The Scott Ross

Liberals Down In All Major Polls, Arrogance Is Up

2013-05-23T23:31:00.001-07:00

Justin Trudeau is popular? It doesn't matter.

The federal Liberals are still extremely behind in the polls. The last three major polls conducted, with 100% accuracy, show the Liberal Party is far behind the Conservatives and in fact the Grits are at their lowest level of support in Canadian history. Those polls were of course conducted in the last three general elections and they are the only ones that matter.

A lot of Liberals will take refuge in a new opinion poll out that shows their party with an incredible lead, 44% to the Conservatives' 27%, with the NDP even further back at 20%. Other Liberals will dismiss those results recollecting the multitude of erroneous polling results from recent provincial elections.

But regardless of any calm rational thinking, this new poll will make all Liberals, at least in private, sneer and grin; as if they are already looking out their PMO staffer windows, peering down at all the Conservative MP assistants scurrying with scavenged cardboard boxes full to the brim with various framed pictures of Stephen Harper.

Liberals can try to publicly downplay this recent opinion poll in an attempt to lower expectations, to keep the focus on the government, or to just keep their party from getting complacent, but all of that will do nothing if Liberal officials fall victim to the same pervasive arrogance that just recently brought down the NDP in British Columbia.

For two years prior to the May 14 provincial election, the BC NDP were polling far ahead of the BC Liberals. To ensure supporters would still go out and vote, NDP Leader Adrian Dix repeatedly dismissed the numbers, claiming that he was in fact the underdog. But while he and his officials were publicly disavowing the NDP's popularity, privately they were letting arrogance cloud their judgement and ultimately cause their downfall.

For all the claims Adrian Dix made that the election was going to be close, the only explanation for him choosing not to run attack ads was that he was extremely overconfident that he was going to win. The same can be said for the New Democrats failing to use public information from the anti-HST petition and mobilize government opponents. Arrogance is also the only explanation behind the NDP spending money to produce an expensive video for election night that intended to introduce Dix as "the next Premier of British Columbia".

The lesson from the BC NDP for the federal Liberals is not to rely on better polls or to try harder in lowering expectations, it's for their party officials, for their staff, to always keep on fighting, to never take anything for granted, and to simply not be arrogant.

Justin Trudeau and those around him can take pride in deciding not to run attack ads, but the idea that he doesn't need to shows the Liberals have a lot to learn.

Mike Duffy & Why An Elected Senate Would Have Made This Worse

2013-05-22T20:54:00.004-07:00

Nobody really thinks Senator Mike Duffy received $90,000 in return for some political favour, but that public perception would most certainly change if he and every other Senator faced regular expensive election campaigns that depended on large contributions and even larger political favours.

An elected Senate requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars every four years for its members to run for office in much larger ridings would without a doubt only increase the likelihood of Senators exchanging votes for large financial contributions, both over and under the table.

In contrast, appointed Senators aren't as vulnerable to bribes or shady deals.

When news broke that Senator Mike Duffy had secretly accepted $90,000 from Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, under the pretense that Duffy would pay back ill-gotten living expenses, the general sentiment was that the Senator did not have the funds himself because of personal financial hardship due to an ailing wife.

Since then of course other details have emerged. It appears Wright, in an attempt to protect an asset to the Conservative Party, was eager to pay off Duffy's living expenses to prevent an audit from possibly revealing how the Conservative Senator double-billed taxpayers for even more funds.

And though it is very likely that more details will soon be made public, it is very likely none will show that the troubled senator took the $90,000 gift in some backroom in exchange for voting against good policy or for drafting legislation that would only benefit a privileged few.

It cannot be denied that what Senator Duffy and the Prime Minister's right-hand man appear to have done is wrong. But it also cannot be denied that with an elected Senate and Duffy in need of campaign funds it would have looked much worse, and probably would have been.

If the Senate was elected rather than appointed, not only would there be greater risk for all senators to appear to be in the pocket of rich millionaires, there would be greater risk of them actually being there.

Christy Clark Is Unstoppable

2013-05-15T00:51:00.000-07:00

Christy Clark is unstoppable.

She became Liberal Leader with only the support of one MLA. Members of her caucus criticized her. 17 of them fearing defeat didn't run for re-election. Practically every pundit and journalist thought Clark was going to lose and so did every single polling firm. But last night she won.

Not only did she turn around a failing election campaign, Clark turned around a failing party.

Her predecessor with an approval rating of only 9% was the least popular Canadian politician in the last 40 years. The poorly implemented Harmonized Sales Tax had mobilized over 700,000 British Columbians against her governing party. And after 12 years in power, infighting and internal conflict only further weakened the BC Liberals, practically guaranteeing their electoral defeat.

But last night the BC Liberals won. Clark did something no one thought she could do. And because of that, no one will make that same mistake again.

Christy Clark is unstoppable. Not because she really is some unbelievable impossible force, but because no one else now has the credibility to say otherwise.

Christy Clark Loses & So Does Gender Equality

2013-05-13T22:51:00.001-07:00

*UPDATE 05/15/13: With Christy Clark's amazing upset I am happy to admit the below post is wrong. BC has its first popularly elected female Premier. Congratulations, it is an incredible victory.

Christy Clark had as much chance of winning BC's election today as Canadian politics has gender equality, and that's close to zero.

With six female premiers, soon to be five, Canada looks like a pretty equitable place, but just as with Christy Clark's chances on election day, looks can be deceiving.

For instance, on the face of it, British Columbia looks like a province of better gender representation, Christy Clark wasn't its first female premier after all, Rita Johnston received that honour back in 1991. But considering the similarities between Johnston and Clark, what is clear is not gender equality, but its absence.

Before Kim Campbell was given the reigns of a doomed government serving as Canada's first female Prime Minister, it was Rita Johnston in BC who in 1991 became the country's first female Premier. Like Campbell she too was not elected into the top office by a general election, instead solely selected by her party of Social Credit. Johnston never had a chance, her predecessor Bill Vanderzalm had left government amid scandal and within seven months her party was drastically defeated.

Despite the expected narrowing of polls in the closing days of the 2013 BC election Christy Clark, like Johnston and Campbell, never had a chance. Though Clark became Premier in 2011, she only took power after her predecessor became the least popular politician in Canada in over four decades.

In bringing in the Harmonized Sales Tax despite promises to the contrary, former BC Premier Gordon Campbell not only caused his approval numbers to drop to the almost unheard of level of 9% which forced his own resignation, but he galvanized thousands of BCers to mobilize to draft the province's largest citizens' initiative. And with over 700,000 signatures an unprecedented petition successfully forced a referendum on the tax and its eventual repeal.

On top of all of that the BC Liberals have been in power since 2001, it was abundantly clear that they were doomed to lose in 2013, not just to 17 of the party's MLAs who chose not to run again. The suggestion that Christy Clark could have turned her Party's fortunes around is a superficial one that ignores the tremendous and historic amount of public disapproval with her party that existed prior to Clark taking office.

Her predecessor was the least popular politician in all of Canada for the last forty years, the BC Liberal brand had been fatally tarnished, and Gordon Campbell had organized and coalesced the party's own opposition by motivating hundreds of thousands of British Columbians to rally against it.

Like those women before her who were chosen to lead failing parties, Christy Clark didn't stand a chance. And unfortunately for Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne, Clark won't be the last.

Canadian politics may appear to have gender equality, but the thing about appearances is that they fade, inequalities don't.

Boston & Why Women Are Police Officers

2013-04-22T01:30:00.000-07:00

Women are too soft and fragile to be police officers. With their hair and makeup they certainly can't fight in military combat. Nothing showed those sentiments to be more unfounded than the iconic picture of the chaos that erupted after the detonation of two bombs at the Boston Marathon, where it is a female officer with gun drawn already in mid-sprint who embodies everything a police officer should be.

Just seconds after explosives ripped through that Sunday, without knowing if there would be more bombs and more killing, police scrambled through crowds to face this unknown threat and to safeguard their people, the people of Boston. Every cop did his and her badge proud that day, and they did so regardless of gender.

Arguments against women serving in dangerous situations always involve questions of toughness and of instincts, the female officer in the above picture exemplified both, and exhibited an unparalleled courage in response to an unknown and deadly enemy.

But history and innumerable examples of women proving they can be cops and soldiers has not seemed to have done much. It was just this January that the US Armed Forces finally began to allow women to serve in combat (though they have been for years unofficially) and police forces, most notably the Royal Canadian Mounted Police still face many complaints of bullying female members.

And it is unlikely that this picture of a courageous female police officer in action will do much to change still stagnant social attitudes. But considering an unknown enemy didn't even make this woman cop so much as hesitate, certainly a known enemy for all women like sexual discrimination will eventually be shown to have never stood a chance.

The Undemocratic Elected Senate & The Democratic Appointed One

2013-04-20T22:18:00.001-07:00

90% of Americans support universal background checks for guns yet on Wednesday the American Senate struck down that legislation. That's not very democratic, is it?

Those in Canada who fervently cling to the idea that voting will make our Senate democratic almost completely ignore the problems that come with it, such as the lobbyists and interest groups, like the National Rifle Association, that frequently override public opinion.

Contrasted with the American example, it is the Canadian appointed Senate that actually represents its citizens, because in not being elected the Senate recognizes the public does not empower it to drastically change or defeat bills from the House of Commons.

And when the Senate does, in the rare times, reject bills from the elected house, it is to protect the interests of minorities and Canada's regions, as it did in 1991 where it defeated a bill to re-criminalize abortion.

Considering the American Senate appears democratic but acts undemocratic; it's exact opposite, the Canadian Senate, isn't so bad.

Another Thing Trudeau & Layton Have In Common

2013-04-18T22:16:00.001-07:00

Justin Trudeau and the late Jack Layton have quite a few similarities, underestimation by Conservatives is yet another.

It wasn't too long ago a certain inexperienced federal politician became leader of a third place political party. Though the son of a prominent politician¹, in his early life he had not been immediately drawn to federal politics and instead chose a career of teaching. But with time this idealist realized that Canada deserved better than the "conservatives" in power and ran for his party's leadership.² He easily won it by a large margin on the first ballot... in 2003. This man of course was Jack Layton.

Following his victory, Layton went on to lead the New Democrats to ever-increasing electoral gains. Many of which were at the expense of the Conservative Party.

Prior to becoming leader though Layton had no federal experience, he had ran twice to be a member of parliament in the past but had lost every time. In fact it took more than a year after heading the NDP for him to finally walk into the House of Commons for the first time in 2004.

Justin Trudeau on the other hand has been in Parliament since 2008 having won on his first campaign, in an extremely Liberal-unfriendly riding and in an election that the Liberals had suffered one of their worst defeats. He has gone on to win that same riding again even while his party experienced an odds-defying even worse defeat.

Of course the Conservatives can claim Justin Trudeau lacks experience, but he has more now than Jack Layton did when he became Leader. And Jack Layton went on to defeat the Conservatives in ridings across Canada.

But perhaps that's the reason why the Conservatives have so much experience, when they erroneously underestimate one leader, it doesn't stop them from mistakenly underestimating another.

^{1. [Robert Layton was a Progressive Conservative cabinet minister under Brian Mulroney]↩}
^{2. [Jack Layton often called the Liberals in government at the time, "Conservatives".]↩}

Liberals Forget How Wrong They Were On Attack Ads

2013-04-17T23:03:00.001-07:00

If one was to judge Liberals by their memory, they deserve to lose.

There is no clearer example of Liberals forgetting the past then how they are now responding to the current Conservative attack ads against Justin Trudeau.

In 2009 the Conservatives ran attack ads against Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Liberals said the aggressive ads wouldn't hurt Ignatieff's popularity, in fact many claimed the ads would backfire. Liberals then arrogantly boasted how the commercials were helping them rake in the cash, calling the ads, "Manna from heaven." Turned out those Liberals were horribly wrong.

In 2013 the Conservatives have begun running attack ads against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Many of the same Liberals from 2009 are saying the ads won't hurt Trudeau's popularity and of course that the ads will backfire. Oh, and again, just like they did in 2009, Liberals are now boasting how the Conservative attack ads are only helping the party bring in outrageous piles of cash.

These similarities between Liberals in 2009 and Liberals in 2013 are not exhaustive, one mustn't forget the almighty common denominator of arrogance. Arrogance that each new leader is not just invulnerable to negative ads, but that they only make him stronger.

When the Conservatives in 2009 began airing attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, the then national director of the Liberal Party Rocco Rossi cheered, and not ironically. From a 2009 Toronto Star article:

"Rocco Rossi calls the attack ads "manna from heaven," and says they've sparked a rush in donations to the Liberal party from supporters outraged at the Conservative tactics.

It seems the Conservatives, whom Ignatieff has credited with helping unite the Liberals by precipitating last fall's parliamentary showdown, are now helping fill the coffers too.

"They have this innate ability at every turn to help the Liberal party. This is one of their best favours yet," Rossi said in an interview yesterday....

The response so far is exceeding expectations, Rossi said.

"We're already showing greater response than any email solicitation that we've done to date. I'm very excited." The party dramatically boosted its donations in the first quarter of 2009 compared with the same time last year, and is on track to do "significantly" better in the second quarter, he said.

Looking back at the national director of the Liberal Party's comments and the absolute damage those attacks did to Ignatieff, it's clear Rossi was wrong. But even with the clarity of hindsight, many Liberals today are failing to learn from history.

Compare Rossi's reaction to the Conservative ads in 2009 and this Liberal blogger's response to the Conservative ads attacking Trudeau:

"Conservative Ad Backfires:...I submit this overwhelming response as proof positive this Conservative ad is blowing up in their low rent face:

(Quoting Winnipeg Free Press) 'Conservative attack ads against Justin Trudeau have turned into a financial boon for the Liberal party. The party raised $336,000 in the 48 hours following Trudeau's landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race Sunday.

Officials say that's more than double the party's previous top haul for an e-mail fundraising campaign. They say the donations poured in after two back-to-back mass email solicitations that urged Liberals to fight back against Conservative attacks.'

Just as in 2009 when Liberals boasted arrogantly that attack ads wouldn't weaken their leader and actually argued they would help him, Liberals today are doing the exact same thing.

Using the same tired selective data, Liberal members are once again rationalizing their inherent bias and claiming their new leader can withstand a barrage of attack ads, forgetting the fact they said the same thing about Michael Ignatieff. (Compare opinions of two Liberal bloggers then and now: Far And Wide 2009 & 2013; BCer in Toronto 2009 & 2013)

Of course Justin Trudeau can avoid a fate similar to his unsuccessful predecessors but then he would have to respond to the Conservatives with corresponding aggressive advertisements, and soon.

That could happen; it would certainly stop the Liberals from repeating history, and just possibly start helping them to make it.

Liberals' Attack Ad Against Trudeau

2013-04-15T22:50:00.001-07:00

The worst attack ad imaginable for Justin Trudeau is one showing how similar he is to previous unsuccessful Liberal Leaders Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. The Conservatives may not stoop that low, but it appears Liberals will.

Because just as his predecessors never responded soon enough to stop the Conservatives from defining them, Justin Trudeau appears to be doing the exact same thing.

Though the new and quickly released Conservative attack ad against Justin is weak, the live-action one the Liberals are making by having him act just like Dion and Ignatieff and not fight back is pretty damn strong.

In 2007, his first year as Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion wanted to admirably stay positive. When faced with a barrage of negative commercials labeling him "Not a leader", Dion confidently claimed the ads were so misleading they would backfire. They didn't.

After Stephane Dion's defeat, the new Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff boisterously said that he had learned from the Liberal Party's past mistakes and promised that he would combat any attack ads. Yet when Conservatives first began to malign the Harvard academic, claiming he was "Just visiting", Ignatieff waved it off as an American-style attack; saying Canadians wouldn't fall for it. They did.

Years after Michael Ignatieff's loss, Justin Trudeau appears to be following both of his unsuccessful predecessors. For just as Dion promised to stay positive, so has Trudeau. And just as Ignatieff promised to counter the attack ads but then only laughed them off, it appears Trudeau is doing the exact same thing.

For after a new and quickly released attack ad against Justin Trudeau, claiming he's "In over his head," Trudeau sent out an email yesterday oddly similar to one the Liberal Party sent out in 2009. In it Trudeau called the Conservatives "childish" and, in response to the attack ads, asked for donations.

It is possible that like in 2009 those donations, with Trudeau's almost $2 million in campaign funds, won't be used till the next election in 2015, and if so the Liberals will have once again forfeited the much more important opportunity of defining a new Liberal Leader.

With the attacks beginning Liberals can criticize the Conservatives, but it's not the Conservatives they should worry about. A bigger threat is their own party making the same mistakes over and over again and each time acting like it's different.

Trudeau doing the same thing as Dion and Ignatieff is the worst attack ad, and if it happens, it will without a doubt be the most devastating.

For Liberals, Family Matters

2013-04-14T21:54:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are supposed to be the party of family values, yet yesterday Liberals showed just how important family really is.

It was Justin Trudeau, the son of a former Prime Minister who was elected Liberal Leader in a contest that saw the largest turnout ever for electing a party leader in Canadian history.

But in the face of criticism that Justin Trudeau became Liberal Leader because of his family name, one has to ask whether that is so bad. Especially considering most of the world is led by leaders who were made familiar to their citizens through family.

From Shinzo Abe in Japan, Sonia Ghandi in India, Christina Fernandez de Kirchener in Argentina to soon-to-be Hillary Clinton in America, leaders with prior family connections are rightly popular. Not to mention a certain woman illustrated on our twenty dollar bill.

The fact that Liberals and Canadians, as polling so strongly shows, support someone because of their family relations is not something to criticize, it is to be honoured. It is a response of a people distant from their political process who want someone they feel close to, someone they know, and someone they can relate to.

In a world of globalization, materialistic consumerism, and increasing individualism, the idea that people still want familiarity with their leaders is a good thing. It would be quite the clockwork democracy if the focus of choosing our representatives rested solely on impersonal resumes as if vision, heart, and ability to lead didn't matter.

And if experience was the only thing that mattered, Jack Layton would never have become NDP Leader. Before he was elected to lead the party in 2003 Jack, himself the son of a former cabinet minister, had never been an MP and had absolutely zero experience in the federal government. But that certainly didn't stop him from eventually winning a seat in 2004, leading the New Democrats to historic victories, and being a fundamental inspiration to his party.

And while Justin Trudeau could be chastised for his lack of experience, with five years as an MP and repeatedly winning an incredibly Liberal unfriendly riding, he has far more experience than the late NDP Leader did.

People may criticize Justin Trudeau's lack of a resume, that he won because of a name, or because of his father, but as the world is getting more cold, more distant, and more individualistic, you have to wonder whether Canadians rallying around someone because of family is really such a bad thing.

Most Canadians knew his father, and for five years as a Member of Parliament they've gotten to know him. With two years till the next federal election, we will all become even more familiar with Justin Trudeau. And as Canadians come together they will only further strengthen the idea that family matters.

Congratulations to Justin Trudeau.

Gay Sex is Illegal in Canada

2013-04-11T21:02:00.001-07:00

In Canada it is legal for a 17 year-old and a 19 year-old to have sex, as long as they're not gay.

This weekend at their policy convention the New Democratic Party have a chance to change that, or at least their party has an opportunity to dedicate themselves to right a wrong; to repeal section 159 of the criminal code that makes anal sex a crime if one or both partners are under the age of 18 years old.

Considering vaginal intercourse is legal for all youths who are within two years of each other (ex. 12 & 14) and is legal for 14 year year-olds with partners who are up to 18 year sold, it is blatantly discriminatory for s.159 to at the same time criminalize anal intercourse for those very same ages. It should be easily admitted that being a gay youth is difficult enough without having sex being made a crime.

The NDP should be applauded for standing up for gay rights. Well, that's if they choose to stand up.

CBC's Kady O'Malley reports that, as it turns out, it's looking like the NDP won't adopt a policy promising to repeal s.159; it appears that the NDP won't even allow it to be debated.

It will be a shame if the NDP won't promise to give gay youths the same equality as straight ones. And if they don't, if they don't even debate it, the New Democrats won't only be showing they believe sex between young gay men should stay illegal but that screwing equality is one policy the NDP can get behind.

We're All Dishonouring Rehtaeh Parsons

2013-04-10T23:55:00.000-07:00

We're all dishonouring Rehtaeh Parsons by being worse people for her passing.

If the suicide of a 17 year-old isn't bad enough, our neglect of its causes certainly is.

Instead of trying to figure out how to make sure troubled young people get the help they need and don't end their lives prematurely, Canadians are instead focused completely on vengeance. But vengeance has never stopped a young girl from committing suicide, and it's Rehtaeh's suicide that is the real tragedy.

Our simple instinctual preference to focus on Rehtaeh's rape is the easy way out. It allows us to justify our basic instincts that demand retribution while allowing us to avoid having to solve the more complex problems that made this victim feel helpless and abandoned which directly caused her to take her own life.

Rehtaeh's rape was a horrible crime, but it did not take her life away. For eighteen months after being sexually assaulted, for a year and a half we all failed her. Government services were lacking, community support was non-existent, and those close to her did not see the warning signs.

Solely focusing on her rape is the action of a lazy and irrational society that not only doesn't want to admit it didn't help a young girl who needed it, but is also a clear demonstration that it doesn't have the will to prevent it from happening again.

Those outraged over the rape of Rehtaeh Parsons are acting out the most natural way. They're foaming at the mouth over rape because rape is easy to get mad at, it's easy to feel like we're doing something when we shout for rapists to be strung up.

The emotional repulsion we all have for rape allows us to justify our more basic instincts of wanting retribution. Our focusing on rape allows us to concentrate our rage on people who aren't us, allowing us off scot-free for failing her.

The criminal investigation into Rehtaeh's rape should be reviewed, but the real tragedy is the society that for eighteen months didn't provide the help a young victim needed. Our continued blind pursuit of vengeance and our ignoring the more pressing and complex problem of preventing other young girls from committing suicide is only making sure the tragedies won't end.

That is the most dishonourable thing we could do.

More Democracy Isn't A Good Thing

2013-04-09T23:17:00.001-07:00

Democracy was never meant to provide the best outcome, it's only purpose is to resolve conflict between opposing views. Recent calls for more democracy for the Senate and on pipelines shouldn't be applauded, after all, it only means there's more conflict that can't be resolved any better way.

The fact that in our society there is an unwillingness to compromise, increased polarization, and above all greater general disagreement, the increasing necessity of relying on more democracy to resolve conflict is not something to be especially proud of.

In 1868 John A. Macdonald stated a parallel view in response to criticism of the Quebec legislature by a Reverend John Cook. Macdonald wrote, "the question is not whether your Local Parliament is of much use, as it is whether it will not serve as a safety valve and relieve us from the conflict of the races."*

Just as it was in Quebec so it is in every conflict, voting is used as the last resort to resolve a disagreement. Relying on voting because of the inability for early French and English politicians to compromise or reason with each other was not the best solution, however considering the differences involved between the two parties the mutual agreement to abide by democratic outcomes was and still is a notable achievement.

Yet whereas voting was once used to settle differences in opinion between very different groups on very few issues, western society is becoming more reliant on democracy to resolve conflict and less reliant on compromise, reason, and expert opinion.

Even the ability of elected representatives to choose which policy they think is best is being subordinated on more and more decisions to the popular whim of their electorate, making them less of an elected official and more of a mere aggregate of polling.

This shift is either the result of an enlarging public sphere, where the increased awareness of more issues has allowed for more conflict, or a consequence of a society whose denizens are becoming less able to resolve conflict by any other way but voting.

Considering how polarized politics in western societies has become it appears to be more of the latter, that people are becoming less able to reason with each other and instead must depend on democracy to do their work for them.

If this is the case, that people are only calling for more democracy because they can't resolve conflict any other way, then the need for more democracy isn't a good thing.

* Gwyn, Richard. Nation Maker, John A. Macdonald: His Life Our Times

The People Who Deserve To Lose Liberal Leadership

2013-04-09T01:21:00.000-07:00

In the election of the next Liberal Leader, Joyce Murray and Martha Hall Findlay don't deserve to lose, but most of their supporters do.

Like those who supported Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff in their leadership bids, Liberals who are supporting any other candidate besides Justin Trudeau for Leader are making a grave mistake, and that's failing to recognize popularity trumps policy every time.

It is the academics, the politicos, and the policy wonks that criticize Trudeau's lack of policy who deserve to lose. They are the ones who are so out of touch with ordinary, mostly apathetic Canadians that they think policies like ending supply management or electoral co-operation will magically get out the vote. Under our current electoral system this is a losing proposition.

Some may mourn or complain about how sad it is that celebrity should be priority in selecting a political leader, but they couldn't be more wrong. In fact it is the best situation to be able to elect an overwhelming popular candidate to lead, because that is what Canadians want.

Until that changes, until Canadians don't vote for name recognition, mere tradition, or a pretty face, it's great that we will have a celebrity leader. The only thing that should be admonished is those people who are so out of touch with Canadians that they don't recognize the reality of that benefit.

And it is those people who don't understand how democracy works that deserve to lose.

At least in losing these supporters will see that the problem isn't Trudeau's lack of policy, it is that democracy prefers it. And just maybe that will motivate these academics, politicos, and policy wonks to make a policy popular enough to change that.

Liberals Have Helped Gun Owners The Most

2013-04-07T23:05:00.001-07:00

Until 1985 it was a criminal offence under the Lord's Day Act to fire a gun on a Sunday. Pierre Elliot Trudeau changed that, not with a bang, but with a signature on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conservatives can take pride that they helped stamp out the waste of money that was the repressive gun registry (though scrapping it only wasted more public funds), but gun owners should remember that it was Trudeau's Liberal government that had perhaps the largest impact on easing restrictions on the use of firearms.

In 1906 the Canadian Parliament passed the Lord's Day Act, it was legislation designed to keep Sunday holy by prohibiting certain actions, such as stores being open and the shooting of guns.* This law was in effect and enforced until 1985 when the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down in R v Big M Drug Mart for infringing on the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion. Something the highest court could never have done if it wasn't for the Charter.

Of course since gun owners are more likely to vote Conservative, they won't be too persuaded to believe that Trudeau helped them more than Stephen Harper. But the fact is, Harper, in axing a registry, is nothing compared to Trudeau who was ultimately responsible for repealing the ban on firing a gun on 52 days of the year.**

* From the Supreme Court's description of The Lord's Day Act:

Section 5 provides that any worker, required to work by an employer operating on Sunday in conformity with the Act, be given a substitute day of rest; s. 6 prohibits any games or performances where an admission fee is charged; s. 7 prohibits any transportation operated for pleasure where a fee is charged; s. 8 prohibits any advertisement of anything prohibited by the Act; s. 9 prohibits any shooting of firearms; s. 10 prohibits any sale or distribution of a foreign newspaper.

**Though a few provincial governments have since independently restricted hunting on Sundays, carefully citing the need for animal preservation and not for religious purposes

Senate Saved Abortion & Now NDP Wants To Abolish It

2013-04-04T20:19:00.001-07:00

How much would you pay to protect a woman's right to her own body? If you're a New Democrat, the answer is not much, actually, it's nothing at all.

The New Democratic Party supports abolishing the Canadian Senate, arguing it's a waste of money. It's an odd position to take considering if it wasn't for the appointed Upper Chamber, abortion today would be against the law.

Two years after the Supreme Court struck down Canada's restrictive abortion law in 1988, the House of Commons attempted to replace it with Bill C-43, an act to re-criminalize abortion.

Bill C-43 would have drastically restricted the medical procedure, permitting abortion only in cases when a woman's life is in danger. According to the Library of Parliament:

"If Bill C-43 had been approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate, it would have been a criminal offence to induce an abortion on a woman unless it was done by, or under the direction of, a physician who considered that the woman's life or health was otherwise likely to be threatened. "Health" was defined as including physical, mental and psychological health."

Though it was contentious legislation, various attempts to amend it failed, in May 1990 with a vote of 140 to 131, Bill C-43 passed the House of Commons. For it to become law and make abortion severely restricted all that was needed was for the Senate to approve it. It didn't.

The Red Chamber took a rare stand against the popularly elected Lower House and saved a woman's right to choose. To thank the Senate for doing something no one else would, the NDP has cheerily chosen to abolish it.

Every NDP argument for the abolishment of the Senate comes down to it being too costly. That though our government has cut the GST by 2%, which itself cost Canada $15 billion in lost annual revenue and millions in accumulating interest on debt, somehow the $90 million the Senate costs is too much.

Apparently for the NDP, just 0.6% of the cost to reduce the GST is too much money for it to pay for an institution that, among other things, is solely responsible for protecting a woman's right to choose.

The NDP can argue that the Senate saving women's rights was over 20 years ago and that it hasn't been useful since. But besides how starkly unappreciative New Democrats appear to be, legislation seeking to restrict women's rights, or any rights, needs to be reviewed by a second chamber of government. The case of Bill C-43 proves Canada needs a body that serves in the interests of all Canadians and is not subject to populist whim.

New Democrats can argue that the Senate is too costly, but protecting women's rights, not to mention minority rights and regional representation, shouldn't have a price tag.

Trudeau, Soldiers With Guns, and Ironic Pride

2013-04-03T19:39:00.002-07:00

In 2006 the Liberal Party was ashamed for accusing Stephen Harper of wanting to put armed soldiers on every street; yet somehow in 2013 Liberals are proud that their next Leader fondly recalls how his father actually did put armed soldiers on every street.

Two weeks ago Justin Trudeau was asked whether he could really defeat Stephen Harper, his response was, "Just watch me."

The phrase was of course first his father's. Pierre Elliot Trudeau had made the remark in answering a question of how far he'd go in reducing civil liberties during the October Crisis of 1970.

The problem with Justin Trudeau making such a quotation is that it references one of the most controversial decisions ever made by a Prime Minister. With two Quebec cabinet ministers kidnapped, Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted the Wartime Measures Act, the one and only instance the drastic emergency legislation has ever been imposed in peace time.

Not only were armed soldiers patrolling the streets, but police were given vast powers including the ability to ban political literature and lock up Canadians without laying any charges.

The irony of Justin Trudeau referencing the only time a Prime Minister has ever put armed soldiers on the street is made painfully clear when one recalls that it was just in 2006 the Liberal Party ran an infamous ad (See below) that alleged Stephen Harper was about to do the exact same thing.

Seven years ago, it was thought, to justify the sensationalistic Liberal attack ad against Harper and his supposed police state, the Grits had accepted, with important hindsight, that the senior Trudeau shouldn't have taken the extreme measure of rolling out the army in regards to a simple police matter.

Yet if that was true, it is more than baffling why any Liberal would be proud of Justin Trudeau's note that paid homage to his father's worst mistake.

Or if it wasn't, and some rare Liberals think locking up over 400 artists, union members, and civic leaders for days without charges was a good decision and that armed soldiers needed to be patrolling towns (though the RCMP would, and did, disagree) then the 2006 ad about Harper was never meant to be an attack, but a compliment, meant to show how Stephen was like Pierre. But of course it wasn't a compliment. The Liberal Party believed such a drastic measure was wrong, they were right to do so even if their messaging was an incredible blunder.

There is no denying that Pierre Elliot Trudeau was one of this country's greatest Prime Ministers, but he did make mistakes. His son would be wise to learn from them, not take pride in them.

Canada's Supreme Court Wants To Restrict Abortions

2013-04-02T20:27:00.000-07:00

One sign that a country is in trouble is when the top court's opinion is deemed controversial.

Canada doesn't have to worry about that, not because its Supreme Court is so respected, but because of how little Canadians know about its rulings, in particular that our highest court believes abortion should be restricted.

It was only a few months ago when many MPs, of all stripes, attacked Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's motion that sought to study when life begins, either pretending or genuinely not knowing their nation's Supreme Court had asked for the government to do the very same thing 25 years earlier.

It was the 1988 Supreme Court case of R v Morgentaler that made abortion legal and freely available to every woman in the country. However most Canadians, including many reporters, politicians, and interest groups who sensationalized Woodworth's motion, apparently didn't know that the court also called for abortion to be restricted in the later stages of pregnancy. The court also stipulated that Parliament should study and draft legislation on when life begins.

From the Supreme Court ruling:

"Accordingly, the foetus should be viewed in differential and developmental terms. This view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman's autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the states's interest in protecting the foetus would justify its prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes "compelling" should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines."

Now of course there's more than one sign a nation is in trouble, popular disagreement with it's Supreme Court is one, and certainly incredible ignorance of the law is another, but perhaps the most distressing is a third, and that's the sign of increasing public polarization.

For years the abortion debate has become defined around either being pro-choice or pro-life, but such a dichotomy wrongfully frames the issue. Canada's highest court pointed this out over two decades ago:

"Both traditional approaches to abortion, the so‑called "liberal" and "conservative" approaches, fail to take account of the essentially developmental nature of the gestation process. A developmental view of the foetus, on the other hand, supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages."

Despite the court's decision however polarization on the issue is only getting worse; being right is becoming increasingly seen as being either liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life. If only Canadians stopped ignoring the Supreme Court they would find the only thing controversial is not the judges' opinions, but their own.

The Need of a Canadian National Monument

2013-04-01T21:24:00.001-07:00

Canada has no real national monuments.

Mostly it's because of the irony; towering statues and obelisks that promote pride in Canadian humbleness or simplicity would tend to miss the point. But that problem assumes Canadians would look upon a 100ft copper maple leaf with arrogance and not their common reverence for the natural world around them.

Some may say we don't need any large showy structures, that national monuments are grandiose and idealistic. However there's nothing more idealistic than believing Canadians are so above human nature that they have no need for symbols to inspire them.

We are known for being pragmatic and humble, but those traits should not stop us from lifting them up in stone or steel to remind us of what we aspire to be. We have never let us being humble stop us from doing great things and we certainly shouldn't let it now.

Our lack of arrogance did not stop us from building the longest railway in the world at the time of our nation's founding. Our modest patriotism did not stop us from contributing disproportionately more to two world wars and the peace operations since. And our reserved pride has not lessened our willingness to help those most disadvantaged in our society.

One could argue that the greatest national monument is a citizenry who doesn't need one. But such a thought presumes we are a people above icons, above the simple nature every human shares that requires something real to inspire us to pursue something ideal.

Considering Canada currently has a Conservative government that will apparently leave little or no lasting legacy, that the economy is in need of stimulus spending, and that the 150th anniversary of Confederation is fast approaching, there really is no better time to build a monument for this nation.

A national monument, not to make us more patriotic, but to remind us, and to inspire us, to be better Canadians.

A Toast For Canada

2013-03-25T21:18:00.000-07:00

After the Quebec Conference, at a gala dinner hosted by George-Etienne Cartier, Canada's Fathers of Confederation held a toast; it was offered as encouragement to face the difficulties still before them in forming a nation, but the verse stands today as encouragement for us to face the difficulties in now strengthening it.

Then let us be firm and united
One country, one flag for us all;
United, our strength will be freedom
Divided, we each of us fall.*

*From Richard Gwyn's John A: The Man Who Made Us

Atheist For Christmas, Christian For St.Paddy's

2013-03-17T16:24:00.001-07:00

Most atheists are as irrational as those who believe in religion. And perhaps even more hypocritical.

There's no greater example of this than those vocal opponents of religion who criticize Christmas but in just a few months time celebrate St.Patrick's Day and other religious holidays with unrivaled enthusiasm.

St.Patrick's Day is of course associated with celebrating the Irish, but it was created and is still renowned as a day to remember Saint Patrick and the introduction of Christianity to Ireland.

The very same snarky atheists who attack Christmas but partake in St.Paddy's Day, could argue that the latter is different; that it is clear by its imagery like the iconic clover that this day is more distinct from religion. However despite the fact that the clover is the very symbol Saint Patrick used to explain the holy trinity, thus linking it to his day, the idea that a fat man in a red suit, a pagan tree, and rampant commercialism are indelibly more religious conveys a significant lack of understanding of Christianity.

If anything St.Patrick's Day, even in all of its green beer glory, is more Christian than the commercialized holiday Christmas has become; yet oddly it the day whose festivities atheists not only repress their cynicism for but gladly participate it.

But maybe what explains this apparent hypocrisy of some atheists is that they don't actually oppose religion, just parts of it. That because Christmas, in a more fanatical interpretation, purely represents Jesus and a supreme deity, it is the holiday atheists must mobilize against; while the religiousness of St.Patrick's Day can be overlooked because it is a more social celebration.

However in tolerating one because of its benefits to society perhaps critical atheists can learn to tolerate the other without their annual vocal opprobrium. That maybe they can recognize that saying "Merry Christmas" is intended to be just as jovial as saying "Happy St.Paddy's Day".

Of course the snarkiest of the snarky atheists will disagree with me, and I will let them. But as they enjoy today's festivities, I will lift a mug of green beer and wish them a Happy Saint Patrick's Day, with only the slightest bit of Irish irony.

Liberals Should Blame Trudeau For Few Supporters

2013-03-12T22:17:00.000-07:00

If Justin Trudeau was more concerned about winning the Liberal leadership than winning the next election, not only would his party have more registered supporters, but 2015 would almost certainly look more rouge.

It may seem counter-intuitive to blame the ever-popular Justin Trudeau for the Liberal Party's lower than expected supporter registration numbers, after all his campaign was so successful in signing them up, but in resting on his laurels and saving funds for the next election, Trudeau is exactly the person to blame.

The current problem for the Liberals is that of the almost 300,000 Canadians who signed up to vote in their leadership contest, not even 90,000 are currently eligible. Though a slim share of the responsibility falls on the party's overly bureaucratic method of registering supporters, most of the failure to register those who had signed up falls on Trudeau's shoulders.

Of the current 8 contenders to lead the third place party, Justin Trudeau is by far the most popular. He has raised close to if not more than a million dollars in his bid to be leader (More than double his closest competitor), he has signed up over 150,000 supporters (More than half of the total), and he has the largest volunteer organization. With such vast campaign resources, rivaling his own party's, it is stupefying that he and his team did not expend even a fraction of funds to ensure more supporters registered.

But it is not hard to see why.

Elections Canada mandates that upon the resolution of a leadership campaign, "Surplus funds have to be transferred to the registered party holding the leadership contest." There is little doubt that Justin's justification for conserving campaign finances is based on the perceived certainty of him becoming leader and thus the necessity to have a war chest ready on Day 1. However in focusing on 2015, he not only undermines the present condition of the Liberal Party, but undermines his own electoral future.

If Justin Trudeau and his organizers had spent just a portion of their overwhelming resources on outreach, merely collecting the low hanging fruit of self-identified and interested supporters than not only would the Liberals have avoided this embarrassment, but there would be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more politically engaged Canadians connected to the party. Such a benefit today would have paid dividends in 2015, with interest.

Though Justin Trudeau will still more than likely be elected Liberal Leader, and in the next election run a great campaign, it would have been far better, for him and the party, if he hadn't done it at the expense of this one.

How A Bad Economy Is Not Harper's Fault

2013-03-10T01:21:00.005-08:00

Canada's economy is set to grow less than the government thought, but it's not our Prime Minister's fault.

True under Stephen Harper the World Bank has downgraded Canada from being the 4th most Business Friendly country in 2006 to 17th in 2013, but, as most Conservatives know, businesses have nothing to do with the Canadian economy.

Yes, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister when the World Economic Forum said Canada is becoming less competitive, dropping in global ranking from 9th place in 2009 to 14th place in 2013, but our government can't be responsible for federal regulations, oversight, and improving education and job training.

While it's admitted that Stephen Harper is spending 20% less on Research and Development than the OECD average, evidence of any correlation between innovation and the economy, though strong, is overrated.

And sure with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister the government has spent more than any other has and crowded out private investment, but government interference cannot be blamed for a weaker Canadian economy, because, as Conservatives know, that only makes it stronger.

So yes the Canadian economy is doing worse than this Conservative government thought, but clearly, this is due to factors outside of their control.

Why Justin Trudeau Shouldn't Lead The Liberals

2013-03-07T21:46:00.001-08:00

For the very same reason why so many Liberals want him to win, Justin Trudeau shouldn't become Liberal Leader.

If 150,000 people only supported Justin Trudeau because of substance then there would be no argument against the 41 year-old MP for Papineau. A Trudeau only made popular by policy would present little risk in selecting him for leader. After all, the Liberal Party could survive, even if just barely, another loss from a leader who only represented the party's policies. However policies aren't why Justin Trudeau has so many supporters, and policies aren't why he is a risk to the Liberal Party.

But while Justin Trudeau may not be a candidate of substance, he is certainly not a candidate of image. Despite his opponents' criticism, Justin Trudeau's incredible support is not based on celebrity alone; Marc Garneau could run television ads around the clock and never come close to reaching Trudeau's popularity. The success of his candidacy derives from an intimate, intrinsic, and inherent bond to the Liberal Party, and to Canada. And though that is why he is the best candidate, it is also why he could possibly be the worst.

Justin Trudeau represents the Liberal Party's greatest connection to Canada, a loss by him would severe the two completely. Because he is so closely associated to the Liberal Party, an electoral defeat with Trudeau as leader, furthering a series of devastating defeats and losing even more seats, would undoubtedly end the organization.

Justin Trudeau shouldn't lead the Liberals because the party would be facing nonexistence if he lost.

But that is also why he should lead. A political party that isn't willing to face risk for its beliefs doesn't deserve to exist. Whether this enters the minds of those who vote for the next Liberal Leader or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the Liberal Party is not the most important thing, Liberal values are. And Justin Trudeau is the best candidate they've got.

Dehumanizing Humanity

2013-03-06T21:31:00.001-08:00

The more we call a murderer an animal or treat a hero like a god, we not only dehumanize them, we dehumanize ourselves.

What differentiates us from animals is our higher consciousness, treating any other person like a wild animal to be put down or a deity to be worshiped strips them of their humanity. In failing to be conscious of the fact that a criminal or a celebrity is just like us, we forfeit, at least to a degree, our claim that we are beings of higher understanding, or even of simple cognition.

Instead of seeing violent criminals as people who do wrong and heroes as people who do good, we simplify them into symbols. Rendering them into stereotypes to satisfy our more base instincts and allowing us to avoid reflection. No longer do we see them like us, no longer do we see our risk in becoming a desperate crook or our possibility in becoming someone noble enough to right a grave wrong. Instead of seeing people like us becoming convicts or celebrities, we see animals in prison and idols on pedestals.

When we take the humanity away from criminals we take away the possibility of humans to do evil. When we take the humanity away from heroes we take away the possibility of humans to do good. And in the end all that humanity is left describing is a bunch of animals.