The Mount A misfit

Pierre Trudeau named the worst Canadian

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:19:00 +0000

The people have spoken... and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the father of our flawless constitution and wonderful National Energy Program, has been voted the Worst Canadian. Wow! I love this!

Yes I know, my boy Harper is on the list, as is Mulroney. Big deal, they aren't number one!

While I find this quite amusing, I don't necessary agree with it either.

I don't think its fair to say that Paul Bernardo and Carla Homolka were better people than Trudeau. As much as Trudeau was arrogant, wrong, elitist, etc I do believe he always had the best intentions, and he did what he thought he was right. The same cannot be said about the other two.

He was just horribly wrong, and Canada paid the price.

But its always nice to see him or anything Liberal get some bad press.

This is a good start Canada, but we have only started to make up for our terrible choice for Greatest Canadian...

RIP 6 Brave Canadian Soldiers...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:52:00 +0000

The news of the deaths of the 6 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan today has hit me hard. It comes as we approach the 1 year anniversary of the death of my friend, Cpl. Anthony Boneca, who was tragically killed in Afghanistan on July 9th 2006. However, instead of Canadians thanking these soldiers for their bravery and dedication to this country, all over the news sites we get the political ramblings of Jack Layton and the leader of the opposition.

I saw neither of the two's press conferences, nor do I want to. I read through the reports from National Newswatch and I am, quite frankly, sick to my stomach. There is nothing wrong with debating the mission itself, but today is just simply not the time for it. I will give Jack Layton at least some (relative to Stephane Dion) respect in that I believe he is sincere, and is offering alternatives rather than just talk. But Stephane Dion has not done this. He has used this tragic event as an opportunity to announce the Liberals position on Afghanistan.

Contrary to what he said, which was "You know what is the views of the other parties and what is the view of the official Opposition", we DO NOT know "what is" the position of the Liberal Party Mr. Dion. Nor do I believe you will have one until it is time to vote on the issue. At which point you will make a strategic POLITICAL decision. If you do currently have one coherant policy, you have done absolutely nothing to communicate it.

I know I am in some respects no better than them for playing their game in this post. But my intent is not to engage in political partisan games, rather it is to ask these two political leaders to save these statements for another day. Today is a heart wrenching time for the families and friends of those brave soldiers who have given everything for this country, and I think we owe it to them, and all those left to serve, more than that.

Here are the lyrics to a song by Julian Austin, from his touching tribute to Canadian Soldiers titled "The Red and White". It pretty much sums up how I am feeling at the very minute and I encourage anybody who happens to read this blog to download it.

This country sometimes
Make me so damn mad I could cry
Cause we never thank our hero’s enough anymore
How many of us thank a soldier
For everything they do
We can’t forget all those who serve who sacrifice
All for the Red and White
Lest we forget our hero’s who fought and died
For the Red and White

Lets not turn these tragic events into an excuse for political positioning, rhetoric and oppirtunism. There will be plenty of time for that in the weeks to come. I am saying this to both sides of this mission, both pro and anti-Afghanistan. All I ask is for some respect for these young soldiers family and friends. Rather than bickering over the next few days, can we please come together and thank those who put their lives on the line, day in day out, for a live that we all take for granted. Can we not pay our respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, for just a few days... without this partisan crap. C'mon Canada, is that too much to ask?!?

To the friends, family, and fellow soldiers of Capt. Matthew Johnathan Dawe, Cpl. Cole Bartsch, Pte. Lane Watkins, Master Cpl. Colin Bason, and the two who remain to be named, my thoughts and prayers are with you. You were indeed brave soldiers and deserve nothing but our collective admiration and respect. You are true Canadian heroes. You will be sadly missed, but never ever forgotten....

Joe Comuzzi a Conservative!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:21:00 +0000

I remember shortly after the last election, talking with two of my Liberal friends about what this parliament would look like. The one asked the other, "I wonder which Liberal will be next to cross to the Conservatives?" This was shortly after David Emerson had crossed to sit in cabinet. They both hummed and hawed, so I piped up.

"Joe Comuzzi" I said. We all laughed, moved on, and never talked about it again.

Fast forward 17 moths to today. The Chronicle Journal in my hometown of Thunder Bay, Ontario is reporting that on Tuesday, "Joe Comuzzi will join the Tories."

As much as I don't like to see floor crossings, and as much as I would prefer Joe to run in a by-election, I can't say I am disapointed. In fact, I am fairly excited. Not just because this is the first time I have had a Conservative representing me in Ottawa, but because I know Joe's reasons for his decision are honorable. He is, in my opinion, a riding guy, and he understands that his riding and increasingly himself, do not mesh well with the neo-leftist Young Liberals that are beginning to take over that party. From my three very brief discussions with Comuzzi, I believe he is a good fit with the Conservatives.

The riding however, will still be slow to warm up to the Conservatives.

Thunder Bay is a blue collar, heavily unionized town, who has traditionally voted Liberal federally since the days of CD Howe. The last time there was a Conservative representing the riding now held by Comuzzi, the oldest member in the house (Joe Comuzzi) was only 2. In the last election, Conservative candidate Bev Sarafin placed third with around 8000 votes, while Comuzzi and the dipper candidate fought it out with around 13000 votes each.

Unless Comuzzi changes his mind and decides to run in the next election as a Conservative, I believe that the riding will now go NDP. If he does run again, it is anyone's guess. What Joe will do is warm up the community to the Conservative brand. If after all these years ol' Joe can warm up to the new Conservatives, why not the city of Thunder Bay.

While this may not help the Conservatives party much in a coming election, in that I think the NDP will win in Joe's riding, it may help in the longer run. By helping the Conservative brand in northern Ontario, and hopefully costing the Liberals a usually safe seat, Joe's decision may now lead to an end to the Liberal hegemony that has had a firm grip on the region federally and provincially for years.

Any hope the NDP has in the riding in the long term, is through the old-left trade union wing of the party. The city has already lost enough jobs in the forestry industry, and will only lose more if the environmental movement gets its way. This will put the new-left environmentalists who are taking over the NDP, at odds with the best interests of city.

Hopefully, the Conservatives are going to be much better positioned to win the riding in the future now that ol' Joe has decided that the Conservatives aren't all that scary after all. As the Liberals and NDP continue their progression into the party of the new-left ultra-urban Toronto and Montreal voters, the Conservative party has a great opportunity to turn heads in riding's like Thunder Bay-Superior North where voters are being left behind as their traditional parties cater to seat rich areas of the country that are increasingly out of touch with the concerns of life in Northern Ontario.

Is Dalton Mcguinty Stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:00:00 +0000

Seriously though, is he???

First the man breaks every promise he made. Then, rather than trying to shift the focus away from his pathological lying, he decides to make the same promises he made in the last election (none of which he kept) again. AND on some big issues.

So far we have: He will not raise taxes. He will close all the coal power plants.

With I'm sure more to come.

Let's hope Mcguinty can keep this up and that the Liberals decide to just re-release their 2003 platform with the 3 scratched out, and a 7 in its place.

If John Tory can remain gaffe free, and make some modest proposals, he will be laughing his way into the premiers office.

The Coming Canadian Healthcare Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:02:00 +0000

I just came across the AIMS news release from a few weeks back titled "Sacrificing healthcare for Ideology". Never has a four word phrase summed up my thoughts on an issue so well.

In my mind, the current wait time crisis is not as much a result of underfunding and shortages in staff as it is a result of the lack of real political debate in this country. Lets be honest with ourselves, anybody who has challenged the Canadian healthcare orthodox in the past 15 years has been ruthlessly attacked and charged with being a radical, an American, or even "un-Canadian". The rhetoric that replaces honest debate has been to the detriment of decent care, especially care for those in the most need.

But before I go any further, due to the nature of this debate, I do feel the need to clarify one thing. I do not advocate introducing a truly market system of health care. Nor do I support whatsoever whatever you want to call the American system. The American government spends more per capita on healthcare than the Canadian Government and yet, not all Americans have access to health care.

In a way, Americans and Canadians share the same problems when it comes to health care. While the specifics are different, both countries lack any true debate. Instead all you hear are talking points and scare tactics. In America, any change to their orthodox is branded as "socialized medicine", which is the same as Canada's "American style healthcare".

In Canada though, there appears to be hope on the horizon. The Chaoulli decision of 2005 which ruled it unconstitutional to prohibit the purchase of private health insurance for the services covered by the government of Quebec, has only added to the growing grassroots public frustration with the current system.

Defenders of public health care have added to the frustration with the current system by their hypocritical behaviour. If Jack "health card, not credit card" Layton is now using private clinics, how can he expect ordinary Canadians to use only public clinics and endure the long lines. If Jack Layton weren't one of the most vocal opponents of private clinics in his public life this would be a non issue. But the reason serious debate is so lacking today is partially because of Jack Layton and his over the top theatrics... and I really believe that Canadians (outside of Alberta who realized long ago) are beginning to understand this hypocrisy.

In Quebec, there is an official opposition that came within only a few seats of forming government, who ran on a platform calling for more private delivery of health care. I remember in an Electoral Politics class last Spring immediately after the election that I mentioned that I thought the biggest story of the election when we looked back on it would be that a party ran on a campaign challenging the health care orthodox, and was successful. And I am beginning to really believe that I was right.

With the call of "a new health care financing commission headed by former Quebec health care minister Claude Castonguay", whose recommendations will likely call for a greater role of the private sector in Quebec, the debate that has been going on behind the scenes for the past 7 years, will become mainstream once again. And I believe this time Canadians are ready to fight through the spin and solve our health care crisis.

This will provide the Conservative Party with a historical opportunity, an opportunity to rebuild the elusive Quebec-West coalition that has lead to the two largest majority governments in history.

If the result of the Castonguay Commission is as expected, the Conservative party will be forced to pick a side once again in this debate. No longer will "we will respect the Canada Health Act" cut it. They can either take a stand against Quebec, or they can support it. I believe, as would most Conservative supporters, that we would have to support Quebec in both its use of private clinics, and its constitutional right to health care. Not out of politics, but out of principle.

I would rather see the Conservatives lose an election challenging this orthodox, then to win one pushing the status quo.

But I believe they would win that election, with the overwhelming support of Quebec and western Canada. They would need to sell it right, show Canadians that we would model the highly successful European healthcare systems, and not and American system. Canadians are fed up with the wait times and inefficiencies they see today and I believe are ready to see through the liberal-left media's spin.

It is time to drop our idealistic, ideological, ineffective version of health care. I was never alive at the time Tommy Douglas was, but if he truly was the greatest Canadian of all time, I believe he would be at the forefront pushing for reform.

It is time that we take our ideological blinders off and have an honest debate on the future of health care in this country. I believe that healthcare in this country has come to a crossroads. We can take the easy road where patient care will continue to be sacrificed for the sake of an out-dated ideology, or we can stand up for Canadians and demand better. Lets stop being scared away by scare tactics and catch phrases, and ensure that every Canadian, rich or poor has access to timely and quality care, whether that care be given in a private or public facility.

Lets ensure that the forgotten 3 tenants of Tommy Douglas's Saskatchewan Medical Insurance Act, that health care be efficient, responsible, and most importantly effective begin to outweigh the ideological first principle of the act, that of public administration.

Can there be an NDP of the right?

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:08:00 +0000

Despite Andrew Coynes almost religious but sometimes warranted attacks on the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper, I have to admit I admire the man a great deal. It is very rare that I read something of his and don't find myself nodding in agreement. He is very intelligent, articulate, and is a gift to the small "c" conservative movement in this country.

His most recent piece entitled "An Idea Without a Party" has got me thinking more than a newspaper column usually does. The article seemed all over the place as I read it and I had no idea where Coyne was going with it, but in the end was very good.

It started off with the release of the Ontario PC's platform, took a few subtle shots at the federal Conservatives, then compared the Canadian Conservative movement to the Canadian Socialist movement, and concluded that we needed a party to the right of the Conservative party, with no chance of ever forming government, to give those people a true voice.

He ends off asking the readers "Might the time have come for an NDP of the right?"

This really got me pondering the idea myself. I mean, at least part of the Liberal parties success over the past 100 years can be attributed (arguably) to having what could have been some of their more radical members, as members of the NDP instead. I mean, if nothing else, the Liberals have always been able to use to their situation and brand themselves as a safe vote, free of radicals on either side.

If there were a true conservative party to the right of the Conservative party couldn't the Conservative party use the same strategy as the Liberals to help win elections. While at the same time giving those so-called "radicals" a voice in an other party that can act out of principle without the burden of possibly forming government.

On paper it sounds like a pure stroke of genius. But if its such a good idea, why hasn't anything of that nature ever taken foot.

Then I remembered back about 10 years or so ago, when we had two right of center political parties in Canada. Remember that, before the whole "unite the right" thing.

Was Reform the NDP of the right? I mean, based on some of their policies, they were never going to win across the country given the political climate at the time. They were certainly to the right of the old PC's. And as Preston Manning told MacLeans on the 20th anniversary of the birth of the Reform Party, they were very effective in changing the direction of the national agenda. Had it not been for a Reform party in opposition, I highly doubt that the public concern about the debt would have remained at its early 90's levels. We might even be dealing with it today had it not been for Reform.

The problem was though, that Reform didn't want to simply be in opposition, they wanted to form government. That was clear in the party's constitution in that it stated that if the party did not form government in 10 years, it would cease to exist. To add to that, the Reform party was much more successful than the PC's. If the Reform were to the PC's, what the NDP is to the Liberal's, then the PC party would have to ATLEAST be as competitive as Reform. This was just simply not the case.

Slowly but surely though, the ideas behind Reform got watered down. First there was the Alliance, then the merger and a new party, and now the new government that has abandoned all its Reform policies save for a watered down belief in Senate reform. In a round about way, Reform is in government with its first policy chief as Prime Minister.

What Mr. Coyne is talking about therefore, cannot be another Reform. The Reform Party, in my mind, was not an NDP of the right. Nor do I think that a NDP of the right is at all possible. The biggest difference, I believe lies in the differences between the socialist and conservative movements both around the world and at home.

Around the world, there are a number of successful conservative movements that give great pride to conservatives in Canada. Whether with Ronald Reagan in the United States, Margret Thatcher in Britain, John Howard in Australia, or even the prospects of a successful conservative revolution in France under Nicolas Sarkozy. We have even had examples of them at home with Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution, or Ralph Kleins reforms in Alberta. While these movements do still have their critics here in Canada, they do provide ordinary Canadians examples or real conservative movements that have been for the most part successful, and provide hope to conservatives that their values can resonate with the general population.

Socialist parties like the NDP do not have the same examples to look to. What successful socialist movements do exist in the world, seem more aligned with the watered down socialism or statism of the Liberal party, not of the NDP. To Canadians, the NDP is the party of Hugo Chavez socialism, not Tony Blair. The recent extreme examples of conservatism around the world, have not been as opposed to by ordinary citizens as Mr. Chavez's socialism.

There may be an exception when looking at George W Bush's conservatism in the United States, but I hazard to guess that those who would be in this NDP of the right, would look at George Bush as the least conservative US President in years. And even if the Left tries to align Bush and Canadian conservatives, those Canadians conservatives will not look at Bush like they would look at Reagan or Thatcher.

What I am trying to say is that the conservatives have success stories from around the world to look at and to follow, where socialists and the NDP do not. For this reason, conservatives are always going to believe they can achieve power in some way, and will never be satisfied with being another NDP, when their ideological cousins around the world are having successes.

Another important dynamic at play is the regional politics in Canada. Conservatism in Canada is much more regional then Socialism. While the support of the NDP is stronger in certain areas of the country, it is nothing in comparison to the regionalism of the conservative movements. I doubt Alberta will ever split its vote between two conservative parties. Traditionally Albertans have voted in waves, both federally and provincially, and in order for a true NDP of the right to exist, an Alberta vote split would be very important, if not necessary.

So if there can be no NDP of the right, then what do I suppose we do. If Stephen Harper can't be trusted to act conservatively as the Conservative Prime Minister, is there any hope?

I think that their is. As Preston Manning observed in a column for the Globe and Mail recently, Reform failed because it "sought to be both a movement for change and a political party at the same time". He goes on to say this...

"The job of a political movement is to move public thinking and opinion. Reform, the movement, for example, sought to move public opinion from that of tolerating deficit spending toward supporting balanced budgets."
"The primary job of modern political parties (regrettably, in my view) is simply to run and win election campaigns. To do so, they generally seek to accommodate public opinion as it exists, rather than attempt to change it."

Manning's view, which I agree with, is that it is the role of political parties to win elections in the current landscape of the nation. Which right now is a desire for changein government, but not an all encompassing change in direction. There is no imminent national crisis on our hands and the economy is the best it has been in years. The best we can hope for right now is a moderate conservative government in power operating within the current political climate, while at the same time having a conservative movement moving public opinion slowly to the right.

This is what Manning is trying to accomplish through his new center, the Manning Center. And it is what all of us are doing on Blogging Tories. It is also publishing more conservative columnists (Andrew Coyne), attracting more conservative university profs (Dr. Tom Flanagan), having more conservative think tanks and most of all developing future conservative leaders.
All these things are steps in creating a truly conservative force in Canada.

Unfortunately, we can take all these steps and it still may not be enough. I am convinced that in order for Canada to have a truly conservative revolution, the economy will have to be in worse shape then it is. It will take a slowdown in the economy, combined with a Liberal government before the Canadian electorate Will tolerate a truly conservative agenda. Mike Harris came to power in Ontario in the 90's because Ontario's economy was in disarray and there was a grassroots conservative movement taking hold.

It may not take an alignment of the stars in order for a truly conservative government to revolutionize this country, but something will need to give it that extra push.What is important is that we as conservatives are ready to fight together when the conditions present themselves, and not be stuck fighting the same "he's not conservative enough for me" fights that have plagued us in the past.

In the mean time lets keep working to engage the grassroots across this country and we will win this war of attrition. It may become frustrating at times, but our time will come if we stick together. Lets not miss the next opportunity to change this country for the better by risking another fraction of the right.

Just think, if a truly conservative revolution is underway in France, it can happen anywhere, including Canada.

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper RE: Federal Budget and the Atlantic Accord

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:24:00 +0000

Dear Mr. Harper,

I have been watching the fallout of the federal budget in Atlantic Canada from afar, and I have to tell you that I am quite confused. What the big fuss is about, I don't get.

From what I understand, your "new" governments has introduced a new equalization program as apart of your strategy to address the fiscal imbalance. In doing so you have adopted the recommendations made in the O'Brien report, to include 50% of non-renewable resource revenue, along with an option for the Atlantic provinces to choose between the O'Brien and the Atlantic Accord.

According to Dalton Mcguinty, your new equalization program is supposed to be a "principled" approach to equalization. What Dalton said was that this program is designed to prevent "have not" provinces that reach the fiscal capacity of the "have" province from continuing to collect equalization. Essentially, it achieves the goal of equalization. To allow all the provinces to provide equal levels of service.

It sounds like welfare, but you know what, I am cool with that. Plus, its in the constitution.

So what the big stink in Atlantic Canada is about, to me, is with equalization. Atlantic Canadian politicians don't want to be equal, they want to be MORE equal. What the Atlantic Accord does is allow the Atlantic Provinces to achieve the fiscal capacity of the "have" provinces, while still collecting the equalization payments designated for the "have not's". It's a slap in the face of the entire principle of equalization.

But yet, Atlantic Canada is given that choice. In the Atlantic Accord. I do understand why though. You did promise to keep ALL non-renewable resource revenue out of the equation. And if governing Canada were that easy, I believe you would have. But its not that easy. The premiers had a few chances to work something out to that effect, with the fed's pushing for 0% non-renewable's. In the end the compromise position was 50%, and the majority of provincial and territorial premiers (10/13) were happy with the outcome.

In an attempt to keep your promise, you gave Atlantic Canada the Atlantic Accord as one of two choices. When I heard this, I thought to myself "wow, he has navigated a minefield!". I guess I jumped to a conclusion too quick though.

3 Premiers, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, have all objected now. Whining about cap's and broken promises. And now its "side-deals".

This is where I get to the purpose of this letter.

Please Mr. Harper, do not give into any side deal with Nova Scotia. Even if that's not what you are calling it.

Nova Scotia is already receiving 150ish million more in the next two years with the O'Brien. And when O'Brien becomes worth less than the Accord, they can choose the Accord. And if their fiscal capacity becomes that of a "have" provinces, they will not need equalization. I know you know that in principle, but politics is a bitch.

But with respect to the politics, its a lost cause. In my opinion there is no lost ground that can be made up. By compromising, you will abandon principle for nothing political. You will lose seats in Atlantic Canada even if you give Nova Scotia and Newfoundland exactly what they want.

If you want to salvage some political points in Atlantic Canada, accept Bill Casey back into caucus before the next election if he wants. And please rethink your communications strategy. Because this is the RIGHT equalization program for Canada. It returns us to an era where equalization serves its constitutional purpose and not merely political vote-buying purposes. I have no suggestions to offer to this respect, and it is tough when the media so clearly takes the side of the 3 opposing provinces.

But please, show Atlantic Canadians and the rest of Canada that this is the right approach to equalization, fight through the spin, sell the package as is, not with a side deal. There is alot of support for your approach throughout the country, including in Quebec and Ontario, and don't sacrifice that for no gain politically in Atlantic Canada.

Sincerely,

Kirby Ramsay
BCOMM 08 Mount Allison University

PS: I apologize for any minor errors (if there are any) in the intricacies of the budget, but on a whole, my assessment is in my mind correct.

PPS: When I speak of Atlantic Canada, I am referring to the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I have a great deal of respect for all the people of Atlantic Canada, and am anxiously counting down the days until I move back!

Bill Casey and the Budget vote

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:40:00 +0000

Bill Casey is a class act. He represents the riding next door to Beausejour where I go to school and I have heard nothing but good things about the man. I have even got the answer, "because of Bill Casey", from more than one person when I ask them, "what is it that makes you a Conservative".

That all being said, he has now voted against the budget, a confidence motion, and will be kicked out of caucus. This is unfortunate for the people of his constituency, which includes Amherst and Truro, but also a HUGE loss for the Conservative Party.

The people I go to school with from the riding simply cannot say enough about this man. He is good with the constituents, is well known in the community, and has served them well. A few of them, if I were to guess their particular ideology, would not be Conservatives without Mr. Casey as their MP.

Because of this, I tend to agree with On Liberty take on this...

In a region where Conservative seats are hard to come by we don’t need to remove a capable man from a seat that he can guarantee to put in the “win” column on election night. We don’t need to disillusion the voters in his riding who expect principle to be respected. Casey is no Garth Turner, he’s a decent hard-working man who is an asset to the Conservative Party. It’s time for this party to do politics differently.

However, I do not know how the party can ignore his vote and reinstate him. Copycats would be sure to follow, and the caucus has the potential to crumble. And there is the issue at hand as well. Bill Casey IS wrong on this issue in my mind. Yes, Harper did not keep his word 100%, but when looking at it from a policy perspective, and not regional or political, he made the right move.

I am not an opponent of asymmetrical federalism in general, but only as long as each province has the same options to choose from. For example, the Federal Government provides X amount of dollars for X model of health care, Y for Y and $0 for Z, and the provincial government then does what they choose within this framework, and gets the appropriate health transfer. I guess you could call what I envision, quasi-symmetrical asymmetrical federalism.

EQUALIZATION however, is different. If the idea of equalization is to allow all the provinces to provide equal levels of service, shouldn't the formula be based on the capacity of all the provinces to provide services. Shouldn't this be an instance where there are no loop holes. Where we don't have 1 or 2 provinces whose formula is tweaked so they can provide higher level of services then the others. Isn't this a little two equal...

But seriously, I'm not really an expert, this is just how I understand the issue. Harper did break a promise... sorta... and he will be paying for it come election time. This is hardly a reason however, to break ranks with caucus on a confidence motion.

I think Mr. Casey was wrong to vote against the budget, especially after he had raved about previously. I think he should be temporarily suspended from caucus, but not permanently expelled. In the name of backbench freedom, I support his decision as I will support Mr. Harper's decision to quietly reinstate him on a long hot day this summer.

My thoughts on the new Conservative ads

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:04:00 +0000

The Conservatives released their second round of ad's targeting Steffy Dion's leadership last week. These ones focus on the issue of Senate Reform and follow the same "Stephane Dion is not a Leader" theme.

Like their predecessors, I don't think these ad's will have a negative effect on the polling for the Conservatives like so many predicted they would last time. I do however, believe that they will have little to no effect on voter preference and leadership polls whatsoever. These ad's aren't as memorable as the last and I don't think they have garnered the "earned media" that made the others so effective. Because of this I don't think many pundits and political followers will look back on these ad's as any kind of defining moment for the party.

To me these ad's just seem different, and when I first saw them I wasn't impressed. The reason for this, I hazard to guess, is that they are not intended to be creative marketing ploy designed to create a lasting impression with the viewer. It is my belief that these ad's are designed as a kind of test. With a war chest deep enough to fight 3 elections, and no sign of an imminent election in sight I think (and hope) these ad's are designed to test the traction that Senate reform has with voters across the country.

Senate reform is an issue near and dear to the hearts of many in the new Conservative Party. It was one of the defining issues of the old Reform party and plays well with the base of the party. It is an issue of great importance to Mr Harper himself I believe, and should he ever get the chance to leave a legacy down the road, I believe that he would want Senate reform to be a centerpiece. I am however, jumping the gun a little here.

These ad's are a way for the Conservatives to get an unfiltered message out about Senate reform, and its importance to this government. They are meant to get people thinking about a particular policy, rather than personality. They are designed to see if Senate reform is something that the Conservatives can fight (and win) an election on. I would imagine these ad's are going to be complemented by some internal polling after being run for a few weeks.

From what I can sense, Senate reform is an issue that the Conservatives are overwhelmingly on the right side of right now. The problem is that the senate isn't exactly what you would call and hot button issue that causes tempers to flare. These ad's are simply an attempt to test what kind of emotion Canadians will put into a Senate reform battle. And they have complimented it with the tried and tested "Stephane Dion is not a leader" because they feel they have branded Dion and do not want to lose that advantage.

What I am trying to say is that, why would the Conservatives use election style, retail ad's at this point when there is no election in the foreseeable future. If there is one thing the Harper team has done well since day 1, its long term strategy. It has been the everyday nit picky things that have held them back. Which is why I think these ad's are a part of a broader campaign to test issues that might help the Conservatives win a majority in the coming election, whenever that may be...

Like most of the time, I may be way off on this. Maybe I am just being a naive partisan trying to make something out of very poor ad's. But every time PM Harper disappoints me with something, in the end he winds up, in the long run, looking light years ahead of me. So for that, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

More about the G8 conference.

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:24:00 +0000

Citoyen Dion is asking the government to take sides at the upcoming G8 conference

The arguments continued in Question Period, where Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion opened debate by reiterating his question from the previous day: Who will Canada support at next week's G8 Summit? Germany is calling for firm commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The United States wants no targets and no time frame for such reductions.

Lets hope that our brave prime minister will stand up to these monsters to ensure Canada remains an "honest broker" when it comes to matters of foreign affairs like these.

We wouldn't want to ruin that reputation now would we

you know

that reputation

not taking sides

yah that one

They want us to commit to what targets now?

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Tue, 29 May 2007 02:27:00 +0000

I didn't catch any coverage of Question Period today, but I laughed when i read this...

The opposition had already begun to grill the government over its silence leading up to next week's three-day gathering. They demanded to know whether the Tories would side with European countries, who are proposing emissions targets of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Wasn't one of the main components of the "dead on arrival" Clean Air Act, to reduce our green house gas emissions by50% by 2050?

Why all of a sudden the change of heart by the opposition parties.

They are good targets when the German government proposes them, but not when its Canada's Conservative Government.

I want the Conservatives to go back to being the climate change deniers, because I truly believe that no matter what we do, its never going to be enough for the Suzuki-Gore-Dion-May- granola eating coalition of socialist environmentalists who have completely hi-jacked the debate about the environment. They won't support the Conservatives no matter what they do, because they are concerned with getting their left wing friends elected, and not with the well being of the planet.

Yes I'm bitter...

Update: So okay The clean air act was 45-65% of 2003 levels, not 1990. Everything else stands. If the year had been 1990 in the Clean Air Act it would have been opposed on the same grounds.

pathetic

One of Canada's 7 Wonders...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Wed, 16 May 2007 23:25:00 +0000

Without a very large readership, I wonder what effect this post will have but given the shere beauty of "The Sleeping Giant" here in Thunder Bay, Ontario, I feel obliged.

I first heard about the Canada's 7 wonders contest on the front page of the local paper here The Chronicle Journal. I immediately visited the website and voted for my hometown giant.

While there are many other wonder's to choose from, many of which I have visited, the Sleeping Giant was my first choice. Sure I may be slightly biased, however, I live 10 minutes from the Bay of Fundy for 8 months of the year, and it certainly didn't get my vote.

I encourage everybody who reads this blog, to visit the CBC website and cast their vote for the Sleeping Giant. Whether you have had the opportunity to see it or not, it truly is a natural wonder and will make a great symbol to this country should it be chosen.

(For those seeking more advice, I also recommend Drumheller, Alberta and the Rockies. I also recommend voting AGAINST the Bay of Fundy)

What a week...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Thu, 03 May 2007 01:12:00 +0000

With a nasty virus on my laptop, and being in the middle of spring football camp, my blogging and even following of politics has dwindled this past week.

But with the torture accusations, the environment legislation, and Elizabeth May & Nevelle Chamberlain, I have an evening full of reading ahead of me...

I will have something at least brief to say on each of these topics soon!

Great step forward for Aboriginals

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:52:00 +0000

It is great to see Jim Prentice announce reforms such as this on the Aboriginal file. Demands for more and more money such as the Kelowna accord, while based on commendable intentions, will simply not benefit Aboriginals in the long term. In order for the money to mean anything, structural reforms are what is needed.

The Indian Act is still the root of the problem. So is the accountability, or lack thereof, of band power structures. Once those issues are resolved, it will require a one time increase in spending to offset new costs.

No one can deny that this is a very serious issue. It is troubling to think that in a country as developed Canada, we still have a whole segment of our population living in third world conditions. The problem is not that the money is not being provided, it is that the money that is provided is only used in a way that benefits Aboriginals in the short term. In order for long term development to be possible, the constraints that prevent economic development need to be removed and the dependence on that money needs to be removed.

Only then do I think it is appropriate that we begin discussion about constitutional powers for aboriginals as recommended by the Royal Commission. While I don't agree with the idea of special orders of government for different races, cultural and national groups, it is at least worth discussing. The truth of it is, they can have all the constitutional powers in the world, but as long as the current structures of the Indian Act remain in tact, there will be no net benefit to aboriginals in their everyday lives.

Kudos to Jim Prentice and the Harper government for this. The Aboriginals of this country have been neglected for far too long, and it is only going to be with real structural change that we can ever begin to encourage economic development on reserves, and to help aboriginals improve their everyday lives once and for all.

And hopefully will help finally solve land disputes, to prevent situations like this in the future.

Harpers First Elected Senator...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:26:00 +0000

With thanks to A Step to the Right on this one...

I think A Step to the Right is right today to suggest that Harper did make a strategic error appointing an elected Senator in the manner that he did.

By bringing this to the House before making any appointments, Harper would push both the Liberals and the Bloc to take a position on the issue.

I believe the motion would have to be a more general one, asking for the houses approval for the Prime Minister to appoint democratically elected senators, rather than to seek approval for this one appointment. Essentially, ask for permission to appoint any senator who has been elected, if a province has chosen hold an election. It would be more symbolic than anything, and would force the issue onto the opposition parties.

If it didn't pass, Harper could have chosen not to appoint anybody to the Senate until he has a mandate from Canadians to appoint those who are elected. He could bring this issue with him to an election and make it a key part of his campaign.

However, I imagine that the Bloc would, eventually, come out in favour of this issue, especially if it can be spun as an issue of provincial autonomy. If Quebecers were given a right to have elections for Senators, and the Bloc voted against it, I believe they would be in bigger trouble then they already are.

The Liberals on the other hand, I believe would end up not supporting it. They would do so saying that any changes to the senate in this manner are unconstitutional or that they support abolishing the Senate. Abolishing the senate would require a constitutional amendment, no questions asked. Whereas, despite what the Liberals say, appointing elected Senators doesn't.

After the motion is passed, it would then set the stage for an introduction of the Senate elections bill. With the parties positions all known on the issue, it will be much easier to get through the house, and into the Senate. If it does not pass the Senate (if the Liberals oppose it), Harper will have that issue to bring with him into an election. Any hope for a Liberal breakthrough in Alberta would be gone, and the chances of true and lasting Senate reform would be greatly improved.

Despite this the politics behind it, Kudos to Prime Minister Harper for appointing Mr. Brown to the Senate. It is refreshing to see him taking action on a file that is so close to the heart of his core supporters.

R.I.P. Cpl. Anthony Boneca

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:45:00 +0000

I finished my exams this morning and rather then going out and celebrating, I sit here instead, reading article upon article about what has happened at Virginia Tech. I can't help but think what must be going through the heads of those who have lost friends and families in this time of grief. All that keeps going through my head is that week this summer when my friend Tony Boneca was killed in Afghanistan.

I met Tony Boneca in the summer going into grade 11 in Thunder Bay. We went to different high schools but we had a common bond having played football against each other. Every time we saw each other we ended up talking about football, apparently it was up there on both our favorite past-time lists. When I look back on it now, Tony and I were very similar people. After high school I left Thunder Bay and sort of lost touch with the group of friends that Tony was a part of.

From what I know, Tony joined the army shortly after he completed high school. He did a first tour in Afghanistan last year, and was three weeks away from returning from his second one. After returning from Afghanistan Tony planned on going back to school. Sadly he never made it home this August.

Initially, I was shocked as you can expect, when I heard of Tony's death. The entire city came together that next week to support Mr. and Mrs. Boneca in their time of extreme sadness. There were reports in the news that he was neither prepared for the mission and that he didn't understand the mission. The media, along with three of four federal political parties, did what they could to spin this story to politicize a young soldiers death in Afghanistan. While it attracted the headlines for a day, I thank god Canadians saw right through that.

What I learned in the days after hearing of Tony's death, was the fragility of life, and the uncertainty that it is inevitably going to bring.

Cpl. Anthony Boneca was no different that you or I am sitting here reading and writing this today. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. We as Canadians often find ourselves taking life and everything it entails for granted.

It is only with events like the Virginia Tech shooting and the death of a close friend that you step back and truly appreciate how good life is here in Canada. Sure life's not perfect, even as a student; exams suck, money's short, the house is a friggin' mess and I need a haircut.

But it could always be worse. What we all need to do at times like this, is step back for a minute, and really appreciate what we as individuals and a country have. This world is full of hardships and uncertainties, but at a time like this I can't help but be thankful for my friends and family and the day to day life they provide me with...

And be thankful for all those, both before and after Tony, who make the ultimate sacrifice. Those who fight for our flag; those who fight for our freedom; and those who fight to protect a lifestyle and well-being that we all enjoy in this great country...

RIP Tony,

your sacrifices will never be forgotten and I miss you buddy...

and my heartfelt sympathies go out to all those affected by this terrible tragedy..

Ontario Citizens Assembly

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:50:00 +0000

Mixed Member Proportionality vs. First Past the Post.

That is what Ontarians will be voting for in the electoral reform referendum on October 12.

On Sunday the Ontario Citizens assembly voted 94-8 in favour of the Mixed Member Proportional system of electing representatives. While I don't plan to be in the province for the referendum or election, I do plan on voting by special ballot.

I know I know, this is a dry issue and it doesn't typically bring much emotional discussion with it, why is this kid blogging about it?

Well here's why. I recently finished a third year political science class here at MTA about Canadian electoral politics. 1/3 of the course was a simulated citizens assembly on electoral reform, just like the one wrapping up in Ontario.

When it came time for our class to make a recommendation, it came down to one of two systems, MMP and FPTP. The final vote was ridiculously close, something like 12-11 in favour of MMP. After the vote, both sides plead to the other to join their sides so there could be a larger margin of victory.

What prevailed was a pretty heated discussion into both the flaws of the FPTP system and what a change to MMP might mean. Emotions ran high and some students (including myself) got really into it.

Maybe it was just because we were political science students, in a class full of political science dorks, that it got as heated as it did. But I would bet that if you collected a group of any people with and solid base in politics and asked them to do the same thing, the resulting discussion would (eventually) get quite heated.

The reason for this, I believe, is the role that the electoral process plays on politics. If Ontario chooses a new electoral system, the dynamics of their politics will change with that electoral system. To look at a Canadian example of this, look at the May/Dion deal last week. Under a proportional electoral system, the green party would already have a seat in the House. The Green leader would not need to run in a riding such as Central Nova, and would certainly not need sign an electoral pact with the Liberals.

I am not commenting on whether it is in Canadians interests for such a deal to happen, I am only pointing out that under a PR system, this probably would not happen. By changing to a MMP system, who knows what kind of changes to the political system will occur.

The National Post has an interesting article about that very thing today titled "PR is a bad idea":

PR also detaches legislators from a grounding in specific, local concerns. Party discipline can be stifling enough as things stand. Under PR, with a large percentage of members elected from lists chosen by party organizations, as opposed to voters in a specific riding, it would be much worse.
The experience of the past hundred years in numerous countries has shown how PR leads small parties to breed like rabbits. Politics becomes a continual cabinet shuffle, with jostling and shifting coalitions. Governing along any steady course becomes extremely difficult. The Italians know this all too well, but when they tried to get rid of PR, the politicians who had gained power under that system got in the way.

In Israel, similarly, proportional representation often has produced government gridlock. Major parties such as Labor, Likud and Kadima typically get no more than a third of the total seats in the Knesset. And so a party leader who seeks to form a government often trade horses with a half-dozen minor parties with their own parochial agendas. In some cases -- West Bank settlers and ultra-religious Jews come to mind -- the policies of the government are seriously distorted in the process.

While I don't necessarily think the idea of PR is a bad thing, I agree with alot of what this article has to say. In particular with the influence that fringe parties might gain.

Something I believe is a strength of the first past the post system is the need for major parties to reach out to a diverse group of individuals . Under MMP or other proportional electoral systems, instead of reaching out to diverse groups of individuals, all parties need to do is reach out to enough minor or fringe parties to form government.

It is easy to become frustrated as a conservative when the Conservatives go fishing for votes in Liberal waters. Likewise for a socialist when the Dippers move to the center. But I have come to understand why this is done, and to see it as a good thing for democracy.

I fear that this inclusive spirit will be lost in our parties under a proportional system, and it may lead to the inclusive spirit being lost in how these parties govern....

My other worry is that a change to MMP might not achieve the goals we have for it.

To me, the best arguments for electoral reform is that it is necessary in achieving the goal of increasing voter turnout and decreasing voter apathy; not that FPTP is unfair. I find the majority of people who use fairness as an argument tend to be coming off an election loss themselves.

As far as increasing turnout, many people tend to believe that it will be achieved though some form of proportional representation. That the cure to voter apathy is, at least in part, proportionality.

To anybody who believes this notion, I advise you to look at the facts a little deeper. While states with proportional systems do have higher turnouts on an aggregate ( see Blais, A. and A. Dobrzynska. 1998). States that switch from FPTP systems to more proportional systems often see a decrease in voter turnout. In NewZealand's case, voter turnout was fairly constant over time, and did not experience a drop in turnout until AFTER the switch. (see Henderson, A. 2006, in Canadian Public Policy)

Despite all this, if Ontario and eventually Canada reform their electoral system, I might grumble slightly, but in the name of democracy it may be for the best.

If 60 percent of the population, from 60 percent of the riding's believes it is good for Ontario, then that is the will of the people.

All I ask is that people inform themselves.
Look at both sides of the issue.
Understand that changing your electoral system will change your political system.
Be prepared for unintended and unmentioned consequences that may result.
And get excited the issue.

It is an important debate, and it is something worth getting excited about. If everybody does this, irregardless of the outcome, democracy will have truly won.

Gerald Keddy

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:25:00 +0000

Caught some Parl Vu today in between studying.

During members statements, Gerald Keddy, Conservative MP for South Shore - St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia rose to tell the Liberals in Central Nova that if they join the Conservatives they won't be sold out.

He then asked when the Liberals were going to form and electoral coalition with the Marxist Lenninist party. Apparently the Marxist Leninist came a close 5th to the Green parties 4th in Central Nova.

I got a good laugh, and encourage everybody to read the Hansard when its available.

Cheers

UPDATE: According to Wikipedia, The Green Party received 671 votes in 2006, to the Marxist Leninist's 124.

Dion and May - 4 days later...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:05:00 +0000

Alright so maybe its 4 days late, not later. But better late then never i guess...

Being in the middle of exams, and having the procrastination problem that I do, I have spent more time reading and thinking about this deal than I normally would. My initial reaction, like many others, was pure shock. I even changed my msn nickname to "Stephane Dion... the gift that keeps on giving".

With far too much procrastination time on my hands, I began reading article after article. After each article, I began to doubt what had happened was a good thing for the CPC. I said to myself, "you aren't a 'progressive voter'; you don't think we need to 'put principle ahead of partisanship' when it comes to the environment, what do you really know? Both these parties aren't targeting voters like you anyway, why would your feelings on it matter?"

The more I read, the more I would withdraw into myself. The more I withdrew into myself, the more I thought this may have been a well calculated move by both May and Dion. I started asking myself, If I was a young 'progressive', what are my priorities? What gets me excited about politics. All I could come up with was the environment, and 'sticking it to the man'. As far as I could see this filled both the criteria.

I started to really believe this could hurt the CPC. I thought to myself that this could be the kind of deal that steals votes from the NDP without sacrificing the 'blue Liberal vote'. That this deal would be view by 'progressives' this way.

Then... I came to my senses. A few things over the past 24 hours have lead me back to them:

a) CTV Poll

After seeing this, I started reassuring myself that maybe I wasn't in the minority on this one. That there are alot of people out there who feel the way I do about politics. And they actually see this move for what it is, poor judgement and backroom politics.

While it is only an online poll, and I imagine with the help of 50-100 votes from some Blogging Tories (myself included), there is still a considerable amount of voters who feel this was a poor move,

b) Today's Star

I read a hilarious article this morning in the Star. It is taking a shot at this whole deal, Rick Mercer style. Usually I would read anything in the Star and take the exact opposite for truth (with the exception of Chantal Hebert most days), but not this one.

This article screamed to me, "that there are people who read the star, who's gut feeling is the same on this issue as yours. " While I hope this doesn't become a trend, today I welcomed it with open arms.

c) Different Liberals Reactions

First this one. Upon reading this my hypothesis that the Liberals will not lose the blue Liberal vote evaporated into thin air. With news that other prominent Liberals, speaking off the record, were denouncing the deal, a small smile came to my face. I began to feel how I had felt when I first heard rumour of the deal.

The most important moment on this journey came in a discussion I had with my roommate, a Liberal and farmer boy from Central Nova, we'll call him Todd. Todd is not happy about this deal. He no longer has a Liberal candidate to vote for come election time.

I thought about this myself. What if, after supporting a leader in a leadership convention, buying a membership, donating money to a party, and working with other members to elect a party member as your representative... you were told by the same people who you paid your money too, who needed your vote in the first place to become the decision maker, that come election time, you are not going to have the ability to vote for that party???

I would be livid. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

I came to realize with that conversation, that what Dion has done is not attract new voters to the Liberal party, but push flexible Liberal partisans away from the Liberal party.

Flexible Liberal partisans, to me, are the swing voters. I say "Flexible Liberal partisans" because they are not durable. They are the ones that Harper needs to turn into "flexible Conservative partisans" if he is to win a majority.

He is doing his part in wooing them and Dion seems to be giving them a helping hand out the door.

While I do worry what a United left might mean for right of center politics in Canada, I don't see this as a first step towards it. I see this as nothing more than political opportunism by two politicians with very poor judgement.

If May thinks this will help her win her seat in Central Nova, she is mistaken
If Dion thinks this will help prevent a Conservative Majority, he is mistaken as well.

All this has done is opened a bigger divide down the center of the Liberal Party, and has tarnished Elizabeth May's image as a politician who is going to do things differently.

and because of this, I think I am going to keep my msn nickname for a few more days...

UPDATE: (6 days later)

It might be interesting to note for any other New Democrats and Liberals who have made their way here through Bourque.org, that my friend "Todd" also mentioned how he saw now way in hell the Green's will steal a significant number of votes the NDP.

The NDP voters in Central Nova, in his words are "farmers, fisherman and union workers", and not the new left that would be tempted to switch to the green's.

They are the Buzz Hargrove Dippers, the ones who blasted the environmental movement as much as he blasted the Tories...

Kinda makes you wonder what the hell May and Dion are thinking

PS: Thank you to bourque.org for linking the MTA misfit on its site. It has diversified my readers and it is really appreciated!

An introduction...

noreply@blogger.com (Kirby) — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:53:00 +0000

Hello world,

I am a long time blog reader, first time blogger. I plan for this blog to be primarily about politics, I am kind of a political junkie.

I consider myself a small c conservative (whatever that really means) but I find it difficult to generalize my thoughts and beliefs into a one word definition. Essentially, I believe that the state should play less of a role in the wallets and purses of Canadians then it does today. I may not be an economists, but I think that individuals and families would be far better off with more disposable income and fewer needless social programs and subsidies.

Socially I am all over the map. I had initial doubts about same-sex marriage, but at the end of the day, I feel that the fuss is about nothing more then the definition of a word. I believe that everybody should be able to live in some sort of union, and if that union is marriage then so be it.

With abortion I feel I don't fall into any category, I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I believe a woman has a right to choose, and that a child has a right to live. This issue frustrates me because in a country such as Canada, we should be able to engage in real debate about this issue. I doubt there are many people out there who are comfortable with their tax dollars going towards 3rd trimester abortions, just like i doubt there are many people out there who really think an abortion should be made illegal to rape victims. There is a real middle of the ground on this issue, one that has been completely silenced by both sides.

Health care is another issue where I believe we are stuck in a bad spot. Anybody politician who dares to offer an improvement to Tommy Douglas's dream can consider themselves done. I certainly don't think we should completely privatize everything and let the market take over, but again where is this discussion?? Perhaps we are warming up to health care reform more and more (see: success of the ADQ and the Supreme Court ruling in Quebec last year) but I get the feeling we are still 10 years away from a time when national politicians will be able to talk about these issues and not be ridiculed by the media. That is 10 more years of rising costs and longer waiting times... and lets hope more Charter challenges.

Moving on, I think we need to come down harder on our criminals, continue our hard work in Afghanistan and while this whole global warming business puts knots in my stomach, I feel we do need to find ways to clean up our air and environment.

I look forward to sharing my thoughts with everybody who bothers to read them. I will include the odd post about football, I play varsity football here at Mount Allison, and we are anticipating big things next year. I might also occasionally talk about things going on at the school. We have a small school here at MTA, but as you can imagine there are always interesting things going on!

until next time,

Kirby