The Scott Ross

We Should All Be Able To Cross The Floor

2015-02-09T13:31:00.001-08:00

Instead of bashing politicians who cross the floor, we should instead be more like them.

It's more likely than not to be a good thing that people change political parties. First it shows our competing ideologies are similarly moderate and not extreme; second it shows that we aren't as polarized and as dysfunctional as other countries are; and thirdly it proves we balance principles with pragmatism.

Of course changing parties can be done for selfish reasons, but so can any good deed. I want a moderate political system where compromises are made for the good of everyone. If selfish people help achieve that, I'll be selfish too and applaud it.

Our First Canada Day

2014-07-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

Our country was going to be called "Kingdom of Canada" instead of Dominion, but the British, fearing it would provoke the Americans, unilaterally changed it.

The greatest thing we can do to celebrate our country is to know more about it. And certainly learning about Canada and celebrating it need not be separate; below are a few quotes made on our first Canada Day July 1st 1867:

"Died! Last night at twelve o'clock, the free and enlightened Province of Nova Scotia."- The Halifax Morning Chronicle, a newspaper that thought confederation would hurt Nova Scotia.

"With the first dawn of this gladsome midsummer morn, we hail the birthday of a new nationality."- George Brown, a father of confederation

"This new Dominion of ours came into existence on the 1st, and the very newspapers look hot and tired with the weight of announcements and of cabinet lists. Here--in this house--the atmosphere is so awfully political that sometimes I think the very flies hold Parliament on the kitchen tablecloths."- From the diary of Lady Agnes Macdonald, the wife of our first Prime Minister.

"La seule voie nous soit offerte pour arriver à l'independance politique."- La Minerve, a newspaper in Quebec on the province being a part of a new Canada. (Rough translation: "The only way offered to us to achieve political independence.")

And lastly a favourite quote of George-Étienne Cartier, another father of confederation, made a few years before our first Canada Day:

"Now, when we are united together, if union is attained, we shall form a political nationality with which neither the national origin, nor the religion of any individual, will interfere.... In our own Federation we will have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success will increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy....We are of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare."

This material was from Richard Gwyn's excellent book, John A, The Man Who Made Us.

Wikipedia's Entry On Momentum

2014-06-30T22:20:00.000-07:00

Political momentum is nothing like the momentum of physics. In the world of Newton and Einstein appearances don't cause forces, whereas in politics, appearances are forces.

Stephen Harper became Leader of the Conservative Party in 2003, he faced two subsequent general elections before finally winning a minority government in 2006. Up until 2011 his Conservative Party only increased the number of seats it held in Parliament; since then however, the Conservative Party has only seen its numbers decline.

Thomas Mulcair became Leader of the NDP in 2012, under his guidance the New Democrats have faced numerous by-elections and instead of growing, the party's number of MPs is shrinking.

Justin Trudeau became Leader of the Liberal Party in 2013, he too has led his party through various by-elections, and unlike all the other major parties, under his leadership his party has only grown. And yesterday the Liberals not only gained another MP, but they increased their vote percentage in all four electoral battles.

Victories in elections establish the appearances of strong leaders and viable parties, and voters cast ballots based on those perceptions. Stephen Harper's continued electoral wins made Canadians see him as a strong and his losing opponents as weak.

Of course all the success at a few polls doesn't guarantee an impending Liberal government, but it doesn't have to. It only only has to appear that way.

Senate Saves Canada... Again

2014-04-16T22:13:00.000-07:00

How do you save democracy from itself? You appoint a Senate.

In 1990 the democratically elected House of Commons passed Bill C-43 which would have criminalized all abortions. That bill was defeated by the appointed Senate. To this day abortions remain legal solely because of the Senate's actions.

In 2013 the democratically elected House of Commons passed Bill C-377 which would have weakened labour unions. That bill was stopped by the appointed Senate.

Today the democratically elected House of Commons is preparing to pass Bill C-23 The Fair Elections Act which seeks to undermine democracy. The appointed Senate is simultaneously preparing to stop it.

In all of these cases the majority in the House of Commons also had the majority in the Senate, but still the Senate stood up against the democratically elected Lower House. Despite being unpopular, especially in protecting abortion at the time, the Senate protected fundamental principles.

Democracy depends on womens' rights, labour rights, and actual fair elections to function; all things this Senate has saved.

Protecting democracy means protecting its principles; but principles aren't elected, and their application isn't always popular. Because of the obvious similarities with the Upper Chamber, for democracy's defense, an appointed Senate sounds perfect for the job.

Public Education Before Health Care

2014-04-14T23:18:00.000-07:00

When you replace the fan belt on your 1988 Toyota Corrolla, you can't drive faster than when the car was brand new. Even with the new part, the car, with all of its wear and tear, is likely to be slower than when you first drove it off the lot.

No one expects that a trip to a mechanic for repairs is going to make their car better than new, we all know a mechanic only maintains a vehicle, he doesn't engineer it to be better. When we want a faster, more efficient and more powerful car than the one we have, we don't rely on old gears, we look to the engineering of new ones.

A similar relationship exists when it comes to improving our country, a relationship however that our political parties have perverted. Because instead of trying to improve our society by engineering innovation through public education, the priority has become the maintenance of old gears through public health care. And what Canada is left with is a less than powerful society that gets horrible mileage and has more than a few problems with its steering.

Public education, the only thing that can advance a country, was not always as neglected as it is now by our leaders. When Canada was first founded and for decades after, all the education needed to join the work force was free because our country knew bettering its people was the only way it would better itself.

High school became fully funded by the provinces because for years that diploma was all that was needed to enter trades, business, or even apprentice as a lawyer and engineer. Of Canada's 33 founding fathers only one went to university. But as times have changed and jobs have become more specialized the public provision of education has not kept up. The British Columbian government forecasts that by 2020 77.3% of all jobs will require costly post-secondary education.

Health care on the other hand, though certainly having its flaws, has become the focus of our country. This is a problem because, by itself, public health care does not better our society, it merely maintains it.

This misplacing of social priorities, health care before education, is like believing your car's mechanic is more important than its engineer; that maintaining parts is more important than their design and innovation. If that was true we wouldn't have cars today, we would just have really healthy horses.

Health care does not build a better society, only education does. If the goal of government is to improve our country and not merely maintain it, its first priority should be providing public post-secondary education.

Flaherty's Curtain

2014-04-13T01:15:00.001-07:00

Jim Flaherty was unethical, incompetent and he should have been fired. Those aren't my words, they're Thomas Mulcair's, spoken just last year in Question Period. Yet after the former Finance Minister's death, Mulcair has called him a good man and a great public servant.

There's no doubt that the NDP Leader genuinely mourns the loss of Jim Flaherty, but this recent death and the response to it by all politicians, not just Mulcair, shows the real tragedy of a political life.

Because it's only now, after resorting to the lowest denominator in attacks against Mr.Flaherty for his whole political career, are his opponents speaking highly of him. It is only now after Flaherty's curtain has fallen that all the other actors are describing how they truly felt about him.

What makes this all the more sad is that what Mr.Flaherty's opponents actually thought of him was the exact opposite of what they said to him while he was alive.

Can you imagine, if we are so lucky to have an after life, spending your whole career having opponents level the most sensationalistic attacks against you and after you have gone, and only then, finding out how much those same harsh critics respected you, how much they liked you, and even seeing them cry from hearing about your death?

Now we can say that as a politician Jim Flaherty certainly knew that much of politics is a performance, that he knew the daily attacks he faced as finance minister for eight years were disingenuous, merely for show. But in hearing such words of admiration and respect for Jim Flaherty after he has gone, one cannot say he came close to knowing how highly his opponents thought of him. And that is a tragedy. A horrible unnecessary tragedy.

Jim Flaherty's death highlights the absolute worst thing about politics. It's not the broken promises, it's not the partisanship or the boondoggles, the worst part of politics is that it is a performance that its actors never betray with their true feelings.

But of course, politicians aren't the only ones to lose themselves in their roles. How often in life do we all forget to tell those around us, not just our loved ones, but our adversaries too, how we truly feel about them and how grateful we are for them to be a part of our lives.

Just as Justin Trudeau should admit to Stephen Harper he respects him tremendously and is thankful for what he done for this country (and vice versa), we all should tell those we occasionally fight with, that we care for them and want them to be happy.

In this life we are all performers in one way or the other, but in reflecting on Jim Flaherty's passing, let us in the future not wait until a curtain falls to applaud the other actors.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances."

Jim Flaherty stood before the audience, he smiled, bowed, and the curtain closed.

Conservative MP Celebrates Anti-Bullying Day By Threatening Violence

2014-04-09T21:40:00.002-07:00

Yesterday was Pink Shirt Day, it's a day dedicated to ending bullying. Now if you didn't wear a pink shirt, don't feel too bad, because unless you spent the day threatening someone with violence and having to be physically restrained, you're still one up on Conservative MP Ron Cannan.

Because it was on Pink Shirt Day that this backbencher MP chose to make a brave stand for bullies everywhere. Now he didn't ask Parliament why we don't have a national day for bullies, Camoflage Tank-Top Day if you will, he did one better; he brought the bullying to the House of Commons and threatened another MP with violence.

The scene more accustomed to taking place at recess by the bike racks occurred after NDP MP Dan Harris accused the International Trade Minister Ed Fast of making a handgun gesture at another NDP member. A few moments later Ron Cannan began yelling at Mr.Harris, going so far as even leaving his custom-molded backbench to storm the NDP seating area.

It's reported that Cannan became more "belingerant", telling Dan Harris that they should take this outside. Two other MPs had to intervene, restrain Cannan and escort him away. There is no word yet if Cannan was wearing a pink shirt at the time.

Now to his credit, in challenging another MP to a fight, Cannan did bring attention to the fact that bullying is a problem. However it us now who have to challenge Cannan to go outside the Parliament buildings, not to fight him of course, just to leave him there.

Quebec Election Shows Hypocrisy On Clarity Act

2014-04-08T19:22:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, and Andrew Coyne, among others, are wrong to suggest separatism was recently defeated by Quebec voters. Well they aren't just wrong, they're hypocritical.

Since the close defeat of separatism in the 1995 referendum, federalists have demanded a clear question for any public decision on Quebec sovereignty. Parliament even passed the Clarity Act, enshrining such a requirement into law.

Considering the need therefore of a clear question to decide whether Quebeckers want to stay in Canada or not, it is mind-blowing to see our country's politicians and pundits claim that the Parti Quebecois's election loss proved voters rejected sovereignty. Not only because there wasn't clarity in the question of separation, but because there wasn't even a question.

If such an extrapolation of a general election's results was valid then the converse would be too, and I don't think anyone would say Quebeckers would have clearly decided to separate if the PQ just got 41% of the vote.

Now many in Quebec don't support the Clarity Act, not just because it requires a clear referendum question but because it importantly stipulates that any vote to separate can only succeed with a clear majority. But if federalists want separatists to honour the Clarity Act, then federalists should honour it too.

Our country's leaders were wrong to suggest the PQ's election loss was a clear rejection of separatism by Quebeckers just as separatists would be wrong to declare an election victory as a mandate to separate.

The only way Quebeckers can reject or accept sovereignty is by a referendum with a clear question, to suggest that this election sufficiently sufficed as that referendum contravenes the very laws federalists supposedly support.

If Prime Minister Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and others continue to claim the election results do mean Quebeckers rejected separatism, than the Clarity Act is worthless. At least that much is clear.

From Five Female Premiers To Just Two

2014-04-07T19:41:00.002-07:00

The Parti Quebecois loss tonight shows just how hard it is for women politicians to actually have a chance in government.

Pauline Marois will be the 3rd female Premier gone this year, leaving only two; Christy Clark in BC and Kathleen Wynn in Ontario.

Why Marois's loss tonight is bad for women is not because of her exit but because of her entrance. And that is, she was doomed from the start.

Successful political parties have a habit in Canada of not selecting women leaders. It's only when those parties are in desperation do they resort to gender equality, as if it's some last ditch effort to show the party is different. This was the case for every recent female Premier.

But the trend goes back even further when you consider Canada's first female Premier BC's Rita Johnson and our first female Prime Minister Kim Campbell. These women leaders and almost all others were only given the reins when their party was on the verge of historic defeat.

The five female Premiers that started this year were elected to lead failing political parties, they didn't have a chance. Each party that elected them was facing declining and dismal polling numbers. The PQ were in such trouble in 2007 that no one else besides Marois would even take the leadership.

As Canada loses another female Premier tonight, it should be obvious that our country has a lot of work to do to improve gender equality in politics.

Vote PQ To End Separatism

2014-04-02T19:32:00.001-07:00

All federalists should want the Parti Quebecois to win Quebec's election this Monday. Why? Because support for separation is so low that holding a referendum would end the issue for a generation, if not for good.

If the PQ loses however, which is looking likely, separatism will continue to simmer until the PQ returns to government, and who knows how popular the issue will be by then.

Federalists must recognize that in defeating the PQ they are merely exchanging a safe referendum outcome today for an uncertain one tomorrow.

Federalists think they are making Canada stronger with a Quebec Liberal election victory next week, but such a win will be a far bigger loss. In defeating the separatist party, federalists are actually saving the separatist cause.

By winning the election Philippe Couillard's Liberals are saving the separatists from an assured referendum defeat and providing them a future opportunity to face a more hospitable electorate.

The cause of separatism, like all causes, can only be truly defeated when it is given its chance to fail. The war between federalists and separatists cannot end without a referendum battle being fought and a clear winner declared. Not only does a Liberal election prevent such a battle from occurring, it does so at a time when the conditions favour the federalist side.

Some may point to the previous referendums and how those votes did not end the division, but that's because those close votes gave separatists hope, it is only a large defeat that will take it away completely.

Certainly polling showing low support for separatism today is no guarantee that a Quebec exit won't become more popular if the PQ were re-elected, but considering the fundamental nature of the unity issue, the opinions of Quebeckers aren't likely to change that much at least in the next few years. So if the PQ were to hold a referendum the side of separatism would certainly lose and be significantly wounded, if not fatally so.

A Parti Quebecois defeat on Monday however does not defeat separatism, it only postpones a referendum till the pendulum of politics swings back into the PQ's favour. And upon forming government in five or ten years the PQ could hold a referendum at a time when opinions against separation might be radically different

Making matters worse is that if the federal Conservatives were returned to power in 2015, a party noticeably absent of representation from Quebec, the argument for separation would only strengthen as national policies would continue to be unrepresentative of La Belle Province.

Ironically it is sad for federalists that their side is likely to win on Monday; because a Liberal election victory in Quebec will not save Canada, it will, however, save separatism.

Why Russia's Crimea is different from America's Iraq

2014-03-26T20:48:00.001-07:00

Today President Obama said America's invasion of Iraq is nothing compared to Russia's annexation of Crimea. Coffin makers agree.

In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq, a stable country, claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the US invasion was illegal and it was soon determined that Iraq had no such weapons. In 2005 Iraq held elections while the war was still being waged and American troops occupied the country. By 2013 the Iraq war had killed over 100,000 people, with at least 60,000 (lowest estimate) of those being innocent civilians.

In 2014 the people of Ukraine revolted and overthrew their government. Having a population where the majority is Russian, Crimea, a small region in Ukraine's south, feared the new national government and held a parliamentary vote to join Russia. Thousands of Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms streamed into Crimea. An admittedly biased referendum was held but an overwhelming majority voted to join Russia. Despite the United States claiming it was illegal, the Russian government approved the annexation.

The United States has claimed that what makes the Iraq war different from Russia's takeover of Crimea is that Iraq is returning to self-government and no territory was taken. And that is certainly true, but it is also true that Iraqis wanted the US to leave, that Iraq is now likely to fall into a bloody civil war, and that the country suffered over 100,000 casualties.

Crimea is different from Iraq because its people not only share a culture, language and history with their occupying nation, but they themselves want to be a part of it. Though the referendum question was biased, there isn't anyone that would deny a majority of Crimeans want to be a part of Russia. This explains why the annexation happened without any major violence or even one civilian being killed.

President Obama is certainly right to say the invasion of Iraq is different from Russia's actions in Crimea. Unfortunately his proof is 100,000 dead Iraqis.

Success Defeated Alison Redford

2014-03-20T22:31:00.001-07:00

Alison Redford was defeated because her party is too successful. And there's proof.

In politics there wouldn't be many opportunities to test such a theory; to really know if it was the success of Alberta's Progressive Conservatives that caused Redford to resign. Luckily for this experiment there just happens to be a control group next door, it even comes with its own Alison Redford.

BC's Christy Clark has a lot in common with Redford. Both were seen as outsiders. Both ran for leadership with little caucus support, each having only one other MLA supporting them. Both became leader of a party that has been in power for multiple terms. Both won surprising come-from-behind election victories. And most importantly, both faced tremendous criticism and opposition within their own party.

With so many similarities between the two, why then is Clark still in office and Redford isn't? The answer is found in what makes the two women different, and what makes them different is their political parties. More specifically the perceived success of their political parties.

Prior to Alberta's election in 2012 the high polling of the Progressive Conservatives kept Redford's critics within caucus. Why would Redford's critics abandon her government when they are guaranteed re-election? However Christy Clark faced a much different situation, for years her party's electoral prospects were far worse, which prompted her internal enemies to prudently resign or not run again in order to save their political records from an inevitable defeat. Clark's leadership rivals Kevin Falcon and George Abbott left government while a few more vocal opponents became independents.

Of course both Redford and Clark eventually won their respective elections, but whereas Redford was stuck with a caucus that still opposed her and was mainly comprised of men, vacancies within the BC Liberals had given Clark, through influencing nomination meetings, more supporters within her party's inner circle. And significantly, the number of elected females within Clark's government rose from 13 to 17.

The idea that Redford was forced to resign because of frivolous spending doesn't contradict the idea that she was ultimately ousted because she lacked support within her own party. Besides the fact any election was far off, there have been countless occurrences of leaders in Canada making far larger mistakes who maintained the support of their caucuses. If Alison Redford had more supporters among her elected MLAs, most certainly she would not have been forced to leave office.

In the end the irony is that the success of Redford's party gave her the premiership, but that success, in securing her internal critics re-election, also took it away.

From Canada's Five Female Premiers To Three

2014-03-19T22:26:00.004-07:00

At the start of this year Canada had five female Premiers, but now because of a few old white men the country only has three.

Alberta's Alison Redford joins Newfoundland's Kathy Dunderdale on the list of female Premiers forced out not because voters rejected them, but because their respective caucuses did. Caucuses who coincidentally happen to be mostly made up of old white men.

Last year when Ontario's Kathleen Wynn became Canada's fifth sitting female first minister, many observers marveled at the gender equality among our province's top offices. With Dunderdale, Redford and BC's Christy Clark winning strong popular mandates from voters, Canadians made it clear they want strong leaders, regardless of sex.

But despite this, despite the fact voters want a gender balance in our government, Canada has nonetheless gone from five female Premiers to just three. Why? Because most of the elected officials these women depended on for support in government were old men with even older attitudes.

In Alberta Premier Alison Redford was forced to resign by a caucus of 58 MLAs, 40 of whom were men. In Newfoundland Premier Kathy Dunderdale was forced to resign by 34 MHAs, 29 of whom were men.

Surely some may speculate gender had nothing to do with the forced resignations of these female Premiers, but if one considers what would happen if these leaders were men, that argument falls apart. Alison Redford was publicly attacked by one of her own MLAs who said she was "mean" and a "bully". Such a criticism of an equally successful male leader would only strengthen his leadership credentials, for an example look at our Prime Minister.

In an ideal world Redford and Dunderdale should have taken the power away from the old men in the backrooms and called an election to let the voters decide. But like any good leader they saw that in reality the voting public would have punished their governments as Canadians don't particularly enjoy, at least perceptively, arbitrarily casting ballots.

Hope for gender equality in government is not lost, however, even if in the short-term strong female leaders are ousted by a few old white men.

Voters have the power to make their provinces more balanced and more fair, they clearly demonstrated that by electing Alison Redford and Kathy Dunderdale in the first place. To ensure future leaders aren't forced to resign because of their gender, voters need to ensure that gender equality is a principle not just applied to the Premier's office but to all legislatures.

Why US Narrative On Syria's Chemical Weapons Stinks

2013-06-17T00:36:00.003-07:00

The thing about chemical weapons is that an odor usually follows their use, what is odd about Syria is that it is the United States' decision to arm the rebels that stinks.

The US, despite its poor track record of linking weapons to nations, has recently announced that because it now believes the Syrian government did use chemical weapons, arming the rebels is now a moral imperative. However the often under-reported and plainly ignored facts strongly suggest it was not the Syrian government that used chemical weapons, but the rebels.

Besides of course that a significant amount of rebels belong to Jabhat al-Nusra a group classified as terrorists by the US and the UN, perhaps the most striking evidence that the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons is that a large portion of those who died from them are government soldiers.

Time World has reported that there are four alleged instances of chemical weapon use in Syria with other news agencies reporting that in at least one of these the majority of deaths were pro-Assad forces.

From Time, June 5 2013: "On Monday, the U.N. panel charged with investigating Syria’s hostilities issued a report in Geneva, saying that there was evidence that “limited quantities of toxic chemicals” had been used in four attacks in March and April, twice in Aleppo, once in Damascus, and once in Idlib."

In March of this year both Fox News And Reuters confirm that most of the deaths in a chemical weapon attack in Aleppo were government forces: "Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told Reuters that 16 Syrian Army soldiers were killed in the explosion, and 10 others died in a local hospital. He did not elaborate whether they were soldiers or civilians."

The idea that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would use chemical weapons to kill his own soldiers who at the time were fighting the rebels is just one of the many inconsistencies in the US narrative in this civil war.

Another is that Assad, who knew using chemical weapons would bring US intervention, would have little reason to fire them, especially since his forces have had the upper hand for months. And not only did he not have a reason to use them, but using them to only kill a total of 100 to 150 people in four separate incidences would be inefficient; more traditional rockets and firepower are more accurate and far cheaper.

On top of all this is of course the fact that the UN has not only reported there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, but that a UN inspector, independently, said it was the rebels who were the ones who used chemical weapons, which just so happens to explain why so many Syrian soldiers died from them.

Nonetheless, the United States has decided, despite the inconsistencies in its justification, to intervene in Syria's civil war.

And because of that some may draw parallels between US involvement in Iraq with Syria, but some caution is required. Yes, both involved fictitious weapon allegations and will only lead to more violence, more extremists, and more years if not decades of instability, but this time a government gets overturned, a nation is ruined, and millions of lives are affected without any Americans getting their boots dirty.

Smell that? That's progress.

Conservatives: Only The Rich Can Benefit From Nonprofits

2013-06-15T23:48:00.000-07:00

Conservatives believe Justin Trudeau was wrong to take money from nonprofit organizations because to this government that's the job for rich investors on Bay Street.

According to the Conservatives in power in Ottawa and their recent proposal for social impact bonds the only people who should be making money from nonprofit organizations are financiers, speculators, and venture capitalists.

And now with Justin Trudeau having earned speaker fees from charities the Conservatives have hastily and hypocritically attacked him.

Hypocritical not just because they have attacked Trudeau for doing something which by its very nature is economically conservative (Trudeau merely applied free market principles to properly allocate the scarce resource of his much demanded presence); but doubly hypocritical because this Conservative government wants investors to make large profits on Canada's nonprofits.

For the past few months Human Resource Minister Diane Finley has touted the benefits of social impact bonds, a funding mechanism in which social agencies can raise money from investors to achieve a set objective, like reducing the recidivism rate of former criminals. If that goal is reached social-bondholders receive a sizable and generous profit.

There is of course opposition to this Conservative proposal because the profit for investors is money those social services would have otherwise received. In effect this government is proposing that money that would have ordinarily gone to nonprofit organizations should instead profit the poor, hungry, and destitute stockbrokers and bankers.

Conservatives can continue their faux outrage at Justin Trudeau for earning money from nonprofit organizations, but it is this government who should be ashamed. Trudeau at least had to work for his money from nonprofits, under the Conservative plan for social impact bonds, rich investors won't.

Trudeau Was Conservative With Nonprofit

2013-06-15T08:04:00.001-07:00

In the free market prices reflect demand, instead of choosing a few events to speak at arbitrarily, Justin Trudeau set a price to attend those gatherings that wanted him the most. This method of relying on market prices to benefit charities and businesses is a rather conservative idea.

So yes before he was Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau set a price to reflect the demand of those wanting to hear him speak, Stephen Harper for years did too, it just happened no one would pay to hear him talk.

Now the irony is that as Prime Minister we all pay when Mr.Harper speaks, not because we buy tickets, but because we are the ones left with the bills when he announces yet another deficit and even more debt.

Perhaps we should start paying him to be quiet.

Why The Syrian Rebels Are Wrong

2013-06-13T21:21:00.001-07:00

The Syrian civil war has been raging for so long that nobody remembers why the rebels are wrong.

The rebels are wrong of course because this war started, not because the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was overzealous in repressing protesters, but because Assad was overzealous in repressing terrorists.

Today it is admitted by the United States that a significant portion of the Syrian rebels now fighting Assad belong to Jabhat al-Nusra, an organization that has close ties to al-Qaeda and is classified by the US and the UN as a terrorist organization.

However back in 2011, when the Assad regime was complaining that amid the protests terrorists were attacking the government, the United States said that wasn't true. Even with Russia's President, at the time, Dmitry Medvedev saying there were terrorists in Syria, the United States with implausible certainty said no, and that Assad was making the whole thing up.

In Sept 2011 the Associated Press reported that "The U.S. Embassy in Syria said President Bashar Assad is not fooling anyone by blaming terrorists and thugs for the unrest in his country". With hundreds of government security forces being killed, the US maintained terrorists were not responsible.

Even at that time though, with extremists having killed over 400 Syrian guards, Assad's response, which ballooned the then existing death toll to 2,200, was obviously not justified and it certainly was inexcusable.

But knowing why Assad violently reacted in 2011 does provide necessary reference for how the Syrian civil war began, and provides necessary consideration for how the war should end.

The Syrian government's intention was not to repress protest, it was to stop terrorists. And as such western countries and the world should not act like Assad is an ardent enemy of freedom, they should act like Assad is a man who went too far in attacking terrorists.

Western intervention could be justified if President Assad's sole intention was to gravely assault his people, but it wasn't. Assad's goal was to stop terrorism in his country, he just acted completely disproportionately in his blind pursuit of it.

In determining what to do with Assad, the United States of all countries should reflect on this, with perhaps some consideration of the irony that they are the ones who get to judge.

The Day John A. Macdonald Died

2013-06-05T22:38:00.002-07:00

If there was no John A. Macdonald, there would be no Canada.

Our most important Father of Confederation and first Prime Minister died 122 years ago today. Canadians of all political persuasions should take a moment and remember John A. Macdonald, not only because he was responsible for our nation, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the RCMP, our banking sector, among other things, but Canadians should remember because they share so much in common with the man who made this country.

For Conservatives they owe much to Macdonald. Their majority government was elected because of moderation and stability, two values Macdonald owed his 19 years as Prime Minister to.

The late NDP Leader Jack Layton undeniably shared perhaps the most valuable trait with Macdonald, and that is being a man of the people. Though Macdonald and Layton were quite intelligent, they personally connected to Canadians in common, genuine ways.

But if Macdonald was alive today he would most assuredly be a Liberal. His strong and almost unparalleled beliefs in central government, bilingualism, and pragmatism, led Pierre Elliot Trudeau to proudly refer to himself as a "Macdonald Conservative".

To remember the politician nicknamed "Old Tomorrow", below are a few interesting and surprising extracts from Richard Gwyn's excellent biography on The Man Who Made Us, John A.

Why He Drank

At seven years old John A. Macdonald saw his five year-old brother James killed by a family servant. Of three sons, John A. was the only one to live past childhood. (p27, vol1)

Macdonald married his first wife Isabella in 1843, unfortunately he only enjoyed two years of a rather joyful marriage before she became a "bedridden invalid" with an unknown and increasingly worsening illness.

John A. Macdonald's first son, John Alexander died just after his first birthday, possibly by sudden infant death syndrome. Richard Gwyn describes the obvious impact this had on Macdonald:

"Many years later, Macdonald's second wife, Agnes came upon a small dusty box while cleaning the attic of Earnscliffe, their house in Ottawa. Inside it were some odd wooden objects. When she showed them to her husband, Macdonald explained they were John Alexander's toys; through all the many moves he had made from city to city and from house to lodging house to bachelor quarters and back again to a house, Macdonald had kept with him the relics of his lost son."

Macdonald's riding: "An 1842 municipal survey in Kingston counted 136 taverns for a population of fewer than five thousand people."(p265, vol1)

In 1869 John A.'s second wife Agnes gave birth to Mary who was unable to fully mentally and physically develop. The Prime Minister however would never break his routine where upon coming home from the House of Commons he would rub Mary's shriveled legs and tell her stories about Parliament.

On May 20, 1873, George-Etienne Cartier died. He was not just another pivotal Father of Confederation, he was Macdonald's most trusted political ally and a great friend. When John A. received the telegram with the sorrowful news he opened it in the House of Commons and read it aloud. Upon sitting back down Macdonald stretched an arm over Cartier's desk and broke down in tears. (p230, vol2)

Historic Coincidences

In 1829 John A. Macdonald and Oliver Mowat attended the same grammar school at the same time. Macdonald would later make him a clerk at his law firm. Mowat of course as the longest serving Premier of Ontario would go on to be a bitter rival of Macdonald's in vicious jurisdictional disputes that would define federalism in Canada. (p32, vol1)

In 1838 as a lawyer Macdonald tried to prevent two clients from being tried under a 1352 statute of Edward III that defined treason as an act committed by a non-citizen who "most wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously, did levy and make war against our Said Sovereign." Almost 50 years later as Prime Minister Macdonald would be responsible for the decision to prosecute Louis Riel, who at that time was an American citizen, under that same statute. (p53, vol1)

In an 1849 debate Macdonald challenged William Blake, a Reform minister, to a duel. William was father of Edward Blake, an eventual Liberal Leader and Premier of Ontario. Macdonald would go on to campaign against Edward some 30 years after challenging his father to pistols. (p71, vol1)

Joseph Pope served as John A. Macdonald's secretary beginning in 1882. In 1887, Macdonald told Pope, "Laurier will look after you should you need a friend when I am gone." Laurier, despite many telling him otherwise, kept Pope on in a senior position and eventually made him head of the new Department of External Affairs. In 1910 when Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden defeated Laurier, Pope was retained and remained in government as a deputy minister. In all, Joseph Pope served continuously in various high level positions under three different Prime Ministers for over 40 years. (p355, vol2)

Progressive Conservative

John A. Macdonald created Labour Day, legalized trade unions, and strengthened their right to strike. (p196, vol2)

In a letter written in 1880 Macdonald wrote, "Property has its duties as well as its rights," and "vested rights must yield to the general good."

He abolished public executions in 1869.

Macdonald And Indians

Macdonald was, considering the time, unusually close to Indians. As a lawyer in a more remote region of Ontario he not only defended Indians but had been a member of a choir that included many aboriginals. He would later become good friends with Reverend Peter Jones, an Indian whose original name was Sacred Feathers. (p155, vol1)

In 1885 John A. gave the right to vote to a narrow class of aboriginals. The Franchise Act originally intended to include a wider group of aboriginals but the House of Commons rejected it. Macdonald said at the time, "I hope to see some day the Indian race represented by one of themselves on the floor of the House of Commons." Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier would go on and repeal the right to vote for aboriginals in 1898. (p420, vol2)

Just as important is that Macdonald also included within the Franchise Act of 1885 the vote for women. Macdonald was the first national leader in the world to attempt to grant women the vote. Unfortunately it too failed in the House of Commons, if it had passed Canada would have been the first country with suffrage equality. New Zealand achieved it in 1893, Canada wouldn't until 1918. (p522, vol2)

Macdonald believed adamantly that treaties with Indians must be upheld. Macdonald told an inquirer as early as 1867 that Indian reserves "cannot be dispossessed nor can the property be alienated from them without their consent." During the North-West Rebellion he told a correspondent that although "Indian reservations will prove a certain extent obstructive of settlement.... this cannot be helped." It was his duty, he said, "to protect the Indians and sustain them in their rights." (p48, vol2)

The predecessor to the RCMP, the North-West Mounted Police was created by Macdonald to, among other things, keep peace between Indians and settlers. For much of Canada's early history the NWMP protected Indians. The force arrested more whites than Indians in the 19th century, below the border the opposite situation existed. Blackfoot chief Crowfoot explained the reason for signing a treaty in 1877, "The Mounted Police protected us as the feathers of the bird protect it from the frosts of winter." (p242, vol2)

Bilingualism

In 1890 D'Alton McCarthy, a rogue Conservative MP moved a private member's bill to cancel guarantees for French in the North-West Territories. Macdonald eloquently and passionately defended bilingualism, recalling how decades earlier the English majority in the newly created Province of Upper Canada had purposely sought to protect the French minority's language rights. From page 551 of vol.2:

That old pioneering legislature had passed an order that Macdonald read out: "That such acts as have been already passed, or may hereafter pass the Legislature of this Province, be translated into the French language for the benefit of the inhabitants of the western district of this province and other French settlers who may come to reside." At this point, Macdonald put a question to his audience: "Are we, one hundred years later, going to be less liberal to our French-Canadian fellow-subjects than were the few Englishmen, United Empire Loyalists, who settled Ontario?" When the vote was taken, McCarthy's bill was defeated overwhelmingly.

And though bilingualism would only fade after Macdonald's death, including under Laurier, sixty years after that speech bilingualism's most notable defender Henri Bourassa would quote it and say John A. was "the one man who best understood and to a large extent best applied the spirit of confederation."

Soft Heart

One of Macdonald's proudest moments was in his last few weeks he was able to walk with his newly elected son Hugh John into the House of Commons. After his father's passing, Hugh John would go on to become a cabinet minister and Premier of Manitoba, ending his career as a police magistrate.

In 1891, the last year of his life, Macdonald received a letter from an eleven year-old girl detailing how they shared a birthday and how a boy was being mean to her. This was Macdonald's reply, from page 508, vol.2:

My dear Little Friend,
I am glad to get your letter, and to know that next Sunday you and I will be of the same age. I hope and believe, however, that you will see many more birthdays than I shall, and I trust that every birthday may find you in health, and prosperous, and happy.
I think it was mean of that young fellow not to answer your letter. You see, I have been longer in the world than he, and know more than he does of what is due young ladies.
I send you a dollar note, with which pray buy some small keepsake to remember me by.
Believe me. Yours sincerely,
John A. Macdonald

Macdonald rode a portion of the trek to British Columbia on the cowcatcher of the CPR train. His second wife, to everyone's surprise, rode there for hours.

Great Politician

Macdonald is blamed for beginning the infamous summer barbeque circuit for politicians. With pleading from Conservative members Macdonald attended his first picnic rally in Uxbridge in 1876, on Dominion Day. A few days later the party won two by-elections which of course caused picnics to be hastily organized across the region. At a picnic rally in Belleville, a startling 15,000 people were in attendance. (p285, vol2)

John A. was by some accounts offered peerage by the Queen but turned it down because being a Lord would have distanced him from voters. (p498, vol2)

According E.B. Biggar, an early biographer of Macdonald's, after the British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli died, members of his party approached John A. and asked him to move to Britain "with a view of succeeding the great English statesman." Macdonald reportedly turned it down because "here, he was engaged in the development of a nation; there he would be struggling to hold together the fabric of one." (p315, vol2)

Soundbites

Not only was Macdonald entirely unashamed about his drinking but he actually drew attention to it. Once, when a heckler at a public meeting accused him of being drunk, he responded, "Yes, but the people would prefer a John A. drunk to a George Brown sober." (p267, vol1)

Once, after Macdonald had clambered onto a piece of farm machinery to better address a gathering, word was passed to him that he was actually standing on a manure spreader. His instant reply: "This is the first time I've stood on the Liberal platform." (p236, vol1)

A crowd appluaded his deft recovery from throwing up on the platform at an all candidates meeting when Macdonald responded, "Mr.Chairman, I don't know how it is is but every time I hear Mr.X speak, it turns my stomach."

"If we represent the people of Canada... then we are here to pass laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the country... If we do not represent the people of Canada, we have no right to be here." (p351, vol1)

"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 races."

"We must remember that [Indians] are the original owners of the soil, of which they have been dispossessed by the covetousness or ambition of our ancestors. Perhaps if Columbus had not discovered this continent--had left them alone--they would have worked out a tolerable civilization of their own." (p422, vol422)

When D'Arcy McGee, another Father of Confederation, was found curled up on the desk of the editor of Ottawa Citizen after a night of drinking with John A., the federal Cabinet finally confronted the two men over their alcohol problems. Shortly after, Macdonald sought out McGee and informed him, "Look here McGee, this Cabinet can't afford two drunkards, and I'm not quitting." (p387, vol1)

"The fratricidal conflict now unhappily raging in the United states shows us the superiority of our institutions and of the principle on which we are based. Long may that principle-the Monarchial principle-prevail in this land. Let there be 'No Looking to Washington,' as was threatened by a leading member of the opposition." (p241, vol1)

"I am satisfied to confine myself to practical things... I am satisfied not to have a reputation for indulging in imaginary schemes and harbouring visionary ideas... always utopian and never practical." (p297, vol1)

"Parliament is a grand inquest with the right to inquire into anything and everything." (p348, vol1)

"All my hopes and my remembrances are Canadian; and not only are my principles and prejudices Canadian, but. . . my interests are." (p316, vol2)

Goodbye Prime Minister

From page 575, vol.2 of Richard Gwyn's biography on our first Prime Minister:

Friday May 22 was a soft, warm day, and Macdonald spent it on the Hill....Early in the evening, Macdonald went down to the basement for a shave by the parliamentary barber, Napoleon Audette. While there, he studied a framed engraving of the Legislative members of 1855, a decade after he had first entered politics. He called out their names--Morin, Augers, Caron, Mackay, Dunkin, Short, Meredith, LaFontaine, Drummond-- and told Audette, "All gone, all gone." Back in the chamber, Mackenzie Bowell, one of his ministers, teased Macdonald into agreeing that it was time for two oldsters like them to be "at home in bed." Macdonald responded, "I will go. Good-night." These were the last words he ever spoke in the House of Commons.

John A. Macdonald would return home and after suffering a series of strokes would die on the morning of June 6, 1891.

Canada Originally Intended All Education To Be Free

2013-05-30T21:11:00.001-07:00

Out of Canada's 33 Fathers of Confederation, only one went to university.¹

It's not that Nova Scotia's Charles Tupper was the only intelligent one among them, other founders were businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, it's that none of those jobs, and many others, did not require any post-secondary education.

And the eduction jobs in the late 19th century did require was entirely made free shortly after confederation because provincial governments, though extremely small and limited, believed that their public schools should provide all the instruction necessary for citizens to obtain jobs in any sector, be it agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, medicine or law.

Today however provinces have lost sight of the importance they once placed on education. Where once provincial governments provided all the training necessary for a skilled workforce, they are increasingly providing less while at the same time businesses are only requiring more.

By 2020 the BC government predicts that 77.3% of all jobs will require a post-secondary education. That means in seven years provincial governments will not provide the education needed for three-quarters of all jobs whereas for decades those same governments believed it was important enough to provide the education for every job.

When Canada was founded, education was seen as the extremely important public good that it is. Even in that most conservative era of small government, where health care wasn't paid for, roads were tolled, and government sanitation services were non-existent, education was such a priority that our provincial governments sought to make it entirely free to every citizen, to provide the training and skills for any and every job.

That is how education in Canada was originally viewed by government, and that is how all education necessary for all employment was publicly provided for decades. Of course over time that changed, and now Canada has a skilled labour shortage, productivity is declining, and our economy is stagnating.

And though today education remains perhaps the most beneficial public good, it is now a costly private expense, while health care, an almost entirely private good, along with roads and sanitation are completely paid for with public funds.

The great past of Canada was built on the importance of education and the complete public provision of it in order to train its citizens for every job. Over the last few decades that has changed, and with it so has Canada's opportunity for a great future.

^{1. [Richard Gwyn. John A, The Man Who Made Us, p.321 ]↩}

How Harper Made The Senate More Accountable, Even If Just A Little

2013-05-28T22:10:00.000-07:00

If Justin Beiber was in the Canadian Senate it would be the most watched institution in all of government, and, undoubtedly, the most accountable.

For if the Biebs walked down the Ottawan red carpet into that similarly coloured chamber, his every action would be televised, sensationalized, and scrutinized. There wouldn't be a Bieber vote that wouldn't make a headline.

And not only would every single one of his receipts be analyzed by the Toronto Star and every other news agency, there would be over a hundred pictures documenting the young star in racking them up.

Though he would still be appointed and not vulnerable to voters, if Justin Bieber committed a single act of gross misconduct the inevitable public pressure would be far more consequential and retributive than any election. A look at TMZ and the singer's increasing withdrawal from his career and public life can certainly attest to that.

It is this kind of accountability, although of a much lower magnitude, that Stephen Harper has brought to the Senate. In appointing celebrities, by Canadian standards, like Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to the upper chamber the Prime Minister has brought greater public attention to the much neglected governmental body.

Duffy's celebrity is not only partly responsible for his scandal dominating the headlines, but also for why there's a scandal in the first place. From the moment he was appointed to the Senate, reporters knew stories on him would sell newspapers, more so than any other senator, and indeed most MPs. But in addition to reporters having extra motivation to watch him carefully, so too did the opposition, most notably the Liberals.

Mike Duffy has always held a special place on the hit lists of the Liberal Party for his part in how CTV presented an interview with then Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in the 2008 election. And as senator, Duffy has also been a fundraising juggernaut for the Conservatives which has only enhanced the particularly large partisan bulls-eye on his particularly large back.

And that same incentive for reporters and opposition members to ardently monitor Duffy for mistakes and incessantly draw attention to them once found, is just as applicable to senators Wallin and Brazeau, though to a lesser extent.

Celebrity or notoriety is important for accountability, it makes people interested. Any scandal by Senator Bieber would without a doubt be uncovered, culminating with him most likely resigning after three days of around the clock coverage of his penthouse apartment. But the same can't be said if instead of Bieber or Duffy, the senator's name was Smith or Johnson.

And even if some diligent reporter with nothing better to do had uncovered the improprieties of this more mundane Senator Smith, news editors wouldn't care, and almost every other Canadian wouldn't either; showing conclusively, if only hypothetically, that no interest necessarily entails no accountability.

This is how Stephen Harper has made the Senate more accountable, even if it was just by a little. In appointing senators people want to watch, senators get away with less. And hopefully when they do break the rules, as in the case of Mike Duffy, they leave with nothing at all.

But on a final note, perhaps the greatest accountability for the Senate is that it is appointed. Because so many people are critical of how these officials get their jobs, Senators are on a much shorter leash than their elected parliamentary counterparts. After all, think how careful MPs would act if the House of Commons was constantly threatened with abolishment?

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.