolish the Canada Wheat Board's monopoly. This is a subject I wrote about in the spring.

One of the unfortunate realities of our system of government in Canada is that we often elect governments that hold less than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons (and thus can be thwarted by the combined force of the opposition) yet are firmly in control of the making of regulations. Regulations are a necessary evil for the modern state. They allow for the smooth operation of government when returning to Parliament is too time consuming and cumbersome. They aren't however meant to allow minority government to do an end-run around Parliament on substantive policy issues.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Wheat Board and its monopoly, I believe it is beyond debate that what the Conservatives sought to do, and what the Federal Court struck down was not a minor administrative change. It was a change to decades of Canadian government policy, and in light of modern international trade law may have been irreversible. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks that the Wheat Board monopoly deprives farmers of their property rights and discriminates against Western Canadians is irrelevant to this discussion. The Federal Court did not approve or disapprove of Conservative Party policy with respect to the Wheat Board. They merely pointed out (in an indirect way) that the process by which the government went forwards was undemocratic and contrary to the rule of law. The court decision did not in any way prevent the CPC from returning to Parliament with a bill doing exactly the same thing. All the court has done here is force the Conservative government to follow proper democratic procedures and put this matter before our elected representatives in the House of Commons.

I also feel I must comment on the ludicrous proposition being advanced by opponents of the Wheat Board that what the Conservatives did was "democratic" because it was done with a mandate from farmers. I think those who are making this claim need to think twice about what they are saying, because they are advancing a very puzzling redefinition of "democracy". Since when did "democracy" mean that decisions primarily affecting a particular industry are made by that industry? Is energy policy made by a majority vote of execs? Do the big auto makers get together and have a vote on issues affecting their industry? What about forestry? Of course not. Canadians make decisions about farm policy through their elected representatives. We all eat, we are all affected by agricultural policy in this country and we all get to vote. Trying to pass off the referendum that the Conservatives held as "democracy" is absolutely absurd. Even if there was no dispute about the way questions were posed to farmers the notion that the rest of us should have no say about farm policy is preposterous.

First Nations and Canada's Human Rights Act

2007-07-27T13:54:00.000-04:00

I'm not quite sure what the Conservatives are up to with this business of recalling MP's in the middle of the summer to remove the exemption in the Human Rights Act for First Nations bands. Don't get me wrong. I have to work all summer, almost everyone else has to work all summer, and while MP's undoubtably need time to attend to the needs of their constituents I've always felt that these long breaks are excessive particularly when there is so much work to be done. But I digress. If there is no hope of passing this bill this summer what gives?

Part of what Harper and the Conservatives are missing here I think is the importance of dealing with First Nations on a government to government basis rather than treating them as subordinate entities. There seems to be a tendancy among some conservatives to speak of First Nations as if they are just another government agency, or some other body subject to federal jurisdiction. They are conceptually distinct with a degree of independance in their own right--more akin to a state (in the international sense) or a province.

Of course we as Canadians recognize the importance and inviolability of human rights but at the same time acknowledge that we lack the jurisdictional competence to impose them on say... Myanmar or Zimbabwe. Our human rights regimes in Canada are no doubt imperfect but we would be outraged if Denmark or the Ukraine (or whomever) passed legislation purporting to correct it. Why should First Nations be treated any differently? Aboriginals in Canada never surrendered sovereignty over their own affairs and I see no moral principle to justify treating them as if they have. It is unacceptable to simply say "we conquered you, deal with it" when there are ways in which we can live together in relative harmony.

I also believe the Conservative obsession with imposing individual rights on First Nations is misguided. Personally I put a an extremely high premium on individual rights, and while I believe society's interest does at times trump absolute freedom (we have thousands of laws premised on this balancing act) I generally tend to err on the side of personal choice over communal obligation. But I think it is important to note that membership, participation and involvement with ones First Nation is entirely voluntary. An individual can withdraw from their First Nation and have the exact same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. While they may sacrafice certain entitlements by doing so this is a consequence of personal choice and no different than many of the affiliations many of us maintain.

Now this is not intended to excuse abuses of human rights by First Nations bands if and when they occur. I strongly believe that human rights must be respected. Whats more I believe that every First Nation and every government around the world needs to put in places rules and procedures to protect rights from governing authorities. But soverignty is an important value as well and the ability of an individual to escape human rights abuses weakens the case for imposing legislation in a paternalistic manner on what theoretically is supposed to be an independant government.

Democracy and Canada's Role in Afghanistan

2007-07-20T15:33:00.000-04:00

There is a fine line between governing by the polls and respecting the democratic wishes of the public. The former is a cynical strategy to maintain power while the latter is a demonstration of respect for the principle that the people as a whole should make important decisions about the direction of their society.

Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell what is motivating our leaders. I must admit to a certain amount of frustration with the abrupt u-turn that the leadership of the Liberal Party has made with respect to our countries role in Afghanistan, and the current lack of explanation for the change. If the mission was justified in 2001 why is it not justified today? I am not aware of any major substantive change that has occured in the mission since it begun that would justify setting an arbitrary deadline of 2009 to begin withdrawing our armed forces. I suspect that what has driven the change in the Liberal Party's approach to Afghanistan has at least something to do with the fact that public opinion--both within the grassroots of the party and in the country at large--has turned decidedly against the mission.

My hope is that my party's change in stance is motivated by a genuine belief in the importance of respecting the will of the public, and is not a cynical ploy to drive a wedge between Stephen Harper and voters (or perhaps more accurately--voters in politically sensitive regions of the country). Matters of peace and war are too important to be decided based on what is in ones short term partisan interest. My inclination is to give Mr. Dion and the rest of my party the benefit of the doubt. I generally believe that Liberals are good people who genuinely care about their country and respect its wishes.

It occurs to me that respect for democracy (perhaps ironically) is becoming the most convincing argument in favour of a pull out. I have always told friends of mine whose absolutist political views show a lack of appreciation for democracy that "democracy does not mean that the people are right, it means that people have the right to make the decision". If Canadians are decidedly against the war--and recent opinion polls leave little doubt in my mind that the majority of Canadians no longer support our mission in Afghanistan--then that should be a compelling reason for us not to be there. It is not for you or I or Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion or anyone else for that matter to say "I'm right, you're wrong" and substitute our own judgement for that of the public. That is not democracy.

Some might respond to my argument in favour of a democratic foreign policy to the effect that on these matters strong leadership is required. I am less convinced. While not wholly discounting the virtue of "strong leadership" (there is a time and place for that), I think that taking it to an extreme has serious anti-democratic and authoritarian consequences.

The point I would am trying to make--in a roundabout kind of way--is that I would like to see Mr. Dion and other Liberals acknowledge that it is a lack of public support for the mission, and more importantly our belief in democracy that is driving the change of policy. This will admitedly expose us to the cynical accusation that we are determining our policy based on the polls--but I would submit that we are already being subjected to these claims. Regardless of these consequences I think that honesty it is better than the void that is currently being left in terms of an explanation for our reversal. Adopting the pacifist language of the NDP and points leftward is not only embarrassing to those of us who realize that war--as bad as it may be--is sometimes justifable and necessary but it is also incredibly inconsistent with our stance over the past six years.

To summarize. Be proud that the Liberal Party respects public opinion. We shouldn't bend ourselves into pretzels to avoid admitting that we believe in democracy.

In terms of my personal opinion (as I am entitled to have an opinion about the opinion of others while accepting the demos' right to rule this country) I think the change of public opinion which I believe is being greatly motivated by an increased number of Canadian casualties over the past years reaffirms a lot of what I believe about liberal interventionism and its unsuitability for thin skinned westerners. This is exactly why I didn't support Michael Ignatieff in December. As long as we in the west are not willing to see a substantial number of our soldiers come back in body bag--enough so our presence in a country can make a real difference--we shouldn't be out in the world drunk on idealism making messes we aren't willing to clean up. All in or all out.

Junk food and crack in the City of Ottawa.

2007-07-12T11:22:00.000-04:00

Applying the logic of opponents of the free crackpipe program in Ottawa to food:

"We shouldn't be providing people who are addicted to junk food with doctors. Treating people to alleviate the harm of overeating just facilitates their addiction. We need to cut off these services and get these people in to gyms. We should be investing our money in nutritionists! Overeating is a dangerous and unhealthy addiction. We shouldn't be endeavouring to reduce the harm to overeaters of their addiction because it sends mixed message. We can't encourage healthy eating on one hand and then working to reduce the harm of overeating on the other"

Sounds pretty silly to me.

This message was brought to you by a 25-year old who has high blood pressure and hypoglycemia because he became addicted to sweet, salty and fatty foods before he knew what was good for him. If he doesnt get it under control he will likely die a young man.

This if your artery. This is your artery on junk food.

Define Irony

2007-07-10T15:48:00.000-04:00

I am glad to see would-be Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson being linked to pro-choice groups because it hurts his chances of winning the nomination, and thats good because Im scared of his socially conservative stances including his opposition to abortion....

... huh?

Closing up shop.

2007-05-11T14:58:00.000-04:00

After a lengthy hiatus and considerable reflection I have decided to give up blogging and (eventually) close up Northern Liberal.

I've made this decision for a number of reasons, but most importantly, I have quite simply lost the interest in and passion for blogging that I once had. I have also became increasingly cynical about the value of blogs as a medium. Add to this the pressure of work, school, and other hobbies; and I think I've made the right decision.

I'd like to thank the handful of people who regularily read my blog, and particularly the other bloggers who took the time to link to me. I hope you appreciated my insights.

Cheers,
KC

Must watch video...

2007-03-29T17:44:00.001-04:00

... of Karl Rove making a fool of himself.

Misusing regulations and how the Conservative's plan to dismantle the CWB's monopoly.

2007-03-29T17:15:00.000-04:00

If the Tories plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly they should show some respect for our democratic institutions and do so by an act of Parliament, not--as Chuck Strahl has suggested--through regulations. Canada's minority Conservative government is once again trying to make important policy decisions by doing an end run around the House because they know that they don't have the votes to get it done.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Canada should maintain the wheat board's monopoly. I personally think we should maintain it, others think we should do away with it. The recent plebiscite of farmers will be an important argument that the Tories can bring up in favour of doing away with it--although the opposition is right to bring up a number of methodological flaws in the vote.

The point however is that this is not what regulations were designed for. Eliminating the wheat board's monopoly is the type of major shift in farm policy that should be debated in Parliament not shoved through by ministerial fiat. Regulations were meant to allow the government to tweak the fine details of programs without having to go through Parliament, not make serious deviations in government policy without consulting the peoples' representatives.

Will the Conservatives show our democratic institutions the respect they deserve? Or will they once again take an approach whereby their ideological commitment to a certain policy ends justifies (in their minds at least) circumventing the proper procedural means by which such decisions should be made?

You have a minority government. Canadians cast votes and limited you as such for a reason, and you should act accordingly.

First Nations don't deserve an apology for residential schools?

2007-03-27T12:07:00.000-04:00

The Jim Prentice I remember would never make a dumbass comment like this in explaining his decision to refuse to apologize as a part of the residential school settlement:

"I've said quite clearly that the residential school chapter of our history is one that was a difficult chapter. Many things happened that we need to close the door on as part of Canadian history, but fundamentally, the underlying objective had been to try and provide an education to aboriginal children and I think the circumstances are completely different from Maher Arar or also from the Chinese head tax."

I can't see any good reason why an apology shouldn't be part of the residential schools settlement... do you?

The cynic in me thinks that the "completely different... circumstances" that Jim is refering to is the fact that First Nations are not included in Stephen Harper's majority government calculus while immigrant communities are.

"You know what really grinds my gears?" - Tim Hortons.

2007-03-23T15:53:00.000-04:00

When will Tim Hortons come up with an option for those of us who are environmentally conscious enough to use a reusable cup when we buy coffee but want to participate in the roll up the rim contest? It shouldn't be that hard. Make little scratch and win cards; little pull tabs like the McDonalds monopoly promotion; or even small rims that we can roll up; anything.

It seems ridiculous when the staff at the local outlet asks us if we want an empty cup after we've been lugging around a mug all day.

If you are listening: please take action on this. You have done this promotion several times and I've never really understood why such an obvious opportunity to reduce waste has been passed up time and time again.

'I would buy a reusable cup... but then I would miss out on the opportunity to lose 26 consecutive times at roll up the rim' - Rob Edger, blogging co-chair for the 2006 Stephane Dion Liberal Leadership campaign in which the environment was a central theme.

How Harper could have killed two birds with one stone.

2007-03-21T13:56:00.000-04:00

I've never actually called for tax cuts before. There have been tax cuts which, in hindsight, I have realized were necessary at a particular point in time; but I have never actually advocated for tax cuts. However, I think Harper missed a golden opportunity with his last budget to please a wider demographic than he actually did. By increasing transfers to the provinces by such a huge amount there was little room for tax cuts. What Harper should have done is opted for broad based tax cuts rather than transfer payments.

- Lower taxes from "Canada's New Conservative Government" would have shown his supporters, and other Canadians for whom the idea of paying less taxes is appealing that he was serious about reducing the tax burden. By opting not to lower taxes Harper has made the myth that has been created that he is a decisive man who does what he says seem less credible.

- He could have presented the cuts as his solution to the mythical "fiscal imbalance" (which does not exist, but for the sake of argument) by giving the provinces room to tax (or not) and spend (or not) in their areas of jurisdiction. All three provincial leaders in Quebec have at one time or another stated that the transfer of tax points was a potential solution to the fiscal imbalance, and vacating tax room isn't much different. It would have been hard for any of these three to accuse Harper of breaking his promise on the fiscal imbalance. Danny Williams, and Lorne Calvert could stand on their soapboxes all they liked but with residents of their provinces with more money in their respective pockets; the damage would be blunted.

Two birds with one stone--tax cuts, and "fiscal imbalance".

A little perspective

2007-03-02T19:43:00.000-05:00

Decima - 26/03/2006 - CPC:39 LPC:28
Ipsos-Reid - 18/05/2006 - CPC:43 LPC:25

Decima - 30/12/2006 - CPC:34 LPC:31
Ipsos-Reid - 07/12/2006 - CPC:32 LPC:38

Decima - 28/02/2007 - CPC: 36 LPC:27
Ipsos-Reid - 01/03/2007 - CPC:40 LPC:26

Things change. Time to relax (That goes for me too).

In defense of a position I don't necessarily agree with. Part II

2007-02-28T12:55:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's vote in Parliament on the extension of powers of preventative arrests and investigative hearings went as anyone who had been following the debate on the issue expected it to go. As a consequence these extraordinary power will die on March 1st.

Coincidentally, I was listening to a guest lecture by Anne McLellan on the proper balance between security and rights at the same time as the vote. Ms. McLellan reiterated her view that the provisions were necessary, contained adequate safeguards to mitigate against any civil liberties infringement that would/might occur as a consequence, and should be renewed. As I have said before I am of the same view.

However, I think the manner in which the Conservatives have defended the need for these provisions has been one-sided, and even a little scary. They (the Conservatives) have shown a complete lack of understanding of the legitimate concerns about the threat to civil liberties posed by these provisions (whereas Anne McLellan quite clearly did in her lecture). For Conservatives, opponents of the measures aren't simply defending civil liberties they are soft on terror. If you oppose these measures you can't possibly be motivated by such considerations as the desire for a free society. You must--so goes the Conservative argument--want to increase the risk that we be subjected to a terrorist attack. If Liberals are "soft on terror", then Tories are "soft on civil liberties" and that should be equally frightening.

In defense of the Liberals at least they have addressed the security side of the equation by asserting that these measures aren't necessary. Whether you agree with that claim or not (and I don't), at least it can be said that Liberals are looking at both sides of the argument. Conservative rhetoric indicates to me that they aren't even considering the civil liberties dimension of this debate and that scares me.

Assimilation or more nanny state mentality?

2007-02-26T15:32:00.000-05:00

This... is patently ridiculous. Would some please PLEASE explain to me how a young girl wearing a hijab in a soccer game is a safety issue, because I can't see it. I'm trying to visualize how someone might come to sustain any injuries beyond the normal bumps and bruises associated with sport because someone on the field is wearing a hijab.

There can be legitimate debate over what constitutes a "reasonable accomodation", but in this case the officials who made this rule are either trying to force assimilation or have gone overboard in their drive to eliminate all risks from the sport no matter how infinitely small they might be. Either explanation seems unacceptable.

What is even more disappointing is that this guy has came out in support of the ruling.

In defense of a position I don’t necessarily agree with.

2007-02-22T15:41:00.000-05:00

I don’t necessarily agree with the decision made Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party to let certain parts of anti-terror legislation expire, but I don’t believe it to be an indefensible position. Mr. Dion and others in caucus did what Liberals do: took a look at a policy, considered its efficacy, and made a determination based on the proper balance between public safety and civil liberties. In this instance the party decided that the latter prevailed. For me the balance came out differently, but I don’t think we are that far apart. Unlike the parties of the extreme the world is not black and white for the pragmatic party of the center.

A few points:

- It would be inaccurate to describe the decision to oppose the renewal of these provisions as a “flip flop”, a “reversal”, or voting against your own parties policy. The purpose of a sunset clause is to review something that a government felt a little uneasy about but also believed they need to do. Sunset clauses essentially force a government to reexamine an issue. That is what they do. If we never change our mind on matters then sunset clauses would never be included in legislation. I know for Stephen Harper and his kool-aid drinkiers, “decisiveness” is virtue, but as I have argued before decisiveness is only positive when practiced in moderation. When decisiveness becomes a stubborn refusal to think twice before you act, or to admit that you might have been wrong in the past it is no longer a trait that I would endorse. It is an abdication of reason. Whether you agree with the decision not to renew the provisions or not, I think Stephane Dion has examined this very important issue rationally and taken a principled position. He has done his job as a parliamentarian and a leader.

- To those whose response to the theatrics yesterday in the house was“what do the Liberals have to hide?”, I say your question does not warrant a dignified response. The suggestion that Stephane Dion, in an effort to repay a debt to a key supporter of his leadership bid, would make important national security political decisions to protect “people of interest” from investigation is frankly laughable. It requires, without justification, that we assume the very worst of a person. Only from the dark, and clouded mind of the most paranoid right wingers--where there resides a viceral and irrational hatred of everything Liberal--could such a ridiculous conspiracy theory emerge. The smear being made against Mr. Dion and Mr. Bains would require us to impute the most sinister of motives onto two men who have never given us any reason to doubt their character. This is the type of smear that can never be conclusively proven or disproven, but for reasonable people who aren’t overly pessimistic about human nature it is clearly nonsense. Mr. Dion would never base such important policy decisions on such repugnant considerations, and Mr. Bain (who I have met and for whom I have great respect) would neither ask nor expect him to.
Update: Apparently Don Martin shares my view:

Only a creative Machiavelli could link the Liberals' stand against investigative hearings to the possibility a junior MP's relative might eventually have to testify before one, but that's the grassy knoll Mr. Harper's dark side spotted as he entered the Commons.

Leafs promote the 'homosexual agenda'

2007-02-15T13:01:00.000-05:00

Ok normally I would relish in a story about the President of the much reviled Toronto Maple Leaf's being inundated with critical letters. I can't stand the Leafs. I never thought I would ever cheer for the Pittsburgh Penguin's in a game I was watching but I did just that this past Saturday. But I have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous attacks I have ever seen launched at a professional sports team:

[In] recent months, a portion of the hockey executive's electronic correspondence with the outside world has strayed from the usual themes of trading Mats Sundin, firing John Ferguson or coaxing Wendel Clark and Darryl Sittler out of retirement.

"I have not been associated with an issue like this before," Peddie said yesterday. "You see some peoples' reactions -- they are so raw and live -- and it's not completely surprising to see, but it is a little disappointing."

The hot-button social issue currently buffeting the Maple Leafs boss is homosexuality. Peddie and the Maple Leafs were mentioned in a seemingly innocuous press release in late November. The Leafs, with the blessing of the NHL, agreed to allow Canadian filmmaker Paul Brown to feature the team logo and uniform in the comedy Breakfast with Scot.

The movie, which just finished shooting, is about a gay couple: Sam, an ex-Maple Leafs player, and Ed, the team's lawyer. The initial press release described the pair as a "very straight gay couple ? whose lifestyle and relationship are turned upside down when they become guardians of Scot, a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy."

...

His e-mail address appears on the Americans for Truth Web site, an Illinois-based organization dedicated to "exposing and countering the homosexual agenda."

The site describes Breakfast with Scot as a "work of homosexual propaganda ? meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians."

Peddie's address is also found on the Canada Family Action Coalition's (CFAC) page. Headquartered in Calgary, CFAC is a not-for-profit organization that opposes gay marriage and serves to promote a "Judeo-Christian worldview of Canadian society." CFAC co-founder and executive director Brian Rushfeldt yesterday condemned the Leafs for getting involved in "sex promotion."

Earlier this week, he told the Los Angeles Times that Breakfast with Scot was "another attempt to normalize homosexual behaviour, and [the producers] assume the Maple Leafs will help the cause."

Hmmmm. I think some people have way too much time on their hands.

Am I the only one who thinks that 'homosexual agenda' is possibly the stupidest phrase ever invented?

Homosexual Agenda:
1960s-1980s - Fight the criminalization of private sexual conduct.
1990s-2000s - Achieve formal equality for same-sex relationships
Ongoing - Urge social acceptance of personal choices which impose no harm on others.
Future plans - Destroy society and the family by converting everyone to homosexuality.... mwah ha ha ha!

I think CFAC and their so-con friends needs to chill.

Partial Income Splitting

2007-02-13T14:40:00.000-05:00

I should start by saying that the idea of income splitting has a certain persuasive appeal to me. I appreciate the arguments for horizontal tax equity made by Andrew Coyne here:

Fairness does not just mean sharing the tax burden equitably between rich and poor: what economists call “vertical equity.” There’s another kind of fairness, that also has to be taken into account. If it’s important to treat people in different circumstances differently -- ie the rich pay more tax than the poor -- it’s no less important to treat people in similar circumstances the same: what’s called “horizontal equity.” And, when it comes to couples, the tax law doesn’t.

Compare two couples. In Couple A, both spouses work, each earning $50,000. In Couple B, one spouse earns $100,000, the other stays home. The combined household income for each couple is the same -- $100,000 -- yet Couple B pays thousands of dollars more in tax than Couple A. Why? Because the spouse earning $100,000 pays tax at a higher rate, thanks to the progressive income tax, than either of the spouses earning $50,000. Income-splitting amounts to treating Couple B the same as Couple A. It treats like as like.

While I don’t think that couples should be punished for choosing to have one spouse stay home and raise the kids, I do have some concerns that income splitting could amount to a massively disproportionate tax cut for the wealthy—which I could not support. So what about the idea of partial income splitting? What if we cap the amount that one spouse could transfer to the other? Well I thought I would find out using my trusty Ernst and Young Tax Calculator .

Here are some comparable combined federal and provincial tax bills faced by families with single and double income earners under our current regime in Ontario (keep in mind these numbers are approximations and don’t count for some of the deductions that people are able to benefit from.):

Now under what I am calling a full income splitting regime (where one spouse could give half of his or her income to the other) the single earning family will pay the exact same amount of tax as a two income family with the same total family income. The problem with such a regime—assuming of course that you believe that we as a society do not have the resources to give a ~$17 thousand tax cut to a family whose income is already $250,000—is that the wealthy benefit disproportionately to the poor and middle class. Well its difficult to cut taxes without giving some sort of benefit to the wealthy, but if we only allowed couple’s to split away $30,000 of their income rather than half we can mitigate for that difficulty. This next chart compares the respective tax bill’s of single earner family under full income splitting, and partial income splitting capped at $30,000 (keep in mind that this assumes income splitting at both the federal and provincial level which isn’t on the table but to keep my calculations simple).

… while the next chart compares the value of the tax cuts to the same income earners:

Notice how under full income splitting the benefit of the tax cut continues to rise throughout the higher incomes but under partial income splitting the growth in the benefit begins to taper off at 100,000?

I’m not claiming to have come up with a new idea—I’m sure someone else dreamed this up somewhere and gave it a different name—but its not something I am hearing discussed much and might be worth considering if we want to improve horizontal tax equity while avoiding a massive windfall for the wealthy.

One thing I have realized by crunching these numbers is that there is NO WAY the Conservatives will be able to afford full income splitting in the next budget without busting the bank or cutting spending drastically. Perhaps they will allow couples to split off a small amount of their income—say $10,000 or so.

Update: According to this article, Garth Turner has a parliamentary assessment showing that full income splitting would only cost Ottawa $2.2b per year--which isn't bad at all. I dont know how that is possible--unless I am overestimating how many people would actually benefit from it. But that total could be even lower under partial income splitting.

Update #2: I found the report that Garth was referring to. The $2.2b figure was if income splitting was only allowed for families with children (and I can think of good reasons. It would cost $4.9b to extend income splitting to all families (about the cost of another 1% cut in the GST).

If Harper fails to include income splitting in the next budget I would propose that the Liberals explore partial income splitting (capped at $30,000) for families with children at home, and allow single parents raising children to attribute up to $30,000 of their income to one of their children to reduce their burden.

Old money. No. Not that kind of old money.

2007-02-12T17:07:00.000-05:00

... the "its already been announced but we want credit" kind. I don't make a habit of simply reposting LPC press releases, but I can't help it when they do my research for me and Conservative attempts to reinvent themselves are so ridiculously transparent (my emphasis added):

Ottawa - Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s announcement of $350 million in funding for Quebec climate change and pollution control projects is nothing more than a watered-down re-announcement of a 2005 Liberal plan and a cynical ploy to buy votes, said Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty.

“Once again this government is re-announcing funding that was already in place, and hoping that Canadians will give them credit for Liberal programs,” said Mr. McGuinty. “If the government were actually serious about more than just buying votes they would never have cut the funding for federal-provincial climate change in the first place.”

The Conservatives have announced a $1.5-billion ‘Ecotrust’ to encourage provincial projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. In contrast, the Liberal Partnership Fund allocated up to $3 billion in funding for climate change alone and was part of a comprehensive plan to combat climate change – something sorely lacking from this government’s proposals.

...

Had the Harper government not canceled the Partnership Fund, funding for Quebec’s climate change plan would have already been delivered. Instead, the plan has gone unfunded for a year, and no progress has been made in the fight on global warming.

...

Almost two years ago the Liberal government launched the Partnership Fund, designed to fund provincial and municipal projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under the minority Conservative government all funding under the Partnership Fund was cancelled in May 2006, including the cutting of a $538-million program to shut down coal-fired electricity generation in Ontario.

Sliding the bench to the right.

2007-02-12T12:37:00.000-05:00

Reason #473 why social liberals unsure about Stephen Harper should vote to defeat this Conservative government in the next election.

h/t to Politics (Chiefly as seen from Toronto, Canada)

Mock Outrage at Mark Holland

2007-02-09T15:10:00.000-05:00

I’ve been busy with other things lately but I’ve followed with some interest the mock outrage being expressed by the right towards comments made by Liberal natural resources critic Mark Holland. Is the way that Mr. Holland expressed the undeniable fact that oil sands production needs to be one element of any plan to reduce greenhouse gases the most articulate and sensitive way in which that point might be made? Maybe not. Was it indicative of some hidden Liberal agenda to nationalize the oil sands, or proof of an anti-Alberta bias within the party? No. That’s ridiculous. Some observations:

- I suggest that anyone who is curious listen to the comments yourself, before accepting the interpretation of right wing bloggers, politicians and--even worse--the paranoid reactionaries making anonymous comment on the internet. I also suggest you look at Mr. Holland's own clarification of his remarks before reaching any conclusions.

- Much of what Mr. Holland says in the Adler interview is technically correct: oil sands production cannot be increased by the massive amounts which the Conservative Party has speculated it will without drastically increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a party of born-again environmentalists without conceding that responsible management of growth in the oil sands must play a role in the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As Matthew Bramley, director of climate change studies at the Pembina Institute recently remarked, "Canada cannot have a credible climate change policy until it confronts emissions from the oil sands".

- For those who complain 'why did Mark single out the oil sands... what about the auto industry, etc.'. Well I hate to break it to you folks but Mark Holland is the critic for natural resources, not industry, not the environment. It is his job to criticize government policy relating to natural resources.

- I want to take issue with those who claim that Ottawa taking action to restrict greenhouse gases emitted by provincially-regulated industry is somehow an 'infringement of provincial jurisdiction'. I suggest that before anyone tries to make this argument that they read the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach in which marine pollution--although related to matters of provincial jurisdiction--was, due to its extra-provincial, and international consequence a matter that could be regulated under the federal powers to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of Canada. When you have finished reading the case I challenge you to point out how you could distinguish this case with respect to greenhouse gases.

Does that mean that we can or should run roughshod over provincial jurisdiction? No. Of course not. But what it means is that regulating the emission of greenhouse gases may very well be federal jurisdiction.

- I hope that the Government (and its supporters in the new media) can see the hypocrisy in chastising Mark Holland for threatening "consequences" to oil companies that don't comply with environmental goals on one hand and slamming the Liberals for trying to use voluntary restrictions (as I saw John Baird do just last week on CTV's Question Period) on the other. Is regulation not simply a "consequence" for failing to act voluntarily? Come on guys! A little consistency please.

- I also hope you realize that you (Conservatives) are using the same tactic you have decried for so long--demonizing your opponents, grasping at out of context statements to make "the other guys" look "scary", and by feeding perceptions that another party is anti-X.

- For those of you who believe that the "Liberal-friendly mainstream media" is suppressing this "story" to protect the Liberals from embarassment I ask you how do you figure? To help the Liberals pick up the one or two seats that they could be any reasonable stretch of the imagination pick up in Alberta in the next election? Or to prevent the rest of the country from hearing that the Liberals are willing to get tough with industry to fight climate change? Take off your tinfoil hats folks.

- As a final point: I hope my Liberal friends will learn a lesson from this whole scene. We all know that we aren't "anti-Alberta", that we have no interest in "nationalizing the oil sands", and that we respect the fact that Canada is a federation rather than a unitary state (ie that provincial jurisdiction needs to be respected); but if we aren't more careful about the way we express ourselves our opponents will use our own statements to distort our intentions.

Report: Pot thinks underling kettle oversteps her bounds.

2007-01-30T16:08:00.000-05:00

This is surprising given Ms. Fraser's own tendancy to (rightly or wrongly... I won't opine) wade into the realm of judging the efficacy of public policy.

A movie recommendation.

2007-01-29T12:53:00.000-05:00

I finally watched Al Gore's an "Inconvenient Truth" last night, and I found it to be very persuasive. He really lays out the facts in a way that I haven't seen before.

So today I have decided to take action. I am going to replace all of the bulbs in my apartment with compact fluorescents. I live in an apartment so replacing my appliances and getting an energy audit are out. I own a 98 Honda Civic and only really drive it when I go to hockey or get groceries anyways so reductions there are difficult as well. So I will take the small step of replacing my lightbulbs (which will probably add up).

I recommend this movie for any of you scientific-illiterates out there who don't know what to believe.

Quit referring to Dion's victory at Liberal convention as "surprising"!

2007-01-28T15:39:00.000-05:00

I have to dredge up the Liberal leadership race one more time.

It was one thing when the major media outlets continually refered to Stephane Dion as a "longshot" when the Liberal leadership race was on. That was obnoxious but forgiveable. Horseraces sell papers, and the mythology of an Ignatieff-Rae head-to-head made for great headlines! The fact that Mssrs. Ignatieff and Rae had the most first round delegates lent the myth an "air of reality" (to use legal terminology), and the mainstream media ran with that.

But the race is over now! In fact its been over for almost two months, and some of you are still doing it! Its time to take off the blinders of allegiance and acknowledge the simple fact that Stephane Dion's victory was not that surprising. His strength was palpable. Amongst those GK supporters willing to admit that they had a second choice they were nearly unanimously behind Dion. Mr. Dion also enjoyed tremendous later ballot support from those candidates who no one expected to win. Add to that strong anyone-but movements against Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff and his victory was an incredibly strong possibility. No one could have assured his victory but it was not unlikely.

So please, please for my sanity stop referring to Dion's victory as "surprising" (or as an "upset" or use any other adjective with the same effect). It really wasn't, and you are only embarassing yourselves by repeating it.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong on this feel free to opine in the comments.

Involuntary associations should not wade into unrelated political issues.

2007-01-23T16:16:00.000-05:00

I support the labour movement, and believe that it’s a justifiable limitation on our right of free association that membership in the certified union of a particular workplace be mandatory. If membership were not mandatory; and individuals were allowed to either bargain individually with their employer, or reap the benefits of the process without paying dues the collective bargaining system would not work.

However, I do not believe unions should stray from its mandate of industrial relations and wade into general public advocacy. Being a member of a union is not the same as being a member of a voluntary NGO. If I am a member of Amnesty International, and it takes a position that I cannot in good conscience support; there is nothing to prevent me from disassociating with it. But if I am a member of a union, and it passes a one sided resolution aligning itself with one side in an international dispute I am powerless. As a member, words are being put in my mouth and there is nothing I can do about that. At this point the balance between my right of free association, and society’s interest in an effective collective bargaining system tips in my favour.

Its for this reason that I understand the frustration of B’nai Brith when an involuntary association like the OSSTF decides to weigh in (with its thumb clearly on one side of the scale) in favour of the Palestinians in the ongoing dispute in the Middle East. It is unacceptable in a liberal society for this type of forced association to weigh in on a topic so irrelevant and unconnected to its mandate.

If the far left continues to use unions as a vehicle for its general vision for the world—on subjects unrelated to their mandate—the justification for the infringement of our right to free association begin to come unhinged. Perhaps a Charter challenge might be necessary to correct this injustice.

The left must break with Chavez.

2007-01-19T22:48:00.000-05:00

I know that this is hugely disappointing for all of those on the left who had high hopes that Hugo Chavez could buck the trend, and prove that an elected socialist leader could advance a left-wing agenda while staying true to the democratic principles that put him in place. Unfortunately 'ruling by decree' is a slippery slope down the road to totalitarianism, and while this may prove to be the most extreme step that Chavez takes during his tenure the signs are beginning to point the other way.

I had, until now, witheld judgement on Venezuela's President--even, I must confess, having the occasional giggle at the way he made the neoliberals want to rip their collective hair out. I was interested to see whether or not the kind of policies normally deemed "economy killing" by my friends on the right could succeed in a country rich in oil. I've always believed that the assertion that Alberta's vast wealth was a consequence of its laissez faire policies rather than its resource wealth was laughable; and hypothesized that Venezuela might disprove that correlation by having an economy that defied gravity. As a firm believer in the wisdom and moral superiority of a mixed economy I am equally concerned by the apathy towards social obligation shown by the right as the naivity towards economic reality shown by the left; and relished at the thought of the former being taken down a peg or two.

Chavez may still prove my hypothesis right. Or he may fail and hand a victory to the right.

But what is clear now is that I am no longer neutral towards his Presidency. While I am neither a socialist, nor a laissez faire capitalist; I believe that these are both legitimate ideologies prescribing percieved ideals for a societies economic organization. Dictatorship--and lesser steps in that direction--on the other hand are wrong regardless of whether the ends pursued are socialist, capitalist or otherwise. There is no doubt remaining in my mind that Chavez's recent actions pose a threat to his country's democratic future, and that he must be stopped.

I thought it was Liberals who were supposed to do this.

2007-01-17T15:46:00.000-05:00

If I had a dollar for every time I got an earful from some westerner angry that 'we Liberals sell out the west to buy votes in Quebec' I might not have taken out student loans this year. It must be a knife to the heart of those who believed that Stephen Harper's election meant that the west was in to hear these rumours. I can see no other logical explanation for Harper not following through on his promise to exclude resource revenues from the calculation of equalization other than to divert more money into vote-rich Quebec. If you can--please--I'd like to hear it.

My personal take: I think its ironic that Harper is enriching equalization, ostensibly to fix the so-called "fiscal imbalance"--the existence of which is supposedly an indirect infringement of provincial jurisdiction--by indirectly infringing on the exclusive provincial jurisdiction to raise revenue from natural resource production.

I also think that some of the oft-repeated pro-Harper myths--that he is a man who does what he says, that he will stand up for the west, that he won't pander to Quebec, and that he will protect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources--are becoming increasingly untenable.

I don't expect Harper to lose all of his 12 Saskatchewan MP's (although he could lose a couple--particularly if his Wheat Board reforms go poorly); but they will face a greater challenge than they have in years.

Parliament can't bind future parliaments.

2007-01-16T11:20:00.000-05:00

Unless Harper succeeds in obtaining a constitutional amendment there is nothing he can do--no legislation or other instrument he can use--to prevent a future government from using the federal spending power. Canada's somewhat-new MINORITY Conservative government may think it can reshape the federation by restricting Ottawa's ability to transfer money to the provinces with strings attached through legislation. But there is nothing to prevent a subsequent government from (rightly) repealing such a move.

Legacy or not we need Justin Trudeau.

2007-01-10T14:16:00.000-05:00

I’ve never been one to believe that someone deserves any position of power based on who his or her daddy is. The accomplishments of our parents should have no bearing on our own status within society. Justin Trudeau is no different.

But for those of us who don’t want a Liberal Party that expends its political capital talking about “nation” and “fiscal imbalance”—and want a Member of Parliament in Quebec who stands up to the rhetoric of the separatists and decentralists alike—Justin Trudeau might be the most we can hope for. Mr. Trudeau has made clear that he, like Mr. Dion, does not wish to spend his time dividing Canada by formally classifying each of its component parts as “nations” or what ever the term du jour might be. He is a strong centralist who, unlike far too many other Quebec Liberals, does not believe that the cause of national unity is served by focusing on what divides us or by pandering to the soft nationalists.

He is precisely what centralist Liberals need: an eloquent and articulate spokesman for the federalist cause. Not the wishy-washy, “fiscal imbalance”/”nation” federalist cause; the true federalist cause that stands up to those who would decentralize or destroy this country.

We need to cut through the chatter of those who say that the young Mr. Trudeau is divisive. These assertions are made by and for people who are already firmly entrenched in their own vision for the federation (and ironically have pushed “divisive” candidates of their own).

And for those who ask, “what has he done to deserve it” remember that Mr. Trudeau is not running for leadership, he is considering running for MP. Mr. Trudeau has enough credentials for that role—a formal education, sufficient life experience, and more charisma than almost anyone in the Liberal caucus.

I would suggest that we look beyond Mr. Trudeau’s last name and see him for what he is: a capable and articulate asset for the federalist cause.

I'm no fan of Vic either but...

2007-01-08T18:58:00.000-05:00

This is a response I posted for Zac at Toward a Justice Society's post on Vic Toew's and getting tough on crime that I think merits being repeated here (note: here is a link to the stats I reference):

Zac - While I dont agree with each and everything Vic Toews has done, I think that the 'crime isn't going up not down' argument against 'get tough on crime' policies is flawed.

The latest stats (2005) actually show a 5% drop in crime (and a 7% drop in violent crime which is what I am most concerned about). That might sound impressive but there were still 304,274 violent crimes in that year which is far too many for my liking. That number needs to come down further. Also, serious violent crimes (Assault with a weapon (25%), aggravated assault (8%) and homicide (2%)) were all up.

Argue that tough on crime policies don't work and might even make things worse. Argue that the declining numbers mean more recent reforms are working. But don't tell me that a declining crime rate means the problem "doesn't exist".

Take a deep breath.

2007-01-05T21:46:00.000-05:00

Take a deep breath and relax everybody. Wajid Khan's defection may be important in that it makes bringing down the government without the NDP difficult or impossible. But beyond that, who the heck cares?

To my Liberal friends - Put away your petitions, and don't worry about it. Floor crossing is a healthy and natural part of our political system. Let him go.

To my Conservative friends - Don't blow this out of proportion. Wajid Khan was a backbench Liberal MP and is hardly indicative of a grand shift in the political allegiances of Canadians.

On a side note: How did our new environment minister--who was put in the position to act as a partisan pitbull not as an environmental policy king--become the central focus of yesterday's cabinet shuffle while the fact that Vic Toew's was shuffled out of Justice was largely ignored?

Thats all for now. I'm still in "I'm-gonna-be-a-good-student-and-do-all-my-readings-and-try-really-hard-this-semester-even-if-it-means-staying-home-on-friday-night" mode... until the Canucks game starts in five minutes.

As I gaze into my crystal ball...

2007-01-02T19:07:00.000-05:00

... this is what 2007 has in store for us:

1) The sky will not fall.

2) Dalton McGuinty will be re-elected in Ontario with a second (albeit smaller) majority disappointing that province’s conservatives who have vigorously clung to the myth that the Premier is tremendously unpopular.

3) The “fiscal imbalance” will remain un-“fixed”, undefined, and a non-issue for the ordinary Canadian voter (including Quebecers).

4) Dan Arnold at Calgary Grit will remain the undisputed King of the Liberal blogosphere and Kate at Small Dead Animals will continue to give me grey hairs.

5) A resolution will be brought before the House that First Nations constitute a “nation” or “nations”.

6) Peter MacKay will say something stupid at some point.

7) The Saskatchewan Party will come to power in that province ending years of NDP government.

8) Calls for Jack Layton to resign as leader of his party will increase.

9) I will end the year older, poorer, but in better physical shape. Also I will score a goal in campus rec hockey (finally), manage to fix something on my car without making things worse, and finally make peace with the taste of wine.

10) IF there is a federal election this year the following:

It will be conclusively proven—thus discrediting my friend Antonio at Fuddle Duddle—that pandering to soft nationalists in Quebec through silly “nation” resolutions and “fiscal imbalance” rhetoric will not help the federalist parties in that province.
Liberals will finally start to realize that if they want a future in this country they have to do more to reach out to the West as they are disappointed in that part of the country (with the possible exception of BC)—but I hope I am wrong.
The muzzles that Harper has kept so firmly on loose-lipped goofballs like Rob Anders and Maurice Vellacott will remain… to his advantage.
“13 years of inaction and corruption” won’t work for the Conservatives this time with new leader Dion at the helm.
Afghanistan—while being cited as a major issue—will not move many votes.
My own Member of Parliament Larry Bagnell will be re-elected.
The timing of the election vis-à-vis the budget will be a major factor. The more space that the Liberals can put between what is expected to be a ‘taxpayer-friendly’ budget and the election the better.

Harper's freshman year: a lesson from Liberals.

2006-12-31T17:41:00.000-05:00

As we finish off 2006, and approach the anniversary of Stephen Harper's rise to power; we as Liberals must take stock and learn from our errors of the past if we are to once again be allowed to govern this great nation.

The first lesson we must learn is that citizens will eventually boot out governments that they perceive to be “corrupt”. Corruption is a motivator for the electorate. It does not matter to the voter if it was “just a few bad apples” who perpetrated the corruption or that ‘99.9% of party members are good, honest, and hard working’. We were all tarred by sponsorship even though very few were actually involved in any malfeasance.

To some extent I think Liberals have gotten the message. We elected Stephane Dion, a man of unimpeachable ethics who—by virtue of coming to power through his own grassroots campaign with the help of the grassroots campaign of the loyal and principled Gerard Kennedy—is not beholden to the power hungry “establishment”. We have (through no choice of our own) begun to come to grips with the fact that the Liberal Party of the future must rely on smaller donations from a wider base of people—which I think in the end will leave us better off.

But there is still work to be done. I still hear of individuals within the party (who will remain nameless for now) who—although they hold lower level positions—should not be trusted with power within the organization. People who are more concerned with “betting on the right horse” to guarantee their own future rather than supporting candidates based on principle. People who are given positions because of who (or what) they know rather than on merit. And people who are more concerned with their own personal success than electing a party that they—in their heart of hearts—believe in. We all must remain vigilant to ensure that such people are not allowed to control the various organs of the party. Otherwise we will be taught the painful lessons of sponsorship and our subsequent electoral defeat again and again.

The second lesson we should take out of 2006 is not to underestimate Stephen Harper. I certainly did. I won’t again. Not because he is a political genius, or because Canadians identify with his values; but because he has—thus far at least—shown that he can do what so many of his predecessors failed to do: which is to hold together the various factions on which conservatives in Canada have traditionally depended.

The most incredible instance of this was seen during the Quebec "Nation" mess. I don’t know what was said behind closed doors, but when all the old Reformers stood up and voted in favour of the Quebec “Nation” resolution I was completely and utterly dumbfounded. That Harper was able to maintain such discipline in the ranks of those Members of Parliament most hostile to Quebec on an issue that leaves the taste of bile in the mouths of many of the most liberal of English Canadians (including yours truly) was simply astounding.

It is my humble opinion that many of Harper’s political moves aren’t as genius as some others might think. Any semi-informed political observer could have predicted many of Harper’s moves this past year; but few expected that he would be so adept at maintaining—in the interests of power—the fractious Canadian conservative movement.

The last lesson—and it is not so much a lesson as it is advice to the powers that be—DON’T underestimate the power of “scary Harper”. Many have made the claim that the “scary Harper” argument is now useless. I respectfully disagree. The 2006 election taught us that it won’t work in isolation (ie absent any meaningful policy) and can’t be used to guarantee victory (ie when your own party is viewed as tired and corrupt by the population).

But it was not discredited. The notion that Stephen Harper possesses a vision for the future of Canada that is fiscally, socially, and geopolitically at odds with the dominant Canadian political culture is sound and is a potent political weapon. Many Canadians voted for Stephen Harper reluctantly and we need those votes back if we are to form the next government. We need to remind those Canadians whose vote went to the CPC (and the NDP for that matter) last election of what Stephen Harper really believes in. We need to point out that the pablum he has fed Canadians in the last year (ex. the GST cut, the “baby bonus”, etc.) is not what Mr. Harper, at his core, believes in.

“Scary Harper” can never again form the basis of a Liberal election campaign, but if I were a senior election strategists I certainly wouldn’t discard it. Harper has not disproven that he is scary. In fact a few of his moves have confirmed it. Use that.

Anyways, that is all for now. A merry Christmas and a happy new years to all. See you in the new year!

Apply "partisanship" liberally.

2006-12-22T14:41:00.000-05:00

My friend Darren McEwan at apply liberally has a watchful eye and has busted Kate at Small Dead Animals for her usual partisan hypocrisy. If you--like me--are not a fan of SDA, Darren's post is a must read. In one of the greatest instances of "gotcha" in the blogosphere this year, Darren busts Kate for remaining quiet in the face of a reference to "spearchuckers" by Big Brother Minister Stockwell Day; while expressing mock outrage regarding use of the term in 2005.

No surprise to me. Kate's relative silence (and that of all the old "reformer" type western conservatives for that matter) in the face of Harper's "Nation" motion was a similarily amazing show of partisan blindness.

Merry Christmas all!

"At Issue" with Northern Liberal

2006-12-15T11:41:00.000-05:00

Last night the National's "At Issue" panel presented its views on various questions regarding Canadian politics over the last year and in the near future. My categories are slightly different but here are some of my opinions.

1) Most overrated MP - Jack Layton - The man has completely fallen from grace in my mind. The days of a principled NDP led by Ed Broadbent are gone.

2) Most underrated MP - Mark Holland - Give this man more responsibility. He is quite bright and well spoken.

3) Most overreprted story.- Nation (unfortunately). Don't we have more important things to talk about people?

4) Sleeper Story - The sleeper story has become mainstream but it is Stephane Dion's candidacy fo Liberal Leader. While the media was talking about Rae vs. Iggy (which everyone who wasnt really paying attention came to believe was going to be the final battle at the LPC convention), the rest of us (even me who would have denied it to the death because I supported another candidate) knew better and saw Stephane Dion coming up the centre.

5) Most over-rated party leader- See #1

6) Most under-rated party leader.- Its a draw. Conservatives underestimate Stephane Dion and Liberals underestimate Stephen Harper (I made that mistake before the last election and won't make it again).

7) Wedge issue for the next election- Afghanistan - but it will hurt Tories the most because they cling to it most ideologically regardless of who put us there.

8) Timing of next election- I wont predict that. Either before, or well after the budget. Budgets will usually help the governing party whether they focus on spending or taxcuts. The only budgets that hurt the governing party if they cut spending (of popular and visible program), raise taxes, or focus "too heavily" on balancing the books--which this one won't.

9) Best example of political opportunism. - Trying to make an issue out of Stephane Dion's citizenship.

10) Best example of party loyalty.- GK all the way. Gerard Kennedy is an incredibly loyal person, and I am glad I supported him for Liberal leader.

Dems may lose senate... developing.

2006-12-13T16:43:00.000-05:00

Update: "A spokesman for Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson said the politician did not suffer a stroke or heart attack, contrary to initial reports after Johnson was taken to a Washington hospital, weeks before his party was to take control of the Senate by a one-vote margin."

-------------------------------------------

Say it ain't so!! All the best Tim. We're counting on you!

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, had an apparent stroke on Wednesday at his office in Washington and has been hospitalized, NBC News reported.

The condition of the 59-year-old Johnson was unknown, the network said.

...

South Dakota's governor, Michael Rounds, who would appoint any successor if there is a vacancy, is a Republican.

Separatists want to get out youth vote.

2006-12-12T15:28:00.000-05:00

Not sure how much truth there is to this but its scary/interesting. h/t to Adam Daifallah.

The second [rumour], which I find more concerning, is that there is apparently talk in Parti Québécois circles that if they win they next provincial election, they will quickly pass a law lowering the voting age to 16 and hold a referendum shortly thereafter. The thinking hear [sic] is obvious: getting more young people to vote would put the YES side over the top. The source and I discussed whether this would be legal but we both couldn't see why not. If true, this is very dangerous.

Who knows! The separatists will do pretty well anything to win... even try to fool voters. The 1995 referendum question:

Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Huh?

RCMP: Overdoses and spread of disease a justifiable cost of drug war.

2006-12-11T20:09:00.000-05:00

I find this absolutely chilling:

"The RCMP has concerns regarding any initiative that lowers the perceived risks associated with drug use," states Staff-Sgt. C.D. (Chuck) Doucette, Pacific Region Co-ordinator of the RCMP's Drugs and Organized Crime Awareness program.

Say what?

"There is considerable evidence to show that when the perceived risks associated to drug use increases, there is a corresponding increase in number of people using drugs."

So let me get this straight... the RCMP thinks we shouldnt take steps aimed at reducing the harmful consequences of drug use, including the spread of disease and overdoses, because that will cause people to think "Hey! I'm going to run out and become a heroine addict:."? How callous is that... not to mention ill-informed:

Dr. Thomas Kerr, one of the authors of a recent report on the Vancouver facility, reviewed the Mountie report and said he finds it "frightening" that the Harper government is relying on such analysis.

Kerr, a research scientist at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, said Doucette made numerous errors and lacks credibility.

...

Kerr, however, said peer-reviewed and published scientific studies have shown that Insite users are going into detox facilities and that drug use in the area has been reduced.

He sharply disagreed with the police officer's view that a decrease in overdose and HIV risk encourages drug use.

"We showed actually that binge drug use went down" in a report published in the British Medical Journal.

The battle of drug-war ideology vs. the facts continues.

Tough times

2006-12-11T15:30:00.000-05:00

I was saddened to learn last week that when I was in Montreal watching the speeches of the various candidates, a friend of mine died in Edmonton. I attended high school with Scott Campbell and although we always "ran with different crowds" I always found him to be a genuinely nice guy, and was close enough to him to be touched by his passing.

Its been tough pushing it all aside so that I could focus on exams that I had to write last Friday and this morning but I did so with some success. Even though I still have more exams to study for in short order (Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday), I think it really hit me today.

I just want to send my condolences to Scott's family and close friends (although I'm pretty sure none of them read my blog). My thoughts are with you.

Free speech trumps my own ideology

2006-12-10T13:02:00.000-05:00

At the risk of being ran out of town by my liberal friends, I agree with the thrust of what Olaf is saying here. While I am 100% pro-choice, I think the idea that the student's association at my alma matter would cut off funding to a group based solely on its ideological perspective is absurd. There were many clubs at Carleton that I fundamentally opposed when I was a student there--including Carleton Students for "Life"--but I recognize the crucial role that Universities play in an educated populace, and I reject the notion that my opposition (or the opposition of the students association) to those groups justifies denying them the same opportunity to make their voice heard that is granted to every other student group.

Who is next? Pro-Israel student groups? Campus Conservatives? Anyone who doesn't agree with the far-left socialist ideology so prevalent in campus politics?

We (those of us who support a woman's right to choose) should not be so insecure in the strength of pro-choice arguments that we feel the need to take steps aimed at limiting our opponents' ability to make their own. I am sufficiently certain that we will win on the merits.

Don't be so hard on yourself Mr. Coyne.

2006-12-10T00:04:00.000-05:00

I don't think I've ever seen such critical reflection from a columnist:

Not that there's any danger of [winning a National Newspaper Award]. As I look over what I've written, I'm bound to say it wasn't a great year for me. My writing seems to get more pompous and self-important with each passing column. I used to be funny once in a while, and I need to get back there: strip it down, lose the attitude, cut the verbiage. Nobody owes you the... two minutes it takes to read your column, and on too many occasions I haven't made myself agreeable enough company to make it worth the reader's while.

Dont be so hard on yourself. You're still my favourite columnist. [/ass kissing]. Visit the link and help Andrew pick which of his columns to submit. My personal picks are "Power slips from the old guard" (aka Claudius is King), "Canada's culture of begging", and "Ignatieff has disqualified himself." but apparently they don't make his short list. I'd also like to nominate this speech to the Canada 2020 conference that puts to lie the myth of "fiscal imbalance". I actually commended him on the speech when I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Coyne this weekend (pardon the squinting--force of habit). Go vote!

Northern Liberal quoted in his local newspaper.

2006-12-07T18:30:00.000-05:00

Finally some publicity! My local paper, the Whitehorse Star quoted my pre-convention endorsement of Gerard. I would publish a link but its behind a subscriber firewall.

Kennedy is the youngest leadership candidate. He has attracted the support of several of the Yukon’s younger Liberals, including Kyle Carruthers, the president of the Yukon’s Young Liberals.

“I have supported Gerard Kennedy since very early in this race, and have not wavered in my belief in him,” states Carruthers’ Northern Liberal blog.

“Gerard represents renewal, he is a pragmatist, and I feel that he understands ordinary Canadians better than anyone else in this race. I will be proud to cast my vote for him when I finally get that opportunity later this week.”

Carruthers is attending the convention as an ex-officio.

175-123

2006-12-07T15:29:00.000-05:00

"Credible" opposition to same sex marriage in Canada is in its death throes today. The House just voted against the Conservative motion to revisit the issue by a vote of 175-123. Dissenters within the Conservative Party included Peter MacKay, Michael Chong, and several others.

Finally... perhaps... the gays and lesbians in this country can rest easy knowing their equal access to marriage is secure.

What say you Charles McVety? Think you can let sleeping dogs lie?

A little Dubya humour from yesteryear.

2006-12-06T18:26:00.000-05:00

Not sure if everyone has ever seen this absolutely brilliant George W. Bush quote from a few years back:

When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.

John Ibbitson: Corruption slander won't work anymore.

2006-12-05T17:38:00.000-05:00

From a man whom I had the honour of meeting this weekend--Mr. John Ibbitson:

The Conservatives appear to fundamentally misunderstand that a tried and true cudgel with which they have been beating the Liberals for six years has suddenly lost its usefulness. They can no longer call the Liberals corrupt.

The Liberals were never all that corrupt, of course. Proud, arrogant, careless with other people's money, and tolerant of corruption -- these accusations were all true, and the Tories rightly exploited the resulting public disgust.

...

Regardless, the curtain fell on the Liberal-sleaze angle with Mr. Dion's victory. Whatever else he is, he is ethically pure as the driven snow. During the sponsorship mess, he annoyed his mentor, Jean Chrétien, by criticizing the program and the scandal it engendered.

"We kind of insulted people's intelligence by suggesting we could brainwash them with flags," he told reporters after the 2004 election. The Gomery report exonerated Mr. Dion of any responsibility for the program's abuses.

Demonstrably, Mr. Dion is not the tool of the Liberal Party establishment, especially in Quebec, most of whose delegates refused to support him at the leadership convention. His very demeanour exudes grim rectitude.

So as far as sponsorship, corruption and the like is concerned, that narrative is no longer credible, and only embarrasses the narrator. The Tories don't seem to realize it, but it is embarrassing them.

Here here!

Convention Wrap

2006-12-04T20:05:00.000-05:00

I often say that ‘sometimes democracy means not getting your own way’, but after this weekend I don’t feel as if I have lost. Stephane Dion will be a great Liberal leader, a great Prime Minister, and I was incredibly proud to vote for him on the third and fourth ballots at convention. He is a man of great principle who was chosen by the grassroots of the Liberal Party—including the 90%+ of Gerard Kennedy delegates in attendance. As Mr. Dion has repeatedly pointed out he has been consistently underestimated, and I believe he will be able to form government after the next election. He will then be able to give Canadians the good government that they deserve.

Although my first choice—Mr. Gerard Kennedy—was not chosen as leader, he was victorious in that he was able to bring new people into the party, inspire fierce loyalty in a generation of Liberals, and elevate Mr. Dion to the head of the party. Mr. Kennedy is a man of principle, of optimism, of pragmatism, and perhaps—most important—of integrity. The fact that Mr. Kennedy would tell his supporters after Mr. Dion’s victory that there are “no Kennedy Liberals” is precisely why there were Kennedy Liberals in the first place. Whether Gerard likes it or not there will always be at least 855 of us who remain loyal to him and what he stands for. I am a Dion Liberal but Gerard is a person for whom I have great respect.

I won’t demand that Liberals rally around Mr. Dion (as I wouldn’t want others to demand that I rally around someone that I opposed merely out of rigid loyalty to a political party) but you can count on me to do so. I look forward to supporting him in the next election, and am optimistic about the future of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Well I’m off to study. My first exam is Friday.

Proud Dion Liberal

2006-12-04T17:32:00.000-05:00

Proud Dion Liberal! More to Come...

Convention blogging

2006-11-30T21:07:00.000-05:00

Having a blast here in Montreal although I could really use some sleep and I just dont see that happening anytime soon.

A few thoughts:

- It'll be interesting to see how the BC weather will affect the outcome. There have been some delays and cancellations of flights out of Vancouver and with late registration closing tommorow (Friday) morning, some may not get here on time.

- If Ignatieff wanted to dispell the conception that he is stuffy and out of touch his suite last night didnt help. The atmosphere was really high class. I appreciated the free booze, but still. We arrived at the Kennedy suite too late for free booze.

- Highlight so far: The Howard Dean speech, and meeting Andrew Coyne. I also had a chance to talk to Jeffery Simpson.

- Kennedy has a great chance to grow on later ballots. I have met a lot of people who have decided to vote for him after the first round.

I voted against One Member One Vote. While I certainly think the current system is biased against the poor (and was unpersuaded by arguments that if one really wants to come they should "fundraise"), concerns about the process being hijacked by outsiderse combined with Jason Cherniak's argument that we will have an opportunity to examine this issue again before the next leadership convention pushed me to vote no.

- Despite my concerns about the north losing representation, I voted in favour of the Red Ribbon Report. We will attempt to remedy that error when the amendment comes up tommorow, and I think the overall thrust of the report was necessary to make the LPC a leaner "big red machine".

- Going to the YLC party tonight. Should be good.

Sorry that I dont have more for insight on the actual dynamics of the leadership aspect of the campaign but to be honest I've been having too good a time. I will probably post again at some point.

The Last Word before Convention

2006-11-28T02:29:00.000-05:00

Tommorow is going to be a busy day. My flight leaves on Wednesday morning delivering me to convention in Montreal so this will probably be my last comment before our party chooses a new leader this Saturday.

Liberal Leadership

I have supported Gerard Kennedy since very early in this race, and have not wavered in my belief in him. Gerard represents renewal, he is a pragmatist, and I feel that he understands ordinary Canadians better than anyone else in this race. I will be proud to cast my vote for him when I finally get that opportunity later this week.

I am also very willing to rally behind a Dion or Rae led Liberal Party. Mr. Dryden would likely be my second choice for leader—and his excellent statement on the nation resolution that he released today only reaffirmed that fact—but the fact is that if I have to choose a second choice Mr. Dryden will likely have been eliminated already. If I am forced to choose I will choose Mr. Dion second, and Mr. Rae—who I have underestimated since day one, and I think Conservatives underestimate still—in third.

I am very concerned about Mr. Ignatieff. No matter how events unfold this week, Michael Ignatieff will not receive my vote at any point during this convention. I do not hold great optimism for the immediate future of the Liberal Party if he becomes leader, but am confident that one of Mssrs. Kennedy, Dion or Rae will beat him.

Nation

Tonight I am letting the “nation” issue go. I will not be in Montreal on time to vote against the Liberal “nation” resolution. This will be my last word on the subject.

I think it is completely unnecessary that we are discussing this issue, and I blame Mr. Ignatieff for creating a potential national unity crisis. Whether he brought this up for his own political gain, or as a consequence of the naivity to which we have become accustomed from this man.

What I am most disappointed about tonight is that the Parliament of Canada—our elected representative body—has purported to redefine the very nature of this country without first convincing the nine provinces and three territories outside of Quebec that it was the right thing to do. In the course of a week, with absolutely no national debate, Canada one province has became recognized to be a nation—despite the equally valid claims to nationhood advanced by other groups. Our views—those of us who live outside of Quebec—were completely ignored as this country’s two main parties scrambled to maintain their political footing in Quebec. This issue has gone from the backburner (with the exception of those of us involved in the LPC leadership race) to the frontpages in a matter of days. This has been a sad sad day for Canadian democracy.

And frankly I think those who think we have heard the end of this are fooling themselves. This is not the end. The demands for constitutional reform are just around the corner, and I don’t have a lot of hope that we will emerge from that discussion unscathed.

Canadians lose their voice.

2006-11-27T23:20:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one who is disturbed that over 94% of MPs voted in favour of a resolution favoured by only 39% of Canadians?

Am I the only one who is disturbed that over 90% of MPs who represent ridings outside of Quebec voted in favour of a motion that only about 32% of their constituents support?

Am I the only one who is disturbed that 100% if Quebec MPs voted in favour of a resolution supported by 61% of Quebeckers?

Why are these voices being ignored?

Spin, twist, contort, 180, flip flop.

2006-11-27T17:42:00.000-05:00

Some people are really going out of their way to discount Gerard's bold and principled move on the nation issue. 'I oppose Harper's nation motion... Dion supports it.... now Kennedy opposes it... but Kennedy isnt allowed to opine on subjects of national unity... but Dion can... ahhhh Dion's support of Harper's resolution is so impressive... but Kennedy is dead to me'.

Kennedy refuses to play divisive games

2006-11-27T11:15:00.000-05:00

Don't really have the time for extensive comment on Kennedy's opposition to the Harper-Duceppe (cough cough... Ignatieff) motion. But for those who are trying to spin this into a slap in the face to Quebeckers I think this GK quote from the Toronto Star puts that ridiculous notion to lie:

"I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it."

Inconsistent Morton

2006-11-26T11:59:00.000-05:00

I've always found it odd and inconsistent that Ted Morton--Mr. "no judicial activism" when it serves his own socially conservative views--is such a staunch believer in provincial jurisdiction, which itself came to be what it is today due to the late nineteenth-early twentieth century judicial activism of the province-friendly Judicial Committe of the Privy Council (the JCPC)--Canada's high court until 1949.

This is not a man of principle. This is a man who has a narrow socially conservative view who wants to keep as much money for himself and his neighbours as possible and searches for a philosophy to justify it.

I hope Alberta PC's reject this man next Sunday.

Lament for a nation

2006-11-23T10:15:00.000-05:00

Count me among those Canadians who think that yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister was a sad day for the federation. While I am of the view that we should avoid getting hung up over silly semantic debates over words like “nation”; I also think PM Harper has set Canada on a course that has the potential to split this country wide open. The best scenario for Canada at this point is that this resolution will make the “nation” issue go away. If a resolution of Parliament is enough to pacify those who would make this an issue the only cost to Canada will be, as Andrew Coyne so eloquently put it on CBC last night, that our country will no longer be seen as a national body politic, but rather a “container” to house the various components of this once great country. That, in and of itself, is a great loss.

The worst-case scenario is that this will be the first step towards the destruction of Canada. If Ted Morton becomes Premier of Alberta, he will use this announcement to push for a new round of constitutional negotiations; and despite claims to the contrary, its only a matter of time before Quebec Premier Jean Charest sees it as being in his own political self interest to do the same.

I have no doubt that a new round of constitutional negotiations would fail—and for those of us who favour a strong federal government it better because the “Canada” (if it could be called such a thing) that would remain after Morton, Harper and Charest are finished with it would be unrecognizable and undesirable. Massive decentralization, and a curtailed spending power would turn Canada into little more than a loose confederation of autonomous provinces.

There are those of us who would fight such an amendment tooth and nail—and to honest we would probably win. My guess is that we could convince at least enough provincial premiers that this is the wrong way to go that we could stop it from going forward. I also tend to think that the diametrically opposed positions of some of the provinces would stymie any attempt to alter our constitutional framework.

But what then? Upon failure of such an amendment we would be forced (once again) to convince Quebec (and possibly others) not to leave. Another round of acrimonious national unity debates will leave this country bitter and divided—either geopolitically, or otherwise.

One last thing. Can someone please explain to me how this gets Mr. Ignatieff ‘off the hook’ (which seems to be the latest refrain of the pundits)? I just don’t see it. I hardly see how Stephen Harper cutting the brake line of a runaway train that Mr. Ignatieff set in motion somehow absolves the latter? For me personally it simply further angers me further that this man has the audacity to return to Canada after such a long absence, and create a huge mess that has the potential to unravel our nation. How dare he? In my mind, this reinforces the notion that he is a reckless, out of touch politician who doesn’t consider the consequences of his actions. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that we wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for Mr. Ignatieff's naivete and opportunism.

A sad, sad day.

Tories looking for an excuse to close Insite

2006-11-22T23:21:00.000-05:00

Looks like the Conservatives don't like the fact that every report that has come out regarding Vancouver's safe injection site has been positive. Canada's new minority Conservative government needs a "diversity of opinion" to justify their narrow ideological approach to this harm reduction project, and give them an excuse to pull the plug. How ironic!:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, which cut off federal research funding in September for Vancouver's controversial supervised injection site for drug addicts, is seeking new research because it wants a "diversity" of opinions before deciding on the facility's future, Health Minister Tony Clement says.

Clement made the comment while responding to a report Tuesday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which summarized various research indicating mostly positive outcomes since the pilot project began three years ago.

The article, from authors at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, said studies have shown a large reduction in public drug use, fewer incidents of addicts sharing syringes and discarding them in public places, and increased use of detoxification services in Vancouver.

There has been no increase in drug-dealing around the facility in the city's Downtown Eastside, according to the CMAJ article.

"We welcome any scientific papers on the topic," Clement said at a news conference when asked about the CMAJ article.

"We will also be ensuring that other scientific papers are part of the mix as well. And then we'll be able to weigh the evidence in having all the evidence on the table, on all the questions that are raised by the supervised injection site and come to a better conclusion 18 months from now."

Why then, he was asked, did the federal government cut off the facility, called Insite, from further research funding when it announced on Sept. 1 a limited extension of the pilot project?

"Well, I think it's important to have a diversity of research," Clement replied.

Clement didn't explain what steps Ottawa would take to obtain new research, and Health Canada spokeswoman Jirina Vlk referred media questions to Clement spokesman Erik Waddell, who couldn't be reached.

The minister cracked a joke when asked by a CBC reporter if Ottawa is looking for negative research to justify a political decision to close the facility, noting that "would suggest a level and degree of organization to which I can only aspire."

A brief return to defend Justin Trudeau

2006-11-22T15:50:00.000-05:00

I've been too busy to blog lately but I feel the need to vent. I am repulsed by the attacks being launched at Justin Trudeau. I tend to agree generally with the sentiment that one should not attain special status due solely to the family lineage, but that does not in any way justify the way in which supporters of Michael Ignatieff, from his senior advisers to his lowly bloggers, have set out to discredit the young Mr. Trudeau.

If some uppity political hack told me that my opinions are "shallow", and that he knows better than I what view my deceased father would have endorsed I would have gone ballistic. Frankly, Justin Trudeau's view of nationalism seems a far better reflection of those of our late Prime Minister than those expressed by Mr. Apps and Mr. Ignatieff; and I imagine that very few know that as much as his own son.

Before the Ignatieff campaign resorts to such low blow tactics again, I think its important to remind them that their man is a 'silver spoon' himself. Very few of us had the luxury of being raised in as intellectually nuturing environment as Mr. Ignatieff was raised, and without his privileged upbringing I have no doubt that Mr. Ignatieff would never have attained the degree of success which he has otherwise.

For shame...

O'Reilly bites the hand that feeds him

2006-11-18T19:59:00.000-05:00

My buddy Bill O'Reilly slams his boss:

Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly threatened yesterday to whack Rupert Murdoch in the wallet for promoting O.J. Simpson's how-I-murdered-my-wife book.

Vowing to boycott any company that advertises on Fox's two-part special hyping O.J.'s "If I Did It," O'Reilly declared: "If every American walked away from the O.J. garbage, it wouldn't happen."

"I'm not going to watch the Simpson show or even look at the book," he added. "If any company sponsors the TV program, I will not buy anything that company sells - ever."

Geraldo Rivera, another Fox News star, piled on and called the book "appalling."

"I will bash this project every minute I have the opportunity to bash this project," Rivera said.

Simpson's book is being published Nov. 30 by ReganBooks, which is named after its head, Judith Regan, and is an imprint in Murdoch's News Corp. - which also owns Fox broadcasting.

Bob Thompson, a Syracuse University professor and pop culture expert, said he's not sure whether this whole controversy wasn't ginned up to produce ratings for Fox.

"My theory has always been that Fox News and Fox Broadcasting are the perfect synergy," he said. "One produces this outrageous programming that pundits on the other channel can complain about." [emphasis added]

Some food for thought on Iggy purported gain in ex-offico's

2006-11-17T14:46:00.000-05:00

If you were an ex-officio who had previously announced your support for a candidate--for arguments sake lets call him "Michael Ignatieff"--but eventually came to realize that he was a reckless gaffe-prone politician who shouldnt't become leader, and thus decided that he no longer would recieve your support would you necessarily retract your endorsement?

In a party that, for better or worse, puts a high premium on loyalty not everyone has the courage of MP Susan Kadis.

I suspect that Dr. Ignatieff's support has indeed eroded, despite claims to the contrary.

Chantal Hebert finally looks outside Quebec; recognizes Kennedy strengths.

2006-11-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

Kennedy best in Western Canada, Ontario. I also tend to think that Kennedy will do better in Quebec than Hebert gives him credit for:

With polls showing the party tied with the Conservatives in national voting intentions, electability will ultimately trump other considerations at the upcoming Liberal leadership convention.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. Political parties are primarily in the business of winning elections. Without power, it is awfully hard to put one's ideas to productive use. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper is demonstrating daily, even a minority government with little or no opposition support can still go a long way to implement its agenda.

And thus, when Liberal delegates gather in Montreal in two weeks, they will naturally be asking themselves who of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy is the most likely to both hold on to Liberal territory and offer the party the most potential for victory in the next election.

...

Of the four, Kennedy is probably the best placed to hang on to the Ontario base of the party. His strong showing in the delegate selection process speaks to that advantage. He also stands to do well in the parts of Western Canada where the NDP is the main opposition to the Liberals.

Despite his shortcomings in French, Kennedy, like Dion, would likely hang on to the Quebec seats the party has. If the Liberals did not lose those ridings last January, the party probably will keep them under any leadership scenario.

Update: I have been criticised for ignoring the part of Hebert's article that is critical of Kennedy's article. Not one to allow others to discredit me, and always one to insist on having the last word, here is the critical portion, and my reasons why I think its unfair:

But beyond that, Kennedy's growth potential in Quebec is non-existent, at least in the short-term. Over the campaign, he has literally failed to make an impression on the province. If he were chosen as leader over three fluently bilingual opponents, many Quebecers would see his victory as a sign that winning their province is not a priority for the Liberals.

Ummmm gee Chantal. I wonder why that is? Could it be that reporters and columnists like yourself blatantly refused to even utter his name without arbitrarily dismissing his potential? Or maybe its that all the organizational talent had been snapped up before Kennedy made substantial improvement in his French? As Liberal leader the media would not have the option of not reporting on Gerard, and his profile will increase accordingly.

Welcome to fitness break with... Ronald McDonald

2006-11-16T13:57:00.000-05:00

This is McRidiculous:

Ronald McDonald, the world's most recognizable fast-food mascot, is the newest fitness expert in Fredericton elementary schools.

The red-haired clown is most often connected with selling hamburgers, French fries and milkshakes for the fast-food giant, McDonald's Restaurants.

But his job description appears to have changed. During the last several months, the clown has jogged his big red sneakers into several Fredericton elementary schools to preach the gospel of healthy living.

That McDonald's has found a way to get its marketing tool in front of school children
worries nutrition expert Marion Nestle.

Remember Trent Lott? Heeee's baaaaackkk

2006-11-16T09:46:00.000-05:00

Didn't see this one coming:

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who went from Senate minority leader to presumptive majority leader to disgrace in a matter of days four years ago, was elected minority whip, the party’s second-ranking Senate leadership position, on Wednesday.

Usually, the choice of a whip, a vital but unglamorous job, would draw little attention. But the election of Mr. Lott offers an unlikely study in professional redemption.

...

...[At] a 100th birthday party toast for Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, ... Mr. Lott seemed to praise Mr. Thurmond, a longtime segregationist, for his 1948 presidential campaign. Noting that his home state had voted for Mr. Thurmond then, Mr. Lott added: “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems.”
[emphasis added]

Mr. Lott, who was in line to be the Senate majority leader, explained his comments as a well-intentioned tribute to a longtime colleague. He issued serial apologies, but was eventually forced to give up his leadership position.

"Corporate Welfare": Tory style.

2006-11-15T16:51:00.000-05:00

... and they're trying to use it for their own political advantage at that! Read about it here:

Three weeks ago, Colin Carrie, the parliamentary secretary to federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, stood up in the House of Commons to say his government would honour the previous Liberal government's pledge to give Bombardier $350-million to help develop a highly risky new plane, the CSeries.

Nobody seemed to notice. So yesterday, Mr. Bernier repeated the pledge in Montreal. Yes, this is the same Conservative government that in opposition, used to decry government handouts to Bombardier. And Mr. Bernier is supposed to be one of the more right-leaning voices in Cabinet, opposed to corporate welfare.

But criticizing Bombardier isn't great politics in Quebec, home to about 40,000 high-paying aerospace jobs and 10 Tory federal MPs. Besides, backing the US$2.1-billion project is a no-brainer politically. By staying at the table, the government can at least avoid the blame when the CSeries doesn't fly.

The truth is, it didn't really matter whether Ottawa came through. Public aid is not going to help the CSeries. It still stands little chance of making it to market.

... [snip]

Iggy-gaffe part 30,156,846

2006-11-14T17:48:00.000-05:00

I sure hope Ignatieff wasn't planning a run for politics when, in this interview, he referred to himself as a "tax and spend liberal". You do realize that "tax and spend liberal" is what Conservatives like to call us right Iggy?

Disappointed in Ottawa

2006-11-14T16:00:00.000-05:00

I'm disappointed in the resident's of the city in which I finished my undergrad. I didn't realize untill last night after he had been elected that Ottawa's new mayor, Mr. Larry O'Brien, opposes the cities harm reduction strategy that provided crack pipes to addicts and planned to cancel it.

As counter-intuitive it may appear to provide addicts with the means with which they consume their drug of choice 1) it saves money in the long run, 2) they are going to do the drug anyways (you're not encouraging them to do anything) and 3) it is the right thing to do.

I hope that Mr O'Brien's mind can be changed, but hold out little hope.

Don't reinforce negative stereotypes.

2006-11-14T12:45:00.000-05:00

As an adamant supporter of gay and lesbian rights, I think this a really bad idea.

When organizations like EGALE, the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the Ontario NDP "Queer Caucus" speak out against a measure to raise the age of consent that has nothing to do with LGBT rights they do their own movement a massive disservice. Like it or not it is a very common social conservative tactic to try to link homosexuality and pedophillia (I know because it was a social conservative who drew my attention to this piece). Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no such link, but unfortunately not everyone has half a brain. This doesn't help anyone. Reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion about Bill C-22 which seeks to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16, but it would be best if the LGBT movement were not be seen as united against it.

I say this as a friend and a supporter of equality.

Sunday Thoughts, third edition

2006-11-12T16:28:00.002-05:00

- A good piece by Washington Post columnist and arch-neocon Charles Krauthammer on why people shouldn't read too deeply into this week's US midterm election.

- If Harper actually moves forward with a constitutional amendment to restrict the federal government's spending power it would become the single most important battle that our federation could fight. I would oppose such a move vigorously, and the issue would probably dominate my posts her at Northern Liberal. But since at this point it is only mere speculation I won't say much more.

- I predict that the Liberal blogosphere's worst kept secret will soon be secret no more. 'Nuff said.

- For those with blogspot.com blogs, don't make the switch to Blogger Beta. I did, and my posts are no longer being picked up by Progressive Bloggers or Liblogs. If anyone knows how to fix this please email me: kylecarruthers@hotmail.com.

- Thanks to an unproductive comment by a commenter on my previous post I searched for, and found the Canadian Bar Association's submission regarding what was the Liberal Parties Bill C-16--which is essentially the same thing the Tories are proposing for catching drugged drivers. Just as I suspected, the CBA had serious reservations about the constitutionality of the legislation. Here is an extract:

Unlike the current alcohol roadside screening procedures, which use approved, increasingly objective scientific instruments for measuring impairment, many physical or performance based SFST for drug impairment would have a significant subjective or interpretive component, making it difficult to ensure their reliability. As stated in the Consultation Document, “drugs, unlike alcohol, are often extremely difficult to link to a particular concentration level that will cause impairment in the general population of drivers.” Officers may fail to take into account the effect of certain medications taken
...

Testable traces of drugs will often linger long after use and long after any impairment. As currently proposed, it appears that police would look to confirm the mere presence of a drug, not the type or measurable quantum. There is a danger that a “bodily fluid test” will reveal traces of past drug use that will no longer affect driving ability, yet its detection would raise a presumption of impairment. This could ultimately result in eliminating both the mens rea and actus reus component to a driving offence.
Given all of these considerations, any ability to tender results by certificate should ensure that the results have only a limited presumptive evidentiary value. Broader scientific and technical consultation before embarking on this proposal would assist in ensuring that the procedures and protocols recommended maximize the accuracy and efficiency of the tests used, while minimizing the potential scope of Charter infringement.

NL Prediction: Tory drugged driver proposal will be struck down.

2006-11-11T13:37:00.000-05:00

Yesterday’s announcement by Canada’s new minority Conservative Government that it will introduce new legislation to deal with the problem of drugged drivers on our roads was good politics. It’s hard to dispute the common sense notion that people under the influence of drugs should not be behind the wheel (although there have been several studies that in fact do just that). I for one look forward to the day when we finally have a method whereby drugged-drivers can be detected, because on that day the marijuana prohibitionists (marijuana being the drug I am assuming this legislation is primarily aimed at detecting) will be robbed of one of their most potent (albeit logically flawed) arguments against legalization—which I wholeheartedly support.

But this law will likely be struck down in short order. Why? Because of the simply fact remains that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is high on pot at any point in time.

If someone is red eyed, stinking of pot, and exhibiting other common symptoms of pot use we can draw pretty reasonable inferences. We can say that this person is “probably”, or “most likely” high; but we cannot say that they are high beyond any reasonable doubt. Allergies can explain red eyes, the smell of pot can get on ones clothing by other means, and some people just act strange all the time. Some smart defense lawyer will procure a study that shows that roadside tests by so-called “drug experts” produce false positives and the law will half way to the unconstitutional bin.

The Crown will not be able to rely on drug tests either. Blood, urine, hair, and saliva tests can determine that the person has marijuana in their system; but cannot prove when the drug was used—and therefore once again cannot be used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was actually driving while high.

I don’t really blame Harper for this measure. He’s welcome to try. Who knows? Maybe the court will accept this legislation… although I highly doubt it. I also don’t blame Harper because the Liberals tried to do the same thing. And why not? It’s great politics.

I just don’t think that the courts will allow legislation that has such a high probability of wrongful convictions to stand. Then again, this court isn’t very pot friendly.

The First Response: Senator Marie Poulin supports the North

2006-11-10T11:58:00.000-05:00

Senator Marie Poulin, candidate for President of the LPC, was definitely the quickest off the mark yesterday in responding to my email asking if she would support an amendment to the Red Ribbon Report preserving representation on the parties National Executive for each of the three northern Territories. Senator Poulin has indicated that she does believe in equal representation for provinces and territories on the National Executive and will support our amendment. Thank you Senator Poulin.

Keep in mind that this is not an endorsement (yet). I have not decided which of Senator Poulin, Bobbi Ethier, or Tony Ianno I will eventually support--but support for our amendment (which I will have the text of soon) will be crucial in deciding who I will support and Senator Poulin has passed the first test. As a courtesy for Senator Poulin's speedy response, I link to her website.

A copy of Senator Poulin's response to my email:

Dear Kyle,

Thank you so much for bringing to my attention such an important question for our territories.

I certainly understand your reaction. As I am from Northern Ontario, I know how it feels to be "under estimated" by larger and more populated centres of decision. These "accidents" happen and this is why we as a Party need alert liberals like yourself to ring the bell.

Thank you for ringing mine. You can be sure I will support your amendment.

If elected President,I want to make sure our associations and commisions
are "all on the same tier".

Kind regards,
Marie Poulin

An insult to Northerners part 2

2006-11-09T15:35:00.000-05:00

I sent the following email to each of the candidates for President of the LPC to determine whether or not they will support amendments to the Red Ribbon Report that will maintain a seat for each territory on the National Executive of the Party. I will post their responses if and when I recieve them.

----------

Dear Candidate,

My name is Kyle Carruthers and I am the President of the Yukon Young Liberals. I am also a blogger who blogs at northernliberal.blogspot.com. I am seeking responses from each of the three candidates for President of the Liberal Party of Canada on a question of great concern to Liberals from each of the three territories. Your response (as well as this email) will be posted on my blog, and will play a major role in which of the three of you I will decide to support.

I was alarmed to learn that the Red Ribbon Commission—established to recommend reforms to the way the party operates—has proposed that the territories be treated as second-tier entities within the parties national executive. Presently, the President of each provincial and territorial association (PTA) has a seat on the national executive. On page 20 of the report, the Red Ribbon Commission recommends stripping the three territorial associations of representation. The Commission proposes instead that the three territories be allowed to send one representative from amongst themselves to sit on the national executive. The representation of the provincial associations would remain as is.

This proposed change represents a slap in the face to northern Liberals like myself. Life is hard enough as a small fish is a large pond without being told that your small voice will be the victim of cost-cutting. Every province and territory, big and small, deserves its own voice at the table. Unfortunately, the Red Ribbon Commission doesn’t appear to agree.

Not only is the Commission’s proposal an insult to territorial Liberals, it is based on a flawed assumption that the North is a monolithic region. Telling the Yukon that its concerns can adequately be represented by someone from Nunavut (or vice versa) makes only slightly more sense than telling Quebec that its interests can be represented by British Columbia. While the three territories certainly have mutual concerns and interests they are also incredibly diverse. It seems to me that it almost makes more sense to send a representative from Skagway, Alaska—with whom my home territory has many ties—to represent the Yukon than someone from Yellowknife or Iqaluit. Personally speaking, my only visit to either of the other territories was a short stint on the tarmac at the Yellowknife airport. There is not doubt that the Liberal Party must change the way it conducts its operations, and reducing the size of the National Executive is and important part of that change. I support the notion that the size of our National Executive is unwieldy and expensive. But reform should not be accomplished by disenfranchising the territories.

It is my understanding that there will be an amendment proposed at the convention in December that will prevent this injustice. My question for you is will you support this proposed amendment? Moving backwards is not “renewal”, and I hope that northerners can count on your support.

Sincerily,
Kyle J. Carruthers
President, Yukon Young Liberals

What fiscal imbalance?

2006-11-09T14:28:00.000-05:00

h/t to Rob Edger for posting this Andrew Coyne speech in which he points out various flaws in the assertion that there is a "fiscal imbalance" in the Canadian federation. Worth the read.

Iggy liabilities according to Iggy.

2006-11-08T17:16:00.000-05:00

I got a kick out of this (see below) internal Ignatieff delegate tracking form. Apparently the Ignatieff campaign recognizes whats wrong with their own guy and wants to keep track of whether or not individual delegates have acknowledged what they already know. The form asks those who are collecting intel, "has the delegate raised any concerns about Ignatieff (check all that apply)?".

Here are the options:

Afghanistan, Torture Lite, Iraq, Nomination, Ukrainian Issues, No common touch, Too long abroad, Too Pro-American, Inexperienced, Quebec/"Nation", Not losing sleep, War Crimes.

Now I post this with a certain amount of jest. It is, after all, a good strategy for ascertaining whether or not a particular delegate is someone they might be able to "pick up". But it sure made me laugh! If any Iggy-ites are out there reading this: you can check all the boxes for me except "torture lite" and "too pro-American". If there were a "Other" box they could also write "naive" and "reckless".

Is Jack Layton writing Nancy Pelosi's speeches?

2006-11-07T21:29:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosi just said: "We want as many New Democrats in Congress as possible". Sounded soooooo much like Layton.

O'Reilly in full fearmongering mode.

2006-11-07T12:48:00.000-05:00

Im a big fan of Bill. He makes me laugh. Hes no idiot. He knows what hes doing, he knows his role, and hes a professional. I saw the following on O'Reilly extremely late last night during one of the shows rebroadcasts. With midterm elections today Bill is in full fearmongering mode. On the prospect of Nancy Pelosi who is from San Fransisco and may soon be Speaker of the US House of Representatives:

Ah, yes, Ms. Pelosi, who might be measuring her new office for drapes right now as she could become the new speaker of the House.

But back to San Francisco values. As listed in my book "Culture Warrior", here they
are:

Cradle to grave entitlements for the poor with a punishing tax rate to pay for them. An anti-military attitude — remember, San Francisco voters approved a nonbinding referendum banning military recruiters from city schools. Legalized drugs, unfettered abortion rights, no parental notification for minors having abortions, and rehab not punishment for many dangerous criminals. No restrictions on the southern borders — San Francisco welcomes all illegal aliens. An anti-Christian attitude —remember last March? The supervisors condemned a rally by a conservative Christian youth group, kids. The supervisors called it "anti-gay and anti-choice," but the city apparently is comfortable with militant gays dressing up as nuns in a public parade and mocking said nuns. No proclamation condemning that.

These are just a few of the values San Franciscans embrace in their secular progressive paradise. There's no question that the nation's most liberal city doesn't reflect the traditional values of most Americans. The city's standard bearer, Nancy Pelosi, is about to become one of the most powerful people in the country if the vote goes the Democrat way tomorrow.

The ACLU, of course, is thrilled. George Soros is delirious. The Hollywood ultra left is revving up the party big time.

Quick Sunday Notes 2nd Edition

2006-11-05T13:12:00.000-05:00

US Midterm elections are only two days away. As I've said before I won't make any predictions because the Democrats could screw this up (John Kerry almost did--although I know he didn't mean to). But if Democrats do win it will be a clear endorsement of what Michael Ignatieff called the 'cautious, pragmatic neo-isolationism' of the Democrats. Liberals take note--interventionist foreign policies don't work when decadent Western nations are not willing to give it their all.
Speaking of disastrous interventionist foreign policy, Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death for his crimes against the Iraqi people.
I'm writing a paper on the impact that the Charter of Rights has had on Labour Law in Canada. I have always made the claim when arguing with right wingers that courts have never used the Charter to inappropriately impose positive obligations on government that benefit left wing causes. Apparently I was wrong (for all you law dorks out there). I have definitely decided that I want labour and employment law to form at least part of my practice when I'm done law school.
Hockey tonight!
Canucks lost last night. Booooo.
Cherniak's guide to strategic voting is self-serving crap (No offence Jason). His commenters point out numerous flawed assumptions and conclusions.
I still loathe SDA. But am honoured that Kate decided to visit my blog to argue with me in the comments on the subject of the Michael J. Fox embryonic stell cell research advertisements. Although she was disturbingly quick to resort to ad hominem attacks relating to the quality of education at the U of S College of law.
Played Trivial Pursuit 90's Edition on Friday. I did well on the questions relating to news, but clearly know nothing about fashion and celebrity divorces.
MacLean's magazine is full of crap. My alma matter is not deserving of a last place finish. I support those Universities which have decided to refuse to cooperate MacLean's annual survey is so asinine that anyone who actually uses it to choose a University does themself a disservice.
A little dated, but in my humble opinion David Peterson is pretty bloody arrogant. Apparently Mr. Peterson not only gets to decide who is and is not a real Liberal, but also adjudicates who who may or may not opine on constitutional questions.

Poll schmolls

2006-11-04T13:11:00.000-05:00

Update: I was misinformed that delegates outside of Ontario and Quebec were not included in the poll. Apparently this was an incorrect statement included in the print version of the Toronto Star, that has been corrected on the electronic version.

------------

If I see another poorly devised poll during this leadership race I think my head is going to explode. If someone is going to conduct a real poll that can give us real information they should tell us:

1) Where are these second ballot choices coming from? It doesnt do us much good to lump all the Iggy delegates second choices in with the second choices of the other candidates since Iggy will undoubtably be on the last ballot.

2) Who would win in various head to heads--Iggy v. Dion, Iggy v. Kennedy, and Iggy v. Rae?

3) As between Rae, Dion, and Kennedy; who will delegates support if their second choice--being one of the three--is no longer in contention?

4) Would delegates reconsider Gerard as a second choice if he gave a strong speech in French at convention?

Now before the blogosphere erupts in an orgy of conjecture and misinterpretation I suggest that bloggers keep their pants on and wait for the convention to take place... or at least wait for a poll with solid methodology to be released.

Friday night inspiration

2006-11-03T19:55:00.000-05:00

Just listening to the Beatle's song "Revolution" (no not the weird artsy one. Thats "Revolution #9"). The lyrics really jumped out at me for their applicability to two of my major beefs with Michael Ignatieff:

(on liberal interventionism)
Well you know we all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction don't you know you can count me
out

...

(on amending the constitution)
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know we all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know you better free your mind instead

Call me unsympathetic

2006-11-01T19:09:00.000-05:00

While no one might have expected the income trust announcement to come when it did, the gravy train had to end at some point. Investors were able to take advantage of a tax avoidance scheme for a long time but no reasonable person could have expected this trend to continue unchecked. So call me unsympathetic towards all those investors whose portfolios took a hit when markets opened today. You could have prevented this by either 1) preparing for this inevitable change to occur or 2) invested in businesses who actually paid taxes.

How Liberals should react.

2006-11-01T15:58:00.000-05:00

With yesterdays announcement by Canada's new minority Conservative government that income trusts will no longer provide the lucrative tax avoidance structure they once were; Liberals are faced with one of three options:

Do we bleat about "broken promises" and spin this announcement into an attack on seniors?

Do we acknowledge that this was the right decision, but point out that the Conservatives should have known better when they made their now broken promise in the last election?

Or do we applaud good policy and move on?

The first of the options should be avoided. Liberals have broken their share of promises in the past -- from the feds repealing the GST to Dalton McGuinty raising health premiums after promising no new taxes -- when the realities of running a government come into conflict with promises made in the heat of a campaign. While we are certainly tempted to play the same games the Conservatives (in their various forms) have played over the years by not letting the issue die, we have a genuine opportunity to rise above the fray and show Canadians that we put the business of running the country above partisan considerations.

The second option is better than the first, but will only produce a draw. The Conservatives will claim that things have changed since they made the initial promise, we will claim they should have known when they made it; Canadians won't know who to believe and the publics view of all politicians will suffer.

In this case, I think the third option is our best route. This income trust announcement is good policy. That much is undeniable. Without clogging this hole in the tax system, we would have continued to drain revenue ultimately shifting the burden of funding government to individuals and their families. We have a genuine chance to raise the tone of the debate and we should take it.

SDA's lame attack on Michael J. Fox.

2006-10-31T13:18:00.000-05:00

Rush Limbaugh tried once to discredit Michael J. Fox by accusing the actor of faking his symptoms. When that accusation was roundly discredited, and Limbaugh went to clean the egg off his face the right tried another tactic.

Kate at Small Dead Animals (and other right wingers strewn across the blogopshere) have all of a sudden raised the bar, and decided that before one may opine on or advocate in favour of a proposed amendment (and presumably a statute, regulation, etc.) they must have actually read the text. Kate presents an admission by Mr. Fox that he has in fact not read the amendments that he has advocated in favour of in a number of political advertisements that have been replayed all over the mainstream media as a consequence of Mr. Limbaugh's disgusting attacks.

I wonder how many Blogging Tories have came out in favour of the Accountability Act, the Clean Air Act, and various other measures introduced by Canada's new minority Conservative Government without actually reading the text.

Give me a break Kate. Most people form their opinions on various measures by a synopsis of the overall thrust rather than by actually reading the text. People leave that to the Lawyers. Everyone does this and you are grasping at straws... as usual... in a lame attempt to discredit someone who is expressing an opinion that you don't want to hear. For shame.

A good read.

2006-10-31T00:03:00.000-05:00

I've believed for a long time that the Liberal Party must do more to reach out to Western Canada if it wishes to maintain its relevance into the 21st century as this countries centre of gravity moves west. Werner Patels seems to agree.

http://www.wernerpatels.com/musings/2006/10/realizing_canad.html

On sloppy editorializing and the media's efforts to torpedo the Kennedy campaign.

2006-10-30T17:01:00.000-05:00

I know I am not the only Gerard Kennedy supporter who is getting quite tired of the way in which the mainstream media has disregarded out candidates achievements--both in life and in this current leadership race. Despite being in a solid third place after "Super Weekend", the media has continued to pretend that Gerard does not exist. When Gerard does get mentioned in the media it is only to downplay his abilities as a politician or his chances of victory at convention.

Case in point. From a Globe and Mail column today by William Thorsell:

...Finally, there is Gerard Kennedy, who some see as the Joe Clark in the field, hoping to come through the centre with the bronze. Nothing in his unripe career suggests he could really challenge Mr. Harper in Ontario and Quebec where the next federal victory lies. In any case, he is most unlikely to have the chance...

Now setting aside for a moment the claim that Mr. Kennedy's career is "unripe"--which is patently absurd particularly when juxtaposed against the political career of proclaimed frontrunner Mr. Ignatieff (whose political career will be less than a year old when Liberals choose a new leader in December)--I would be interested to hear on what basis Mr. Thorsell bases his claim that Gerard cannot challenge Harper in Ontario, while making no such claim about his about any of the other candidates? Gerard was a popular Ontario Cabinet Minister, who spent a decade in that provinces legislature (almost coming to be his parties leader), and won the second most delegates in that province! Mr. Thorsell suggests that Ontario might be willing to 'forgive and forget' Mr. Rae for his disastrous tenure as Premier, and completely ignores Mr. Dion's difficulties in English Canada; but finds the time to write off Mr. Kennedy chances in Ontario. What gives?

Claiming that Gerard will face difficulties in Quebec is fair game. Although I firmly believe that Mr. Kennedy will be able to connect with Quebeckers in the next election, I understand why political pundits see it as his greatest liability. But Ontario? Mr. Thorsell's claim is completly devoid of a factual basis. This is sloppy editorializing at its worst, and does a disservice to Liberal delegates still trying to decide where to bring their vote on later ballots.

Case in point #2. From the Toronto Star:

All the Liberal front-runners accept that Quebecers are a nation, in some sense or other. But Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion, who are Ignatieff's chief rivals, have wisely refrained from raising constitutional expectations they cannot meet.

Ummm... hello? Does the Toronto Star know something we don't? Does the Star know which of the four frontrunners Mssrs. Brison, Dryden, Volpe and Ms. Hall-Findlay will support? Does the Star know who the supporters of those candidates who are eliminated early will vote for on later ballots? No. They don't. This is pure conjecture and has no place in a mainstream Canadian newspaper.

In closing. From a real columnist who actually does his job, here is Adam Radwanski's take:

You can stay out of the country for 30 years, support the Iraq war, have little grip on domestic policy and say anything that pops into your head -- and, like Michael Ignatieff, remain front-runner.

You can run one of the most unpopular provincial governments in Canadian history, spend most of your adult life in the NDP, surround yourself with the cronies of a former prime minister and make a determined effort not to put forward policies -- and, like Bob Rae, be painted as the candidate with "momentum."

You can speak shaky English, position yourself as the green candidate despite a middling record as environment minister and have all the charisma of a Coke machine -- and, like Stephane Dion, be cast as the scrappy underdog.

Just don't, under any circumstances, speak imperfect French and fail to build a Quebec organization: the sure sign of an also-ran who doesn't have what it takes. That, at least, is the consensus of most Ottawa pundits. But the way they've written off Gerard Kennedy says more about them than him.

Quick Sunday Notes

2006-10-29T11:54:00.000-05:00

Sheila Copps' column today chastises Ignatieff for potentially splitting to party over the question of "nation". I agree with Sheila, but I still maintain that the greater risk from posed by Ignatieff's latest political strategy is to Canada as a whole.
I will sleep a lot better on November 25th when Ted Morton fails in his bid to become leader of the Alberta PC's. As a former student of political science, Morton frightens and annoys me. I believe he poses as great a threat to national unity as Andre Boisclair and the PQ. Calgarygrit has a good profile of Mr. Morton.
If I were the "powers that be", it would be illegal to use your cell phone while driving (without hands free) faster than you can say "fender bender". I am tired of driving behind boneheads swerving all over the road trying to dial a number.
My hockey team won its first game yesterday. It was also a great day for me personally because I left the ice with a plus/minus of only -1. Seriously. Thats good for me. Also I didn't have to watch over my shoulder as I left the arena like I usually do. I have a nasty habit of beaking the other teams' ringers.
I still really really loathe Small Dead Animals.
Michael Moore is releasing a new movie that thankfully isn't being released until after the US midterm elections (h/t to James Bowie). Go Dems! I won't jinx the US elections by making any predictions. The Democrats have an uncanny ability to pooch it.
I wish I were cool like my friend Rob Edger, such that someone might feel inclined to dress up as me for Hallowe'en:

Bob Rae in favour of private healthcare?

2006-10-26T23:08:00.000-04:00

Bob Rae makes some interesting comments in my hometown newspaper. Maybe he has expressed this view before but if he has its news to me. Here is an extract of a Yukon News story on Rae:

Still, Rae isn’t as hard-core a lefty as some.

He is not opposed to Alberta-style privatization of health-care services, for instance.

“I think that if people decide they want to take responsibility for their own health-care and go to a private health clinic, that’s their business,” he said.

“I don’t think you can ban private medicine in Canada. I don’t think that’s an intelligent solution.

“It’s a decision for provinces to make.

“The one thing that is clear is that the provincial government or the public sector should not be subsidizing private care.”

Interesting. Whether you agree with Rae or not, it is certainly a break from the traditional party line on privately purchasing medical services.

Red Ribbon Commission Recommendation seeks to disenfranchise the Territories.

2006-10-26T18:54:00.000-04:00

One of the unfortunate characteristics of the Canadian Federation is the second-tier status accorded to these jurisdictions we know as “territories”. Personally I would like to see the territories become provinces. I believe that every sub-unit of our federation should have its existence and jurisdiction enshrined in the constitution, regardless of its small population and financial dependence. But that is a subject for another day. There are serious constitutional barriers to the territories becoming provinces (including the creation of a new amending formula), and as I have stated previously I would prefer to leave the constitution alone for now.

That being said, I was alarmed to learn that the Red Ribbon Commission—established to recommend reforms to the way the party operates—has proposed that the territories be treated as second-tier entities within the parties national executive. Presently, the President of each provincial and territorial association (PTA) has a seat on the national executive. On page 20 of the report (page 21 of the PDF), the Red Ribbon Commission recommends stripping the three territorial associations of representation. The Commission proposes instead that the three territories be allowed to send one representative from amongst themselves to sit on the national executive. The representation of the provincial associations would remain as is.
This proposed change represents a slap in the face to northern Liberals like myself. Life is hard enough as a small fish is a large pond without being told that your small voice will be the victim of cost-cutting. Every province and territory, big and small, deserves its own voice at the table. Unfortunately, the Red Ribbon Commission doesn’t appear to agree.

Not only is the Commission’s proposal an insult to territorial Liberals, it is based on a flawed assumption that the North is a monolithic region. Telling the Yukon that its concerns can adequately be represented by someone from Nunavut (or vice versa) makes only slightly more sense than telling Quebec that its interests can be represented by British Columbia. While the three territories certainly have mutual concerns and interests they are also incredibly diverse. It seems to me that it almost makes more sense to send a representative from Skagway, Alaska—with whom my home territory has many ties—to represent the Yukon than someone from Yellowknife or Iqaluit. Personally speaking, my only visit to either of the other territories was a short stint on the tarmac at the Yellowknife airport.

There is not doubt that the Liberal Party must change the way it conducts its operations, and reducing the size of the National Executive is and important part of that change. I support the notion that the size of our National Executive is unwieldy and expensive. But reform should not be accomplished by disenfranchising the territories.

It is my understanding that there will be an amendment proposed at the convention in December that will prevent this injustice. I hope everyone will reject this recommendation from the Commissions, and support the proposed amendment. Moving backwards is not “renewal”.

Andrew Coyne on Reckless Iggy.

2006-10-25T15:10:00.000-04:00

The header of my blog contains the famous John Stuart Mill quote "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative". Andrew Coyne is living proof of the former proposition. Coyne knows his stuff and is always a joy to read (or listen to). In his latest column he takes the Ignatieff campaign to task for catipulting the "nation" issue to the front pages. I recommend reading Coyne's column. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says--I disagree with his broad thesis that Quebec need not be satisfied-- but overall Coyne seems to share my view that Ignatieff is being incredibly reckless in using national unity as a political tool to boost his leadership bid.

Northern Liberal will probably be pretty quiet between now and the convention (as it has been over the last couple of weeks). Its crunch time and I need to get some work done here (I know. I've said this before.)

Before I go here are a few choice quotes from the Coyne column:

"There was no necessity for Michael Ignatieff to promise to recognize Quebec as a “nation” in the Constitution, nor was the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party impelled by any great cause or moment to endorse the proposal at its weekend convention.

But the former would like to win the party, and the latter would like to win the province, and so an idea that once lurked on the margins of the national debate is now thrust front and centre. "

...

"If it were only a matter of the Liberal Party devouring itself -- again -- that would be one thing. But, as in the past, the worst damage is likely to be to the country. Already there are warnings from editorialists and senior Liberals in Quebec that the resolution must pass at the convention, or risk “affronting” Quebec."

...

"It is all so drearily predictable: the same mix of naivete and opportunism that always fuels these episodes"

Defending the indefensible

2006-10-23T12:30:00.000-04:00

No matter how hard some people try to spin it the booing down of Bob Rae and Stephane Dion at the Montreal debate was indefensible. We do not need Ignatieff supporters to tell us what is and is not a distortion. We are all capable of making up our own mind. If we aren't, the Ignatieff camp has bigger problems than Bob Rae and Stephane Dion. If Ignatieff is victorious in December, we will not be able to shout down Conservative and NDP attack ads that take the same statements out of context in the next election.

If what Bob and Stephane said (or were going to say) on Saturday was a distortion of Dr. Ignatieff's views, persuade us after the fact. Its not like the Ignatieff-loving media hasn't provided its chosen candidate with a large enough soapbox to explain his previous comments.

Shouting other candidates down is undemocratic, and illiberal. Those of us who have concerns about Mr. Ignatieff's candidacy are not going to give him a "get out of comments free card".

My concerns relate to the manner in which Ignatieff delivered his comments, not the content.

2006-10-14T13:58:00.000-04:00

Here is an extract of a comment I made at Clear Grit (edited for grammar and spelling) regarding why I think Ignatieff's comments were inappropriate in the circumstances:

Like I said, I am not necessarily attacking WHAT Ignatieff said, but the manner in which he went about saying it it.

For one thing I take issue with Ignatieff saying conclusively that war crimes had been committed. Even the UN and Human Rights Watch are careful to make any conclusive statements about exactly what happened (AI is the exception). Those conclusions need to be drawn more carefully, by the appropriate authorities.

Another thing I take issue with is the use of the "war crime" terminology. There is a great deal of ignorance amongst the general population of what constitutes a "war crime". Many people might be surprised to find out that the "war crimes" that Israel is alleged to commit relate to 1) reckless conduct, not intentional conduct; and 2) the proportionality of the attacks -- and I think many people who heard about the principle of proportionality might take issue with it even being a principle of international law, or at the very least find its interpretation highly subjective. War crimes" conjures up images of Rwanda and Yugoslavia. More clarity was necessary in the situation.

I also take issue with is the fact that the comments were made in a highly charged political context on a GAME SHOW. Such serious accusations should be delivered in a more appropriate venue at a more approporiate time.

My concerns with Ignatieff's comments relate not to the content of what he said, but rather how he said it. If war crimes have been committed fine say it but:

1) Be careful not to make conclusive statements when the facts have not yet been adjudicatied.

2) If you are going to use highly charged and highly technical language like "war crimes", qualify your remarks so as not to leave unfair impressions in the minds of the less well educated.

3) Deliver that message at an appropriate venue, at an appropriate times.

I dont think any of these rules put undue restraints on discourse.