Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Who to watch at COF...

Here are some people to watch at this week's Council of the Federation meetings in Moncton:

Ed Stelmach (AB)... Ed has the most to lose at this year's meeting. This is his first COF as Premier (he attended last year's as Alberta's IGA Minister), and he's in a tough spot. With both energy and climate change on the table, and with his personal approval numbers plummeting in Calgary, Ed has already come out swinging. He's said publicly that Alberta will not accept a national carbon-trading plan, meaning that anything approaching a pan-Canadian trading strategy will be considered a loss of face. This is a huge meeting for Ed.

"The Green Front" vs. Big Oil... Expect Gary Doer (MB) to line up with Jean Charest (PQ) and Gordon Campbell (BC) as the "Green Front". On their agenda: an East-West power grid, commitment to emissions targets, and a national carbon-trading. Stelmach is opposed, as is Lorne Calvert (SK) and Danny Williams (NL).

Gary Doer (MB).... Ralph Klein's departure and Pat Binns's replacement by 33-year-old Robert Ghiz makes Doer the longest-serving Premier in Canada. This, combined with his reputation as a conciliator, ought to draw extra media coverage.

Jean Charest (PQ)... Look for Charest to lead the charge on "The Green Front", but don't be surprised to see him trumpeting COF as a symbol of his government's achievements in promoting "open federalism." Charest's people will be looking to pump him up as a national conciliator -- an image that may be difficult to cultivate if the meeting turns into a showdown between the Greens and Big Oil. It will also be difficult to portray Charest as a defender of Quebec's interests while, at the same time, working together with the rest of the provinces. The tried and tested solution: to join with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador in calling for greater decentralization of federal power. Of note, Charest looks like he's pursuing Quebec's national identity outside COF, approaching Harper in a one-on-one venue.

Danny Williams (NL) and Lorne Calvert (SK)... These two will be the most entertaining. Watch for both to use COF's progress on energy or the environment as ammunition against a do-nothing Ottawa. But watch for the other premiers to keep Danny on a leash. Calvert has never performed particularly well on this stage, but he's facing a Fall election. If he doesn't come up with something to capture the media's attention, this will most certainly be his last COF.

Northern Premiers (YK, NW, NU)... Joe Handley (NW) appears to be positioning himself as the spokesman for northern development, linking the concept of regional transportation to federal efforts to promote Arctic sovereignty. Also, expect the usual pitch from Northern Premiers for cross-Canada support for northern devolution.

Canadian Nurses Association.... They'll be there protesting the fact that health care is not on the COF agenda this time around. If the premiers don't come up with something substantive on Day 1, the CNA could steal the headline.

Who not to watch:

Dalton McGuinty (ON)... This guy seems rudderless. Ontario's position at most premiers' meetings is difficult to pin down, and McGuinty is dropping few hints about his main priorities at this year's COF. I think he'd be happy to get his photo-op and soundbite, then get back to the campaign trail.

The Maritime Premiers -- Rodney MacDonald (NS), Shawn Graham (NB) and Robert Ghiz (PEI) have a combined two-and-a-half years experience between them. Forgive the media for confusing them with junior staffers.

Toward a True "Council of the Federation"

It's been over three decades since they first formally proposed the idea at the Victoria Charter meetings, but I suppose it's better late than never.

Founded in 2003, the Council of the Federation is taking an important first step toward being a positive, legitmate national body. For the first time since its inception, COF will have cooperation -- not fed-bashing -- at the top of its agenda as it meets this week in Moncton. Instead of using the annual get-together as a glorified PR exercise, instead of organizing itself as a national lobbying firm, and instead of bickering amongst each other over equalization, the Council is actually promising to unite provinces in pursuit of common goals. Western and Atlantic Premiers have been doing this for decades, working on such issues as harmonization and trade, energy, and the environment. But this year's COF meeting marks the first time this has happened on a national basis.

To be sure, there will be tension and debate. Getting Manitoba and Quebec to agree with Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Alberta on a national energy strategy will be challenging. (I'm waiting with baited breath to read the communique on that issue.) But at least we are starting to see the markings of true 'cooperative federalism', with Premiers united through common pursuits instead of a common enemy.

Unfortunately, that "enemy" still remains shut out of these discussions. This partly of Ottawa's own doing; Harper has yet to convene a first minister's meeting since assuming office. It is also partly out of the wishes of certain provincial leaders; Williams and Calvert are not too anxious to share the stage with the Prime Minister, and Campbell and McGuinty are wary of sharing the spotlight.

Nonetheless, the continued absence of the federal government in a "Council of the Federation" not only contradicts Harper's promises of "open federalism"; it also contravenes the spirit of the entire COF concept. If the Council is to be any more than a better-funded, renamed Annual Premiers' Conference -- a desire clearly expressed in the Quebec Liberals' original bluepirint in 2002 and the 1971 discussions in Victoria -- the next step must be to involve the federal government as an equal partner.*

This week's meeting in Moncton is an excellent start. Let's hope officials in both Ottawa and the provincial capitals build on this momentum.

------------------------
*Ottawa should not be the chair or co-chair of these meetings, as we've seen in various First Minsters' Meetings and Conferences; nor should it be an invited 'guest'. All fourteen of Canada's official governments should sit as equal members of a reformed Council. (Looking further down the road, Aboriginal governments, big city mayors, and the Federation of Municipalities should be granted access as guests.) The Council, like the APC before it, should never be a formal 'voting' body; input from all members should continue to be used to forge a consensus on issues of national importance.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Global Warming Swindle?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle are a bad idea. (Just check out the growing number of recycling containers in our living room.) Any efforts to beautify and improve our environment ought to be welcomed.

But after viewing a documentary (The Great Global Warming Swindle) and reading Lorne Gunter's piece in today's National Post, I'm a little more skeptical about the ideology and political motivations behind global warming. I'm not prepared to call it a "conspiracy" quite yet, but the global warming skeptics really are starting to get their act together. The anti-consumerism, big-government tenets of the global warming movement do smack of 1960s and 1970s socialism. Food for thought, and (quite possibly) more convenient truths.

Friday, June 8, 2007

Creeping Federalism and the Power of the Schwartz

Students of Canadian politics are well-acquainted with the debate over whether federalism leads to healthy competition between provinces, or unfortunate races-to-the-bottom. From an environmental perspective, developments in recent months suggest that some provinces and US states are actually racing-to-the-top when it comes to combating climate change. The 'power of the Schwartz' is perhaps the best evidence of this trend. When Canadian premiers are not clamouring for photo-ops with the California governor, they're racing to sign onto his new environmental accords. His most recent agreement -- to cut gasoline and diesel greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent by 2020 -- already has two Canadian signatories (BC and Ontario), with Doer, Charest, and nine Northeastern US Governors already gripping their pens. Good news for the environment, according to most.

The effect of this creeping federalism on the non-signatories remains to be seen. An article in today's Winnipeg Free Press suggests that these new emissions standards may serve as a "wake-up call" to oil-producing provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, all of whom may find difficulty in selling "unclean" fuel to a growing number of North American markets.

From a purely environmental perspective, it appears that competitive federalism has some merit.

"Following John", 50 Years Later

Fifty years ago today, on June 10, 1957, Canadians first embraced John Diefenbaker's vision of "One Canada". Of all sources, The Star waxes most eloquently on this anniversary.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Red Toryism: One Man's Definition

I don't like to recycle material on this blog, but in response to several queries, he again is one person's view of what it means to be a Red Tory:

A red tory is a compassionate conservative, driven by a concern for community over individualism, the collective well-being over personal self-interest, Burke over Mill, social responsibility over token rights, societal responsibility over state responsibility, fiscal responsibility over socialism, and responsible government over mob rule. In particular, four (4) interrelated principles underlie "red toryism" as an ideology:

1. Tradition & Incrementalism: The tory philosophy is one in which society evolves gradually, remains stable but not static, and relies on tradition as a guide for the future.

2. Organicism & the Social Fabric: Core to the red tory ideology is the belief that society is more than a sum of its parts. It was Burke who invoked the term "social fabric" as a metaphor to describe society as a collection of individuals who, when woven together like threads, produce a much stronger and grander entity.

3. Ascription & Imperfection: The very essence of toryism is rooted in the Protestant belief in human imperfection, and the existence of a ‘natural hierarchy’ in society such that only the most capable should assume positions of authority. For red tories, while the social ladder exists, it is still accessible to those with lower social status, who may climb it gradually through their lifetimes and initiative, or over the course of several generations.

4. Paternalism & Noblesse Oblige: In essence, then, toryism is a belief system that combines paternalism and collectivism through the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. In the tory view of community, one discovers a sense of mutual obligation – of duties and privileges, rights and responsibilities – such that those in positions of privilege owe concern to those of lower social and political status, while the latter owe a certain degree of deference to elites. Labeled "tory democracy", this set of values may help to explain the ebbing of red toryism in an age of declining social and political deference.Overall, red toryism implies an easy acceptance of, but a low tolerance for, economic and social inequality, and displays a communitarian concern for the care of the less-fortunate in society.

RED TORYISM & THE THIRD WAY

Ever notice the similarities between social democrats and red tories, these days? No, I'm not talking about Jack Layton -- I mean realistic social dems. If you cover up the byline, you may find yourself nodding at old Tony Blair, Ed Broadbent, Roy Romanow or Gary Doer speeches. It's no coincidence -- the so-called "Third Way" to which these men have committed themselves bears a striking resemblance to classic Red Toryism:

1. Fundamentally, both share an inclusive, organic view of society, including a belief in the necessity of mutual obligation to bind together members of the community. This view conflicts with the atomistic, liberal notion of society as a collection of competing individuals.

2. Both red toryism and the third way treat society and the market as separate, but interdependent. For red tories, this is embodied in the desire to put politics before economics when necessary; for social democrats, it means striving to prevent a market society from evolving out of a market economy.

3. In this vein, both ideologies also view the state as a positive instrument in society, and promote government intervention in the economy when necessary to promote the interests of the community (red toryism) or achieve social justice (the third way).

4. Yet, both are rooted in what Giddens (1998: 66) calls "philosophic conservatism," and stand opposed to revolutionary changes to society and its political institutions. Rooted in a strong distrust or dissatisfaction with the type of sweeping social plans embodied in socialism, red toryism and the third way advocate progressive, incremental reform.To say that Third Way social dems "stole" our doctrine is a little harsh. After all, imitation is the highest form of flattery. It does help to explain why some of us are drawn to moderates like Doer and Broadbent, though -- especially considering the socon and neocon leanings of so many so-called "Tory" leaders.

RED TORYISM AND THE REST OF THE CONSERVATIVE FAMILY

Perhaps the simplest way to conceptualize an ideology like conservatism is to divide it into a series of functional dimensions. In this case, six seem especially pertinent (dramatic oversimplifications of each term are given in parentheses):

(1) MORAL CONSERVATISM* (a.k.a., NEO-conservatism; emphasis on traditional family values; often, but not always, tied to religious beliefs)

(2) SOCIAL CONSERVATISM*^ (opposition to social engineering, including affirmative action; emphasis on law, order and security)

(3) FISCAL CONSERVATISM^ (a.k.a., neo-liberalism; emphasis on fiscal orthodoxy, including balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, debt repayment, and tax relief; note: there is a distinction between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible -- politicians of all political stripes pay lip service to the latter)

(4) POPULISM~ (a belief in grass-roots democracy, often in opposition to political partisanship and other top-down institutions like Parliament; often, but not always, mixed with libertarianism; see: Thomas Jefferson)

(5) HIGH TORYISM~ (a belief in parliamentary sovereignty, often in opposition to direct democracy and judicial activism; often accompanied by a communitarian/patriotic view of the state; see: Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke)

(6) LIBERTARIANISM (a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and the limitations of government in the moral, social, and economic spheres)

*The distinction between #1 and #2 is no doubt the trickiest. In every-day language, both moral and social conservatives have been lumped under the "SO-CON" label. While there is a correlation between the two sets of values, it's important to distinguish between the two. Logically, a person could be a moral conservative without being a social conservative (and vice versa).

^Both social and fiscal conservatism often favour limited state interference in the economy, and a guaranteed but limited social welfare system.

~This is where there is often a direct conflict within conservative ranks, between those who favour a grass-roots style of politics and those that favour an elite-driven version.

People do not have to conform to any one of these labels. In fact, few, if any conservatives are members of only one 'camp'. As mentioned, people with moral and social conservative tendencies are often referred to as "SO-CONS". People with moderate fiscal conservative leanings and tendencies toward "high toryism" -- without a touch of moral or social conservatism -- are often called "RED TORIES". In the United States, the "NEW RIGHT" consists of "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals". And so on. The point is not to pigeon-hole people into one class of conservatism. Quite the opposite.

The purpose of this discussion has been to highlight how not all C/conservatives are created equal. The next time you hear someone painting us all with the same brush, think twice.

Turnout in Manitoba

The Winnipeg Free Press is reporting that turnout in Tuesday's election was 58%, up from 54% in 2003, but still low by historical standards.


Graph courtesy: CBC News

Why? A combination of factors are at play: the low level of competitiveness of the two most-recent elections ; the campaign finance reforms introduced in 2000 (which have crippled the parties' ability to advertise and get out the vote); global trends in voter apathy (particularly among youth); the timing of this year's election (after May Long Weekend); and others.

Should we be worried?

Tapping on the Glass Ceiling

Manitoba is #1 in something... and for once it's a good thing. The results of Tuesday's election have placed the province at the top of the nation in terms of the proportion of women elected to the legislature. Women now comprise 18 of 57 MLAs (31.5%, 13 NDs, 5 Tories). Second place: PEI @ 25.9%.

What is more, if you've met any of these women, you know they're not 'token' members. They haven't been handed their nominations (unlike many Federal Liberals), and they did not win in "safe seats". Almost all of them have survived tight races in the past few elections. And both major parties have a strong female contingent.

There won't be enough room in Cabinet for complete gender parity... Despite their unquestioned talent, too many of the women represent the same region, South Winnipeg; regional balance will take precedence when Doer chooses his new Executive Council.

Don't pop the champagne quite yet. There's still a lot of work to do to achieve a 50/50 split in the legislature. But at least we're finally tapping on the glass ceiling.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Manitoba Election Night Blog

12:00am: Anyone who has information on voter turnout in this election, please let me know.

11:20pm: One final thought: McFadyen got one thing right. In his concession speech he noted: "Manitobans were clearly not looking for change today." Can anyone recall an election that changed so little? Only three seats changed hands (Kirkfield Park and Southdale to the NDP, Brandon West to the Conservatives). Only one cabinet minister was ousted (Scott Smith). The popular vote swung about 2 percentage-points. I'm all ears if anyone remembers a similar event.

11:18pm: Some final thoughts:

*The NDP -- Merely maintaining the party's level of popularity is a huge credit to the Premier and his advisors. Tying Duff Roblin's (1966) modern record of 36 seats and a third straight majority is historic. Doing so while increasing its presence in the legislature following each campaign: unprecedented. Few parties in Canadian history have been able to sustain momentum over such a long period of time. Kudos where kudos is due. Some reasons for concern: First, the Premier will have some difficult decisions to make regarding cabinet positions. Only one minister was ousted, which leaves a lot of incumbents. Tim Sale's retirement and Scott Smith's loss will free up some room, but he's got a ton of new talent -- particularly suburban women -- to bring into the fold. He left a lot of people out of portfolios last time around, too, which means plenty of resumes will be on Doer's desk tomorrow morning. Second, while the NDP now finds itself with an unprecedented level of support inside the Perimeter, the party has lost its momentum in Southern rural ridings. The Yellowhead is even more blue than before, and the Tories have regained traction in Brandon. The rural-urban divide -- so evident in federal politics, and a hallmark in provincial politics -- is deeper than ever in Manitoba. Doer's replacement -- and "Tomorrow's NDP" -- will have to contend with this climate in the next campaign. Will the party extend another olive branch to rural Manitoba, or content itself with fortifying Fortress Winnipeg? My money's on the latter. The challenges ahead: breaking the rest of the Manitoba electoral records. Can the NDP tie Duff Roblin's 4 consecutive election victories (1958, 1959, 1962, 1966)? Can they become the first Manitoba party in history to win 4 consecutive majorities? One record that will have to wait: Duff is the only party leader to win 40% of the popular vote in four consecutive elections. (Doer would have to win two more landslides to equal that mark.) The fact that Today's NDP is competing against a Tory leader from over 4 decades ago should be disheartening to Today's PC's.

*The PCs -- A disappointment. No one expected McFadyen to win this election, but they expected him to better Stuart Murray's lackluster effort in 2003. He didn't. The Tories regained control of rural strongholds like Minnedosa and Russell, but lost almost everything in South Winnipeg. (Only McFadyen's Fort Whyte seat stood between Doer and a sweep of the region.) On the bright side, the PC party has only one direction to go: up. This is rock bottom for the party, and -- at over a third of the popular vote and seats -- it's still not all that bad. McFadyen needs more time to establish a rapport with the people, and to hone his political sense. (The Jets policy aside, he ran a fairly solid campaign.) The party looks to be on solid financial ground. What is more, the likelihood of the NDP holding on to South Winnipeg is very low. Doer cannot afford to put all of his new MLAs in Cabinet, and some of their seats will be prime for takeover next time around (Kirkfield Park, in particular). All of this said, the Conservatives have some soul-searching to do. McFadyen has two main challenges: (1) Balancing the desires of his rural base (his saviour), with his own need to break back into the urban ridings; and (2) Fending off Borotsik, who is certain to earn a prime position in the shadow cabinet, and the moral support of those in rural Manitoba. It's a long, uphill road ahead. But remember: No modern (post-1958)) Manitoba government has ever won 4 successive majorities.

*The Liberals: Just holding on to two seats ought to be a victory, but Gerrard and Lamoureux held out real hope for gaining official party status (4 seats). They'll have to settle for maintaining the status quo. It's unlikely Gerrard will stay on as leader in the next election. He's done well just to keep the party on the floor of the legislature. Lamoureux is an obvious contender to replace him, although the party may be well advised to seek a fresh face as his opponent. For now, the Liberals will have to content themselves with being the province's political conscience. As history tells us, only a charismatic leader (like Sharon Carstairs), or an upsurge in the Federal Liberals' fortunes, will provide the breakthrough the party needs.

*The Greens: At 0.38% of the popular vote, the party is dead. The Greens may blame the fact that they lacked the resources or volunteers to mount a credible campaign, but the real blame lies with the party membership, itself. Elect an undergraduate student as a party leader, and that's what you get. Not that there was much room on the left, to begin with.

10:28pm: Final results:

NDP -- 36 seats (+1) 47.7% vote (-1.8)
PC -- 19 seats (-1) 38.2% vote (+2.0)
LIB -- 2 seats (/) 12.41% vote (-0.8)

10:22pm: Some last-minute good news for the Tories. CBC predicts Mitchelson will hold on to the Tory seat in River East. With all polls reporting, she's won by 49 votes. Likely enough to withstand a mandatory recount. Better news for the party (but bad news for McFadyen): Borotsik wins Brandon West. With all polls reporting, he wins by 58 votes. Scott Smith is the only cabinet minister to lose his seat. The Tories lose only one seat: Kirkfield Park.

10:16pm -- Let's clarify the results: McFadyen will increase the Tories' share of the popular vote (from 36.7% to 38.23%), but lose between 3 and 5 seats. Why? Heading into the election, the Tories were actually leading in terms of the popular vote, prompting some to predict a possible "wrong-winner" outcome. Boy, were they wrong. While a dead-heat in the popular vote favors the NDP, the Tories actually lost votes during the campaign. The impetus for the decline: the Jets comment. Plain and simple. Manitobans have sent Hugh back to the Ledge to study up. He'll take the opportunity.

10:15pm -- Mitchelson is behind by 14 votes with 1 poll yet to report. We're looking at a recount, for sure.

10:13pm -- The electoral map has changed -- albeit subtly -- for the first time in 4 decades. The NDP has stolen South Winnipeg from the Tories, building on momentum from 1999 and 2003. The breakthrough is a sure sign that Doer's Third Way has won over the middle-class, Tim Horton's / soccer mom crowd. South Winnipeg is no longer the Tory bastion it once was. On the other hand, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Tories have regained their feet in rural Manitoba, actually increasing their strength -- particularly along the Yellowhead highway. Russell and Minnedosa are back in the "solid-blue" category. Sadly for the Conservatives, this is their only area of strength.

10:08pm -- Let's talk women. Gary Doer will have big decisions to make -- and has a great opportunity to create gender parity in Cabinet. The suburbs are teeming with great MLAs, who just happen to be NDP women. Here are some top contenders:
*Theresa Oswald (Seine River) -- She has to be in the inner-circle; top contender for Doer's job once he steps down.
*Diane McGifford (Lord Roberts) -- She will be in Cabinet. The only question is: where?
*Erin Selby (Southdale) -- She stole Reimer's seat. If Doer wants to shore up his new suburban beach head in South Winnipeg, look for Selby to be given a junior portfolio.
*Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry) -- She was shuffled into cabinet last term, and won the seat handily this time around. Look for her to be shuffled out of Healthy Living in favor of Selby.
*Roseann Wowchuk (Swan River) -- Ag Minister. She's done a great job.
*Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) -- Gotta be a minister.
*Nancy Allan (St. Vital) -- Her, too.
*Christine Melnick (Riel) -- A shoe-in.
*Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James) -- Might get into Cabinet.
*Erna Braun (Rossmere) -- Longshot.
*Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park) -- A longshot for Cabinet. Too inexperienced. The NDP may be willing to sacrifice this seat next time around, as the Tories will be sure to run a high profile challenger to win it back.

The Tories only have Myrna Driedger (Charleswood), Leann Rowatt (Minnedosa), Mavis Taillieux (Morris), and Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo) left. Mitchelson's on the bubble in River East.

9:50pm -- No cabinet minsters have lost yet. That's a telling statistic.

9:46pm -- Brandon West and River East are the only two seats left in play.

9:45pm -- Ron Lemieux holds on in La Verendrye. Tories are in big, big trouble.

9:42pm -- Oswald is elected in Seine River and Selby in Southdale. The NDP has quite the compliment of women -- perhaps even stronger than the Tories, now.

9:40pm -- Derkatch wins in a blowout in Russell. The Yellowhead is coated with blue.

9:39pm -- Bonnie Mitchelson's in trouble in River East. This would be a huge blow to the Tories, and break up their women's caucus.

9:37pm -- Isn't it somewhat ironic that the biggest Jets fans are in the rural areas? Maybe they should move the NHL team to Brandon or Portage?

9:36pm -- Faurschou holds onto Portage for the Tories. Another 500-vote victory, but they'll take any seat they can get.

9:34pm -- Minnedosa goes solidly Tory. Don't expect Doer to be paving any more highways or building any more libraries along the Yellowhead this term.

9:29pm -- Update on the seats the Tories targeted: Good news in Brandon West and La Verendrye... Borotsik and Stefaniuk are holding their own against Smith and Lemieux. Bad news in Riel, Assiniboia, and The Maples: The NDP won, and it wasn't even close.

9:23pm -- Caldwell holds Brandon East for the NDP, but Borotsik's giving Smith a run for his money in Brandon West. This one could be entertaining. If I'm McFadyen, I'm torn -- The Tories need the seat, but Borotsik is #1 in line for the leadership.

9:13pm -- Benchmarks to watch:

Doer's performance in 2003: 49.47% popular vote; 35 seats.
Biggest blowouts since 1958: 36 seats (Roblin PCs 1959, 1962); Doer's 49.47% in 2003.
Lowest turnout: 54.17% (2003)

9:05pm -- NDP holds on to Radisson.

9:o3pm -- Brick wins St. Norbert. Looks like an NDP sweep in the suburbs. Doer could actually increase his majority. It's the Jets comment (and low turnout).

9:03pm -- PC's pull ahead in La Verendrye. Lemieux looks like he could be vulnerable.

9:00pm -- Liberal vote looks very, very weak. This is a surprise. Perhaps the party is the biggest victim of voter apathy after the long weekend? Gerrard deserved better than 12%.

8:58pm -- Newsworld stops its coverage on TV. Discrimination!

8:57pm -- Conrad Santos loses. NDP keeps Wellington. Thank goodness: no more knives in the house chamber!

8:55pm -- Lamoureux wins in Inkster, and Gerrard in River Heights. Liberals hold their ground.

8:55pm -- Irvin-Ross wins in Fort Garry. Bad sign for the Tories in the suburbs.

8:54pm -- Blady wins Kirkfield Park. Stuart Murray must be secretly chuckling. Stefanson's old seat has gone Dipper. Wow. A bad sign for the Conservatives. They're now admitting they were out-campaigned. No kidding.

8:52pm -- Update on the swing seats... Tories ahead only in Minnedosa. NDP ahead everywhere else: St. Norbert, Southdale, La Verendrye, Radisson, Seine River, Rossmere, Brandon East.

8:49pm -- The night's not over yet. The overall outcome may be a foregone conclusion, but it will be interesting to see if Doer can make breakthroughs in the rural South. It looks like he might sweep the suburbs. Or, can McFadyen regain some momentum and set up a real rural-urban divide in the province?

8:46pm -- Things to watch in the coming weeks: Will Gerrard follow through on his promise to buy carbon offsets to pay for the Liberal campaign?

8:42pm -- CBC calls the election. That didn't take long. Doer with a third consecutive majority. Historic. Not even the Dippers expected a call this early. The convention hall is still empty. Doer's still out on his walk.

8:42pm -- Oooh... Those early Winnipeg numbers look bad for Tories. 55% and leading or elected in 26 of 30 seats for the NDP in the city.

8:41pm -- More on Coletto's hackery: No kidding, the campaign finance rule changes have impacted the outcome of this election. But how? Once the parties file their returns, we'll probably see the Tories raised more money than the NDP, and the Liberals did better than expected. That's from my interviews, anyway. By the way: Coletto's turned off his cell phone in order to avoid me.

8:38pm -- Paul Thomas is right (what else is new): The Tories need to win by 5 percentage-points in the provincial popular vote in order to win a majority. A reason for electoral reform?

8:34pm -- Ashton is elected. No surprise.

8:31pm -- Coletto's email is on CBC. Hack! Blatant plagiarism of a paper by David Stewart and myself. Sad, sad, sad. Shame, shame, shame.

8:28pm -- Paul Edwards is representing the Liberals on the CBC panel. Interesting.

8:26pm -- Uh oh, Tories... Very early Brandon West results have Scott Smith in the lead. Southdale: Selby leads Reimer. Both by fairly high margins. No surprise: Goertzen (Tory House Leader) wins Steinbach.

8:24pm -- Live from the Tory Headquarters. They're putting on a brave face. Brent Pooles is naming Brandon West, La Verendrye, Riel, Assiniboia, and The Maples as their targeted ridings.
8:20pm -- My list of ridings to watch: Rossmere, Brandon West, St. Norbert, Southdale, La Verendrye, Radisson, Fort Garry, Inkster, Seine River, River Heights, Wellington.

8:18pm -- Early quote of the night: "It would be very strange if Mr. Dyck didn't pull it out tonight."

8:14pm -- Minnedosa gets its first mention of the broadcast. Keep your eye on this riding... If the NDP doesn't finally breakthrough here, the party may give up on the constituency (and the Yellowhead region) next time around.

8:13pm -- Thank goodness Paul Thomas is providing commentary on CBC tonight. Can't imagine how the other "political scientists" would fare.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Reflections on the Manitoba Election Campaign

In the interests of remaining neutral during the campaign, I have refrained from commenting on these pages in the past month. (A novel idea for a blog, I'll admit, but a somewhat noble one.)

Here are my observations, now that the race has come to a close.

(1) The best idea of the campaign.... Ironically, it came from someone who wasn't even running. Mayor Sam Katz wants the $158 million worth of provincial grants replaced by a single grant equivalent to 0.892 points out of seven PST points. That's the same amount of cash as this year, but the grant will grow as tax revenues increase in future years. Why none of the party leaders took him up on this offer -- especially the Tories, who need to make inroads in the city -- is beyond me. It wouldn't cost much fiscally, and downloading some of the responsibility (read: heat) to municipalities, themselves, is not a bad idea. The city needs some long-term flexibility, and would be rewarded for economic development (through increased tax revenues). Long story short, in an era when big city mayors' demands are becoming more and more extravagant, Katz's request is one of the most reasonable we've heard in a long while. (It mirrors a similar proposal for cities to share 1% of GST revenues.) Hopefully the victorious party will give him what he wants. Honorable mention: Doer's pledge of $300,000 for libraries.

(2) The worst idea of the campaign... Hands down: McFadyen's promise to bring back the Jets. Let's be fair to Hugh: if you read the fine print of his press release and statements, he never really 'promised' to bring the team back -- he only committed to 'trying'. But no one reads the fine print during an election campaign. Thanks to mockery in the local and national media, the Tories have gone into a tailspin from which they're unlikely to recover. (The knockout punch that was never thrown: Doer should have thanked McFadyen for suggesting that, after 8 years of NDP government, the Manitoba economy was finally healthy enough to support an NHL franchise that left under the Tories' watch.)

(3) Dumbest move of the campaign... Hands down: The Greens selection of an undergraduate student as their leader. In a year when the environment had the greatest potential to be an election issue, the party shot itself in the foot. The Tories' Jets gaffe will have temporary effects; this one could kill the Greens' chances of ever becoming a viable party in Manitoba. (A legislated 4-day work week? Come on.) Honorable mention: Gerrard's public insult of low-income "ghetto" dwellers. (To his credit, at least he recovered well.)

(4) Smartest move of the campaign... Doer managed to get McFadyen to spend almost an entire week talking about Gary Filmon. In particular, the Tories were forced to discuss their sale of MTS (which they promised not to do), and goaded into promising not to sell Manitoba Hydro. This derailed an otherwise focused campaign. Honorable mention: Hugh's choice of ties.

(5) Gutsiest move of the campaign... McFadyen and Borotsik are right: It's time to end the tuition freeze in Manitoba. The Tory policy even allows students to vote on the issue, with the results of the referendum binding on the government. It's not a popular position (at least among parents), but kudos to them for recognizing the need to give universities the money they need. (See http://deepredtory.blogspot.com/2007/02/frozen-tuition-socialist-myth.html). For the record, the Liberals promised to lift the freeze, as well.

(6) The biggest surprise of the campaign.... The New Democrats offered the least in the way of promised spending, and the Conservatives, the most. New spending, including tax cuts, totalled as follows: NDP: $400m; LIB: $876m; PC: $888m. This kind of data begs for an academic study, no?

(7) The biggest disappointment of the campaign... Nobody discussed the plight of Manitoba's First Nations. The media tried, but the parties ducked the issue (again). At some point, someone's going to have to address this. It's a provincial disgrace.

(8) What was missing from the campaign... Like him or not, Gary Doer has proven himself one of Canada's most adroit politicians. His transformation of the socialist New Democratic Party into a third way "Today's NDP" is incredible. The one question that neither the media, nor the Tories or Grits, seized on was a simple one: Who are TOMORROW's NDP? If he wins his third straight majority -- the first since Duff Roblin, by the way -- chances are Doer will not tempt fate by campaigning for a fourth mandate. This means Manitoba will have a new premier sometime before the end of the decade. Who will it be? (Best guesses: Ashton, Chomiak, Selinger, or Oswald.)

(9) Ridings to watch.... Every suburban riding is up for grabs. But what else is new. Also, watch Brandon and the Yellowhead ridings.

(10) A prediction.... Doer loses between 2 and 5 seats, max. He holds a majority, and somewhere around 42% of the popular vote. Turnout drops to just over 50%. The Tories will sew up the South, making inroads in Brandon and along the Yellowhead. They may claw back a few of the South Winnipeg ridings, but not many. The Liberals will hold both of their seats. Final results: NDP: 32; PC: 23; LIB: 2.

(11) What to watch after the campaign... Who will be in Doer's cabinet, and which portfolios will they be given? Look for Oswald to stay on in health, as she is being groomed for the leadership race to replace Doer. Chomiak will stay on in Justice, and Selinger in Finance. Ashton might fit in well as Environment Minister. If anyone from Brandon or Rural Manitoba survives, s/he will be put in under Resources or Agriculture. Aside from that, it's anyone's guess. Also, watch how McFadyen performs in his first full term as Opposition Leader. He's taken his lumps in this campaign, but -- aside from the Jets gaffe -- appears to have held his own. My sense is that most Winnipegers want a little while longer to get to know him better. He's young and dynamic, and -- most important -- a moderate. Sound familiar? (Doer had to wait 11 years...)

Monday, March 26, 2007

Calgaria!

Ah. You gotta love that East Coast sense of humor: http://delusionalcalgaria.ca/

Friday, March 23, 2007

Dems (not) Fighting Words

You have got to be kidding me. Banning hockey fights altogether? Having players wear fighting gloves? Punishing a kid for protecting himself? A lifetime ban for a punch in the heat of the moment? Coley Campbell is crazy. Todd Fedoruk is just a bad fighter. Stephane Robidas got what was coming to him. And Steve Moore was the victim of an unfortunate fall. Don't want hockey fights? Don't go to the game (and quit as NHL VP). Get knocked out twice on two punches? Label yourself for what you are: you're a punching bag, not an enforcer. Run into someone else's fists? Don't go head hunting. Get a serious injury because of an accident? Chalk it up to fate, not malice. This is getting ridiculous. The only reason players are getting hurt is that they don't know how to protect themselves. Let Darwin's law take over, I say. Don't change the rules. If that means we end up with 6 Canadian teams* in the NHL, and one in Boston and Philadelphia, so be it. At least we'll have real hockey.**

*Bring back the Jets.
**At least Boston has a chance of making the playoffs.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

The Dipper Divide: Focus on Manitoba

Not that anyone on BT really cares, but here's a division appearing in the New Democratic Party... and (surprise, surprise) the locus is Manitoba. Consider some recent developments:

(1) Pat Martin's (NDP-Winnipeg Centre) all-too-public condemnation of his leader brought to light a two questions many moderate Dippers have been asking for years: Was Jack Layton really the right choice to lead the NDP? And should the party be considering a(n) (in)formal merger with the Liberals?

(2) Just days later, Layton's former leadership rival, Bill Blaikie (NDP-Transcona), announced his retirement after 28 years in office. To his credit, and true to his character, Blaikie would not admit that this had anything to do with the current leadership or performance of the party. Anyone close to the action knows this isn't the case.

(3) Meanwhile, in provincial capitals across the country... An on-going -- albeit quiet -- feud between the Saskatchewan and Manitoba New Democratic Parties has reached a low boil. Despite their partisan connections, Calvert and Doer have never had a great relationship. Ideologically, the two have never seen eye to eye, with Calvert's rural socialism conflicting with Doer's Third Way philosophy. Behind closed doors, their disagreements over the fiscal imbalance (especially the inclusion of Saskatchewan's resource revenue in the new formula) have opened a few wounds.

(4) Skip ahead to yesterday's federal budget. Doer announces his full support for Harper's fiscal balance plan, placing him squarely against both Layton and Calvert. Positioning himself for the next provincial election? Perhaps. Staying true to Manitoba's interests in more federal cash? Absolutely. Sticking it to two socialists who refuse to adopt a moderate Third Way approach? Darn right.

You heard it here first: Once Layton fails in his third election campaign, and if Calvert fails to increase his majority in Saskatchewan, there will be only one voice for New Democracy in Canada. And it will be coming out of Manitoba. Gary Doer -- a man once rumored to be flirting with a career as a Progressive Conservative prior to the 1986 provincial election -- is the last hope for a faltering party. If his continued popularity in Manitoba is any indication, Doer's probable jump to federal politics may pose a lot of trouble for Dion and the Liberals. It will also open the door for McFadyen's Tories, whose only obstacle to power appears to be Doer's personal following. Two birds with one stone.

Harper's 'Balancing' Act: "Multiple Choice" Federalism

Without hyperbole and undue fanfare, Harper's plan for rebalancing federalism is quite simply one of the most artful and historic in the evolution of federal provincial relations. It is bound to get lost in talk about the rest of the budget, and it is overshadowed by major constitutional negotiations like Meech Lake or Charlottetown, but the 2007 Budget is deserving of the highest accolades, nonetheless.

Harper took on a seemingly insurmountable challenge: After years of Liberal cut-backs to the provinces, he pledged to pull together a deal on equalization and transfer payments, in the face of several conflicting election promises, 10 conflicting premiers, a Quebec election, a minority government situation, and hundreds of bureaucratic, political and academic skeptics. This is no small task. Harper should be commended for promising to do so, applauded for attempting, and idolized for accomplishing it.

Sure, it's a work in progress, but his attack on the fiscal imbalance is enough to impress anyone with even a cursory knowledge of fed-prov relations (not to mention Gilles Duceppe and Ed Stelmach). Today's Globe article spells out the deal:

First, provinces will be able to choose between the old system and the new system. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are expected to stick with the old system for a while, since their offshore accords under the old regime more than surpass the enrichments of the new regime.

Once a province has joined the new system, it can't go back to the old system. But it can choose whether it wants to calculate what it is owed based on including half of its natural-resource revenue, or based on excluding all of its resource revenues.

That choice allows for resource-rich provinces to keep their royalties and receive equalization payments at the same time, eliminating the "claw-back" that has long annoyed poorer provinces trying to improve their lot.

However, there's a cap on how much money receiving provinces can get, so that resource-rich provinces such as Newfoundland will not end up receiving transfer payments that make them richer than have-provinces such as Ontario.

Several provinces, notably Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, argued strongly against a cap, but its inclusion was crucial for Ontario and Alberta, who see it as the only way the new regime would be fair to provinces that don't receive equalization.

The premiers of both Newfoundland and Saskatchewan were quick to harshly condemn the Harper government for the cap, calling it a "betrayal" of an election promise that hampers the ability of both provinces to prosper.

But the fiscal balance package doesn't stop there. Transfers for education are being increased by about $800-million a year, distributed on a per capita basis that favours populous provinces such as Ontario. And the Canada Social Transfer -- the main funding vehicle that Ottawa uses to help provinces pay for social programs -- will rise by 3 per cent a year starting in 2009.

Both the CST and the Canada Health Transfer will be restructured so that they are on a strict per capita basis, removing all traces of equalization from those transfers that have rankled Ontario and Alberta in the past. However, there are some strings attached. The health transfers will not be restructured until the current agreement expires seven years from now. Plus, CST will now be split into an education category and a social assistance category, in an effort to suggest to provinces where they should spend the money.

But the government has imposed a floor on the transfers, so that no province will actually lose money compared with current funding levels, even after equalization factors have been sifted out. Ontario will gain about $350-million a year from the CST changes, while Alberta will see about $310-million in increased annual transfers.

What does all of this mean? Provinces now have a choice as to which equalization formula best suits their needs: (1) the old formula; (2) the new formula with 50% of resource revenue included; (3) the new formula with no resource revenue included, but with a cap. On top of it all, they all receive an increase in per capita transfers. Quite simply, there is not a single province who emerges from this deal worse off. (If they do, it is by choice.)

Don't be fooled by Premiers Calvert and Williams. The former is facing an uphill battle against the SaskParty in an upcoming election and needs to show some anti-conservatism in order to shore up his base; the latter is known for howling at any moon that rises over Ottawa. They're both better off than before the deal, and Harper most certainly did not break his election promise to keep resource revenues out of equalization (if they choose to do so, all premiers have this option). Long story short, anyone who thought SK and NL would remain "uncapped" (i.e., receive equalization payments to the point where their per capita income is greater than Ontario) was living a pipe dream. The objections of Calvert and Williams -- much like that of Layton and Dion -- smack of crass partisanship, idealism, and knee-jerk diplomacy.

Granted, this is a one-off, seven-year deal. It is not as permanent as the premiers would have liked (e.g., indexing the transfers to GST revenue, or vacating tax room). This is the one down-side, but one grounded in the reality that economies and politics change a lot in a decade.

In the end, however, Harper's masterful rebalancing act was not only the best deal possible, it was even better than any imaginable just months ago. Kudos to him.

The Budget: Digging Deep for Women's Health

Look beyond the partisan rhetoric and election-time hand-outs. You have to dig a little deeper to find a hidden gem in yesterday's federal budget: funding for an HPV vaccine. Women's medical groups are right to applaud the Prime Minister for acting on "one of the biggest medical breakthrough in women's health in many years." Ottawa has approved the vaccine and is funding it. It's now up to the provinces to organize the vaccination programs. Let's hope they act with the same conviction.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Defining Conservatism in Alberta

Discussions from the media, to the water cooler, in classrooms, bedrooms, and in coffee shops are displaying a disturbing lack of understanding about the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. Stories and arguments that align Harper with Klein, Morton with Manning, Stelmach with Clark, and so on, are glossing over many of the intricacies of the parties and the movement.

What follows are broad strokes aimed at trying to flesh out the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. While of use in other provinces -- perhaps in other countries -- nowhere are the various dimensions of conservative thought more visible than in Alberta. The following is intended as the first-draft of a primer for discussing the right in Alberta. As always, your comments are welcome, along with permission to incorporate them into this work-in-progress.

Perhaps the simplest way to conceptualize an ideology like conservatism is to divide it into a series of functional dimensions. In this case, six seem especially pertinent (dramatic oversimplifications of each term are given in parentheses):

(1) MORAL CONSERVATISM* (a.k.a., NEO-conservatism; emphasis on traditional family values; often, but not always, tied to religious beliefs)

(2) SOCIAL CONSERVATISM*^ (opposition to social engineering, including affirmative action; emphasis on law, order and security)

(3) FISCAL CONSERVATISM^ (a.k.a., neo-liberalism; emphasis on fiscal orthodoxy, including balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, debt repayment, and tax relief)

(4) POPULISM~ (a belief in grass-roots democracy, often in opposition to political partisanship and other top-down institutions like Parliament; often, but not always, mixed with libertarianism; see: Thomas Jefferson)

(5) HIGH TORYISM~ (a belief in parliamentary sovereignty, often in opposition to direct democracy and judicial activism; often accompanied by a communitarian/patriotic view of the state; see: Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke)

(6) LIBERTARIANISM (a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and the limitations of government in the moral, social, and economic spheres)

*The distinction between #1 and #2 is no doubt the trickiest. In every-day language, both moral and social conservatives have been lumped under the "SO-CON" label. While there is a correlation between the two sets of values, it's important to distinguish between the two. Logically, a person could be a moral conservative without being a social conservative (and vice versa).

^Both social and fiscal conservatism often favour limited state interference in the economy, and a guaranteed but limited social welfare system.

~This is where there is often a direct conflict within conservative ranks, between those who favour a grass-roots style of politics and those that favour an elite-driven version.

People do not have to conform to any one of these labels. In fact, few, if any conservatives are members of only one 'camp'. As mentioned, people with moral and social conservative tendencies are often referred to as "SO-CONS". People with moderate fiscal conservative leanings and tendencies toward "high toryism" -- without a touch of moral or social conservatism -- are often called "RED TORIES". In the United States, the "NEW RIGHT" consists of "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals". And so on. The point is not to pigeon-hole people into one class of conservatism. Quite the opposite.

Tracing the contours of conservatism in this way helps us make sense of Conservatism in places like Alberta. Some of the province's leading Tories have made strange bedfellows over the years. The media and public have either failed to notice these tensions or have failed to link them to the underlying ideological frictions. Let's have a look at some of the major players....

WILLIAM ABERHART -- Alberta's first Social Credit premier, his "vision" blended religious moral and social conservatism with an anti-system, populist outlook and a 'quirky' view of public finance. In reality, Aberhart's control over the party and the legislature was the polar opposite of grass-roots democracy, and his province-building strategy used the full capacity of the public purse. Ernest Manning is widely considered the heir to Aberhart's image.

PETER LOUGHEED -- Often called a 'red tory', Lougheed was a communitarian conservative who put Alberta first. In this sense, his battles with Trudeau resembled those fought between Aberhart and King decades earlier. Lougheed, too, had a loose grasp of fiscal conservatism, but, unlike Aberhart, tended to keep social and moral conservatism out of official government policy. This, along with his penchant for social welfare spending, has earned him the label "Pink Peter" (a reference to his possible 'pinko'-socialist ties), particularly popular among Ralph Klein's followers. Lougheed's son is currently in the running for president of the Alberta PC's, by the way.

JOE CLARK -- "Joe-Who" has become synonymous with red-toryism in Canada. His view of the country as a "community of communities"; his firm stance against social and moral conservatism; his willingness to relax the rules of fiscal orthodoxy; and his support of parliamentary sovereignty have earned him the admiration of red tories and the hatred of the New Right.

PRESTON MANNING -- It's not difficult to see the ties between Preston Manning's Reform movement and his father's Social Credit legacy. While the religious fervour with which Aberhart campaigned was missing from Preston's speeches, the latter attempted the same blend of populism, moralism and social conservatism. To this, Preston added a firm stance in favour of fiscal orthodoxy.

RALPH KLEIN -- Where to start? King Ralph is very difficult to pin-down in terms of his conservative beliefs, largely because he seldom spoke in ideological terms, and because his actions were often contradictory. Without a doubt, though, he was a social and fiscal conservative, with morally conservative tendencies. While his image was certainly one of a grass-roots politician, in touch with the 'real people' of Alberta, his iron grip on the Party spoke otherwise. (This is a common theme among populist Conservative leaders, from Aberhart to the Mannings to Klein: once in power, they often end up being more tory than grass-roots. This speaks more to the iron law of oligarchy than to their personal integrity, in my opinion.)

STOCKWELL DAY -- Wet-suit aside, Stock was a moral, social and fiscal conservative.

TED MORTON -- Ted is a conservative's Conservative. He promotes moral, social and fiscal conservatism, with a populist/republican concern for the little-guy, and a high tory aversion to judicial actism. I fail to see any libertarianism in Ted's beliefs, but I am bound to be corrected. If he has them, he's the ideal, pure conservative. (As a side-note: Ted Morton's great at promoting each of the conservative dimensions, but his willingness to leave hard edges is proving more divisive than Harper's approach, as outlined below. Some may fault Ted for being too uncompromising; others may fault Harper for being too compromising. It all depends on your perspective.)

JIM DINNING -- Liberal. Period. Someone tell me where Dinning fits in any of these categories of conservatism and I'll be glad to post it here.

ED STELMACH -- It's still too early to tell, but Ed's style and his team have heavy connections with Peter Lougheed's red tories. He seems a little less tied to fiscal conservatism than Klein, and has yet to display the same image as a social conservative. Moral conservatism? Not likely. The pressure to 'go green' while remaining close with business and putting Alberta-first may force Stelmach into the red tory mold.

STEPHEN HARPER -- I know, I know. Harper's not really from Alberta. But I can't leave him off the list, precisely because his persona (since becoming Conservative Party leader) has proven itself the most moderate mixture of all six forms of conservatism. As a strategist, his ability to interpret and frame policy in each of these areas is remarkable. As the person charged with uniting the old PC's and Alliance, his manoevering has been impecable.

Harper boldly put same-sex marriage back on the table, framing it in terms of a free vote in order to appease libertarians, and accepting its outcome to the relief of red tories. His law, order and security agenda has social conservatives on-side, without offending too many populists. His tax policies are strong enough to please fiscal conservatives, while his creativity on issues like income trusts and income-splitting are surprising many red tories and moral conservatives. His specific proposals for Senate reform -- while still in the works -- offer a little something for tories and populists, alike. Libertarians? You may have to wait for your piece of the pie, but Harper's proving better than the guys on the other side of the aisle. In short, Harper is proving himself as one of the best at balancing the various demands of conservatism.

The purpose of this discussion has been to highlight how not all C/conservatives are created equal, particularly in Alberta. The next time you hear someone painting us all with the same brush, think twice.

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Health Care: It's not about beds, stupid

Recent debates about health care reform in BC and Alberta raise some interesting issues. BC is talking about farming out more surgeries to private facilities for lack of SPACE in their hospitals. Alberta is building a new mega-hospital in the south end of Calgary to accommodate the region's growth. (This comes in addition to the new Children's Hospital they just built, after closing down the old one.)

I'm not wading into the privatization versus universality debate here. I see merits on both sides.

What is most concerning is the lack of knowledge about the real challenges facing the system. In most cases, regardless of the rate of growth in many cities like Calgary and Vancouver, THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT SHORTAGES OF BEDS. IT IS NOT ABOUT OPENING NEW HOSPITALS. IT IS NOT ABOUT RENTING MORE SPACE FROM PRIVATE CLINICS.

If you don't believe me, the next time you're at the hospital -- and goodness knows, with wait times the way they are, you'll have time to do this -- have a look around the wards. THERE ARE ENOUGH BEDS, JUST NOT ENOUGH DOCTORS AND NURSES. In many cases, entire hallways have been closed off -- beds and rooms effectively mothballed for lack of staff.

The problem is a shortage of healthcare professionals to staff these wards. Period.

(In my humble opinion, the #1 solution to the problem would be to move away from the fee for service structure embedded in our healthcare system. That would free up nurse practitioners, pharmacists and other professionals to perform the tasks they are trained to perform, alleviating stress on the system. The next step: train and certify more doctors and nurses to fill the positions currently left vacant. I'm sure there are others who disagree with me, but at least this is a good start.)

In the coming months, Manitobans are sure to hear debates over Doer's failed pledge to end "hallway medicine" in the upcoming provincial election. Thankfully, we don't hear the McFadyen Tories advocating the building of new hospitals the way BC Liberals and Alberta PC's are. Sure, Manitoba isn't facing the same growth problems as the other two provinces, but -- as in the other two provinces -- entire wards in the city, and entire hospitals in the country (e.g., Erickson), sit empty for lack of healthcare professionals to staff them.

Regardless of which side of the public/private debate you stand, please think twice when you hear politicians clamouring for increases in the number of beds and hospitals. Let's staff the ones we've got.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

King Ed

I'll admit it: I was one of the (first?) people to predict that Ed Stelmach would spell the end of Tory rule in Alberta. If history was any guide, all signs pointed to disaster for the PC's.

As the story goes, Alberta government parties decline as suddenly as they rise. The pattern: an upstart party comes out of the wilderness, under a charismatic leader, to oust a long-standing governing party, sending the latter into oblivion (never to rule again).

In 1921, the UFA came out of nowhere to upset the Liberals, who have never fully recovered. In 1935, Social Credit did the same, governing the province for 36 years. The Tories dispatched the Socreds in 1971 and have ruled Alberta ever since. The "three leader rule" applied in each case (i.e., each government lasted precisely three premiers). In the last two cases, the governing UFA and Socreds had just replaced a charismatic leader with a 'dud', who languished in the shadow of his predecessors. (Most of us know John Brownlee and Ernest Manning, but has anyone heard of Richard Gavin Reid or Harry Strom?).

With the exception of the fact that Ralph Klein bucked the "three leader" rule -- like Lougheed and Getty before him, he retired without losing an election -- all signs pointed to the Conservatives' demise under Stelmach.

This won't happen. Stelmach will win the next election. Historically, there have been four factors that, when mixed in various combinations, have contributed to the fall of Alberta governments: a domineering opposition leader and a relatively underwhelming premier; a prevailing social movement; political scandal; and/or heightened political involvement by average citizens. Arguably none of these exists today. Here's what I mean.

(1) There is a real lack of alternatives... Granted, at the time, no one could have predicted that the UFA, Social Credit or PC's would have made their breakthroughs as dramatically as they did. But, with hindsight, at least we could see the rumblings of change in the air.

In the first case, the UFA was part of a larger 'progressive' movement that had caught the West by storm following WWI. Unless the Alberta Greens show dramatic improvement in the coming months, I don't foresee any social movements coalescing into a viable political party.

In the second case, Social Credit contested several elections before it made its breakthrough in 1935. Plus, it was aided by a scandal involving the UFA's leadership. Unless you forsee the Alberta Alliance emerging as a major force outside the rural south, and unless you think 'Honest Ed' has skeletons in his immaculately-kempt closet, Stelmach is safe.

In the third case, the Conservatives were re-born under the leadership of Peter Lougheed, who --from the moment he assumed the party's leadership in 1967 -- was seen as a threat to the established order. By all accounts, Lougheed was seen as a visionary, charismatic leader -- in stark contrast to Premier Strom (selected in 1968). Sure, Stelmach has Strom-like qualities, but so do his competitors. I don't care which stripe you wear: No one can compare Brian Mason or Kevin Taft to William Aberhart or Peter Lougheed. Standing on soapboxes in empty warehouses and writing books doesn't compare with a fire-side chat or barn-storming leader's tour.

(2) The federal Liberals have stacked the deck against their provincial cousins by putting the environment at the top of the political agenda. And Grits in Ottawa and Edmonton know it. As the Leader of the Official Opposition in Alberta, Kevin Taft still can't shake his party's association with the National Energy Policy -- memories of which have only been rekindled by Stephane Dion's provocation of the Oil Patch. The Alberta Tories -- like the UFA and Socreds before them -- were most successful when they portrayed themselves as the defenders of Alberta's interests. (Fights against Ottawa were the major catalysts for Greenfield's election in 1921, Aberhart's rise in 1935, and Lougheed's consolidation in 1975.) In short, the federal Liberals have handed Ed his first election by pushing him to the podium in defence of Alberta. If he were facing a formidable foe in Ottawa, the story might be different. But he's got a friend in Stephen Harper. Ed won't lose on this count, either.

(3) Stelmach is not a mere 'continuity' premier.... Neither Reid nor Strom had anything 'new' to offer voters following the resignations of Brownlee and Manning. Theirs were 'stay the course' platforms, and neither was any match for the ambitious platforms unveiled by Aberhart and Lougheed. Even if he wanted to do the same, Ed doesn't have that option. Bluntly put, there is no 'course' upon which he can stay. Ralph Klein has admitted, himself, that he had no long-term vision for Alberta, no plan to deal with growth. Ed's vision -- outlined in today's Throne Speech -- was the first real blue-print for Alberta's future since Klein's own 'revolution' in the early 1990s. In some ways, this offers Ed an opportunity to do precisely what Ralph did: to reinvent the party in his own starkly-different image. This is how Klein broke the "three-leader rule", and Stelmach can't help but continue the tradition of discontinuity. Any plan is a change from 'no plan', and Ed didn't have to do much to better Kevin Taft's lackluster "alternative throne speech" from last week. Again: advantage Ed.

In short....

Unless the Green movement or some Alberta-first/western separation party (the WCC2?) emerges to capture the public's attention... Unless Ed is embroiled in some massive scandal.... Unless Kevin Taft or Brian Mason are replaced or have personality make-overs.... Unless there's someone lurking in the political wilderness with the organizational and motivational skills to build a political party from the ground-up.... And unless any of this happens within the next 12 months.... Premier Ed Stelmach will win his first election.

Chances are, judging from recent opinion polls, most Albertans wouldn't be paying attention if any of that happened, anyway. Long live King Ed. The dynasty continues.

Les amis d'Harper

On the surface, things are looking great for Harper in Quebec. "Led" by their new chief, the federal Liberals are retreating to Montreal. The Prime Minister's personal popularity is rising, and his party is quickly emerging as the voice of Quebec federalists in Ottawa. Provincially, the Liberals and ADQ -- #1 and #2 in the polls heading into this month's election -- are clamoring to convince voters who is Harper's best friend: Charest or Dumont. Things couldn't be better, right? Hang on...

To his credit, Harper has done well to stear clear of personal involvement in the Quebec election. He hasn't picked sides, apart from opposing the PQ on principle and appearing in a photo-op with Charest just prior to the campaign. As for choosing between the PLQ and the ADQ, however, the PM has remained neutral. Let's hope it doesn't come back to hurt him.

Building alliances with Charest should be of little concern to most red tories. Sure, he's fiscally conservative, but his tight-fistedness is tempered by the left-leaning Quebec political culture. (His early attempts at tax relief and program cuts fell flat, and he's since retreated from his plan of fiscal restraint.) All in all, Charest's last budget and his handling of social issues (like healthcare, immigration, religion, education and tolerance) and the constitutional file are a real model for red tory governance. Plus, with the ADQ outflanking the Liberals on the right, all signs point to a more centrist PLQ in the future. (Left-wing soft nationalists may be looking for a viable party to support, with the decline of the PQ.)

Conservatives should be more concerned with the Mario factor. Try as he might (and I'm not convinced he is trying) the ADQ leader just can't seem to keep social conservatives (read: outright biggots) from popping up in his ranks. Their anti-ethnic and homophobic comments -- as candidates and sympathisers -- are a throwback to the Union Nationale days. (The party is cultivating its support in many of the same rural regions as Duplessis did.) Equally concerning, the ADQ's soft stance on federalism leaves a lot of room for a drift toward brinksmanship-politics with Ottawa. Dumont's personal involvement with the 'oui' campaign in 1995 has been written off as political opportunism, but it's no less disquieting.

As the ADQ continues to surge, Conservatives ought to be cautious about their association with a volatile party with biggoted and sovereigntist tendencies. The PM has done well to avoid photo-ops with Dumont (which, in a decade's time, could be akin to the pictures of Mulroney and Bouchard arm-in-arm). He might do a better job of discounting Mario's claims that he is part of the Harper team, or at least offering advice to Dumont about how to keep the radicals under wraps. Who better to offer such guidance?

Power Trip-Wires

With all the buzz around Broadway and Queen's Park, you'd think big changes are on the way following Harper's EcoTrust announcements. Specifically, Doer and McGuinty are hearalding Harper's $586M downpayment on the much-hearalded "East-West Power Grid" as the first big step toward creating a hydro-pipeline between Manitoba and Ontario. There are reasons to be wary, however:

(1) This is by no means the first time we've heard these promises. Manitoba governments from Schreyer to Filmon (and now, Doer) have trumpeted agreements with Queen's Park in the past, only to have Ontario pull-out when the costing has been completed. If memory serves me, Filmon had a similar Conowapa deal with Pederson; then Harris was elected. The Ontario Tories are known for their pursuit of Ontario-first policies and -- quite understandably, considering the Commonsense Revolution -- they immediately quashed plans to develop the grid. It remains to be seen whether John Tory would pursue the same Ontario-centric policy, although the Conservatives' focus on provincial nuclear energy suggests this is most certainly the case.

(2) This leads to a second concern: election outcomes. Most major policy announcements and funding commitments take place around election time, as governing parties attempt to leverage popular projects into re-election. In this case, all three governments -- Manitoba, Ontario and the Feds -- will make their commitments known in their upcoming budgets. While each is ahead in its respective polls, there's no guarantee that Doer, McGuinty or Harper will be around next year to fulfill the Conowapa promise.

Ever an optimist, I'm keeping an open mind. This time around, the "grid" is being framed as an environmental issue, and not one focused on Manitoba's economic interests or Ontario's electrical sovereignty. This may help Ontario politicians sell the idea to the electorate. Plus, this is the first time that Ottawa has stepped in to offer funding (a full third of the cost). This said, we should all be a little more wary of the obstacles still in place.

Please don't kill the budget...

Yesterday's recommendation by the House of Commons finance committee has raised the stakes of the March 19th budget... and they're much higher than partisan interests.

The committee believes the federal government should provide funding ($300M over 3 years) for a series of new immunization programs -- including a vaccine that prevents human papilloma virus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer.

While currently unapproved for public consumption in Canada, the vaccine is pegged at $400 and is most effective when administered before women become sexually active. Presumably, the federal government will follow the Americans' lead, and make the vaccine available to women aged 9 to 26. Our program sounds like it would involve the vaccination of all female Grade 6 students, with voluntary vaccination available for others.

Let's not play politics with women's lives. Pass the budget so that we can make the vaccine available as soon as possible.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Two Bags of Pucks and a Roll of the Dice

Alright everybody. Let's take a deep breath.

The way everybody's talking about the Ryan Smyth trade today, you'd think the world had come to an end. Sadder yet, being the night the Oilers raised #11 to the rafters, commentators and jilted fans have been heard lamenting the fact that #94 won't be retired someday, as well.

Come on. Ryan Smyth is good, but he's no Messier. Heck, he's not even an Al Hamilton (that other guy in the rafters at Rexall). I'm not saying Smitty's a bum. Just that he's a symbol.

It's time for some perspective.

Smyth is a gritty character player. He's a 20-goal scorer who's had a couple of good years (thanks largely to a lack of other goal-scorers on the team). He's a second-line winger on most other clubs. He may well have been the "face of the franchise" (the "mullet of the mob"), but he is not the player everyone's making him out to be.

All this in mind, Kevin Lowe's decision not to pay Smyth $22 million over 4 years was a no-brainer. Think about his options:

Option 1: Recognizing he's an unrestricted free agent this summer, trade Smyth now for the best package possible... Regardless of what Glen Healey says, three first round picks was the best deal on the table for Ryan Smyth, especially considering the fact that Bertuzzi, Guerin, Tkachuk, and Forsberg had already found homes. (Not that Smyth is even remotely in that eschelon of players.) It would have been nice to have made a trade earlier, when teams were still hungry. But Oil Country wouldn't have stood for a deal that ended their playoff hopes any earlier in the year. Nor would fans have let Lowe off the hook if he made the deal without negotiating down to the very last minute. And no one could be sure that Detroit, San Jose, Atlanta or Nashville were even interested in Smitty.

Oh, don't kid yourself: Nillson and O'Marra are not going to be first-line players in the NHL. But, combined, they won't be much worse than Smyth's 20 goals / year. Plus, the first-round pick gives the Oilers a total of three (3) first-rounders this June (their own, the Islanders', and the one Ducks sent over for Pronger). Combine all of this youth with the players they already have (Schrempf and Syvret are ready next year), and you have a decent up-and-coming group. Put yourself in a good position to contend next year, and you have a ton of trade bait at deadline time. Long story short, the Oilers would have been hard-pressed to make a playoff run even with Smyth in the line-up. It was time to start thinking about next year.

Option 2: Hold onto Smyth and hopefully sign him in the off-season... Knee-jerk Oiler fans, conjuring up images of "I promised Mess I wouldn't do this" would say, "Pay Smyth as much as he wants -- he's our franchise player!" I'm not as nostalgic, and neither was Lowe. The way he and Donny Meighen were 'negotiating', neither side was going to back down this summer. So, option #2 would have seen the Oilers get nothing at all for Smyth. Two bags of pucks and a roll of the dice are better than a kick in the teeth.

Ahhhh, but there's still a third option that makes everyone happy......

3) Rent Smyth out to the Islanders for a good price, then sign him back in June.... NO, I'M NOT A TEARY-EYED OPTIMIST, HERE. I'm not saying Smyth will ever put on an Oilers jersey again. Nor will I be burning my own chandail if he doesn't. But consider this: Why on earth would you sign Smitty to a $22 million contract in February, when you could sign him to the same contract in June PLUS pick up three decent prospects? (Turn the rally-caps around, delerious Oiler fans -- we were not making another Finals run this year, so Smyth's departure doesn't cost us anything.) No one else in the league -- not even the delusional Garth Snow -- would sign Smitty for more than $5.5 million / year. Lowe knows that. At the very least, he will be a top bidder for Smyth when he becomes a UFA in a few months. If he lands Smitty again, all is well. If he doesn't, we're back to Option #1 -- which is still far better than Option #2.

Lowe says his decision was based on hockey factors, not financial ones. I, for one, believe him. Until the rest of Oil Country comes to its senses, I suggest we join forces and do what comes naturally to all of us: Cheering for whichever team plays the Flames in the first round. (Go Preds, Go!?!)

Jesus in Thunder Bay?

Check out Hobbs's Blog for details.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Passports, Provincial Politics & Security

Recent efforts by Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick to alleviate the financial burden and inconvenience of cross-border travel are certainly welcome. Politicians should be applauded any time they save Canadians money and time, right? Well, almost....

Now entering its second week, the 'Misters Doer, McGuinty and Graham Go to Washington' tour is emphasizing the need for the United States to relax its land-border access requirements to allow Canadians to continue to enter the United States using only driver's licences. (Presumably, their scheme will allow Americans to continue to enter Canada on the same terms.)

The plan sounds solid on the face of it. No need for occasional tourists to wait in line and pay for a passport in order to visit the States on holiday or business. Just preserving the status quo, right? WRONG.

Let's leave aside the fact that the Premiers are entering international negotiations -- informal as they are -- without the federal government present. This is part of an on-going trend that's seeing Canadian heads-of-government become second-rate lobbyists, begging governors and congresspeople to heed their interests. Granted, it can be effective (witness Ralph Klein's leveraging of Alberta oil on the BSE issue). But more often than not, it reveals precisely how small provincial governments are the grand scheme of things. When they travel in packs, like when they attend various governors' association meetings, they have a chance. But sending only the premiers of Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick turns the whole thing into a sideshow. It may work in terms of election posturing back home -- oh, how they look statesmanlike in their photo-ops on Capitol Hill -- but it's not even backpage news in Washington, where it really counts.

(The Harper government hasn't been silent on this issue, either. They've managed to push back the implementation date several times, and recently got Washington to agree to allow Canadians under 17 to cross land borders sans passports. What three premiers think they can do better than the PM is beyond me.)

The more concerning issue is that the deal they're proposing would involve the development of new, "enhanced" drivers licences. While news reports are short on details, McGuinty claims that the new Ontario card will include more security features than the current Canadian passport.

When you read "security features", don't think it means making your identity more secure. Or even your country more secure. This is all about making America more secure. And this means handing over personal information.

Presumably, your 'vital' information will be attached to these cards (your name, birthdate, birthplace, social security number, address, phone number, etc.). Your driving record would be recorded here, allowing the police to swipe your card when they pull you over. Maniotba's plan is to include vehicle registration information on their new licences, meaning your licence plate number will be attached. It's not a stretch to imagine that your criminal record could be stored here, as well, in order to facilitate border security. Throw in biometrics -- like your photo, fingerprints, retinal imprint, height, weight, eye-color, blood type -- and the card becomes what the Americans want it to be. But it won't end there.

It's a matter of practicality that a number of other pieces of information be attached to these new licences. Premiers have been collaborating on the development of electronic health records. The easiest solution: attach it you your 'citizenship card' (i.e., your new licence). Other information (including your family status, next of kin, tax returns, organ donor status, voter registration data, gun registration, pet registration, etc.) could easily be compiled here, allowing Canadians to access a wealth of government services with a single card. (It would be cool to add your banking information here, too, wouldn't it?)

It's disquieting enough that various Canadian governments have all of this information at their disposal. As it stands now, this information is purposefully compartmentalized (so that the DMV doesn't have access to your health records, for instance). Talk of citizenship cards always brings up the spectre of breaking down these compartments, however. (Recall the uproar over HRDC's attempts to monitor air travel in the aftermath of 9/11.)

I'm the last one to be alarmist when it comes to government over-reach. But it doesn't take a libertarian to see the slippery slope here. At the very least, these new licences would merge together data collected by provincial and federal governments. Suddenly, the police now has access to your health records, and your accountant has your gun registration. Good luck talking your way out of a speeding ticket because of your 'uromycetisis'.

If it's alright with the premiers in Washington, I'd like to spend the extra money and time on a passport. Leave my driver's licence out of it.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Picking Scabs

Being a centrist party has its advantages when you're in power. Jean Chretien's ability to ride waves of public opinion -- a little deficit reduction here, a little health care spending there -- was as much due to his own skill as it was to the nature of his party. As an ideologically-diverse coalition united, at times, only by their desire to hold power, theirs was a fairly easy caucus to control. Chretien's grip on his party was built on the same foundations as his grip on parliament -- what he said, went. You don't recall him ever issuing a three-line whip, do you?

Oh, how a few months can change things. Only now, after moving across the aisle, do we out now just how divided the Liberal Party is. The party is split over Anti-Terror legislation, and will soon divide over Afghanistan and the CN Rail dispute. A "united" Liberal Party passed the ATA less than two years ago. Are we to believe that half of them have suddenly had a change of heart -- that they've just recently become Charterphiles? No. The divisions were there under Martin and Chretien; they were simply papered over by power.

No amount of whipping will help Dion out of this situation. And he knows it. You need some source of authority if you are going to keep your caucus from falling apart, let alone drive it to reverse its own position. Withholding nomination papers is the last-ditch act of a desparate leader -- a threat that has little hope of working anyway, considering many Liberals are seriously re-considering their re-election bids.

It's plain to see: Without Chretien-like control of cabinet postions, election timing or the budget -- and without popular support both inside and outside the party -- Stephane Dion has lost control of his fragile coalition.

Actually... let's be truthful: He never had control of his party. Anyone who watched the Grits' convention in Montreal could see the divisions in the party. New versus old. Old versus young. Corrupt versus fresh. Left versus right. West versus East. French versus English. It didn't take placard signs or fake smiles to see the cleavages within the Liberal ranks.

Not that these emerged, magically, during the convention. Chretien's long goodbye left over a year for these wounds to fester. Martin's 'victory' only added salt. The convention-night: a massive exercise in scab-picking.

Not that the Liberal Party is unique in this regard. Masochism has become synonomous with Conservative Parties when they're out of power, particularly when polls show little hope for a return to office. It's just a little satisfying to learn that the "Tory Syndrome" isn't uniquely Tory after all.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Red Pumps and the BC Budget

Just when you thought that society was moving past traditional gender roles.... Open up the pages of the Vancouver Province.

In a disgusting and ridiculous story about the upcoming BC provincial budget, a writer suggested that Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor had learned her lesson from her last budget speech. No, the lesson had nothing to do with the balance between debt repayment, tax relief and social spending. (Heaven forbid we should spill policy ink on the pages of the Province.) No, the lesson had nothing to do with her delivery of the speech, either. It had everything to do with... wait for it.... HER CHOICE OF FOOTWEAR. (?!?)

In the opening lines of the article, Michael Smyth -- a knuckle-dragging man who could only be described as such in the most generous terms -- wrote,

"Trying to guess what's in the budget is always a dangerous game, but there's one budget-day prediction that's been a rock-solid, take-it-the-bank lock for a year now: There was no way Carole Taylor was going to wear those $600 Gucci pumps again. Taylor's choice of footwear last year was one of her few gaffes in an otherwise polished performance as B.C. finance minister. Selecting gold-buckle pumps from the Ivana Trump collection for her traditional budget-day shoes wasn't exactly a stroke of populist genius. No surprise, then, that she's adopted the oh-so-fashionable environmental theme this year to avoid another political bad-shoe day. She'll table the 2007 budget this afternoon while standing in the same pair of 16-year-old 'recycled' high-heels she wore back in 2005."

When's the last time you heard anyone comment about the cost and style of Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's thousand-dollar suit? (They're actually quite nicely tailored, by the way. Check it out.) I wonder why no one suggests he should 'dress down' when making a budget speech on cuts to welfare programs.

You study this type of gender-framing in the media -- mostly in the abstract. You tend to shrug off studies that suggest women are treated differently by journalists and editors. (It's easy to write them off as 'feminist' -- a term which, somehow, has been tainted as meaning 'less than scientific'.) Guess what: those studies are right. Check out Linda Trimble's award winning paper on "Who Framed Belinda Stronach".

When you teach about gender-framing, you hear students remark -- "Yeah, but that only happened in the old days of news reporting. We've come a long way since then." Guess what: we haven't.

Congratulations Mike Smyth and the Vancouver Province: you've just assured yourself of a permanent place in the required reading lists of every gender-politics course in the country. And you've earned the shame of every man who deserves to call himself one. Even someone from the Calgary School has to appreciate that.

Monday, February 19, 2007

State of the NB PC Party

I know that the New Brunswick PC's have been synonymous with Bernard Lord, but this is ridiculous. Lord stepped down in late-December, and they still haven't relaunched their website. Get it together.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

1988 Again?

I'm the last person to draw comparisons between elections, but the upcoming (ongoing?) election campaign feels a lot like 1988, doesn't it?

For one, all major parties are in agreement on shelving some of the most 'dangerous' issues (in 1988: Meech Lake; in 2006: health care). Plus the Tories have managed to find an issue over which they can divide the left (in 1988: Free Trade; in 2006: the environment).

I'm not saying that Harper can achieve a "Mulroney Majority" (built on the strength of a meagre share of the popular vote). But the potential is there. This is especially true if the environment remains the focus of the campaign. Think about it: the Tories are looking to make gains in BC, Ontario and Quebec. In all of those regions, the left is split between two of three parties (the Grits, Greens and Dippers). Dion knows this, which is why he's swinging deals with Elizabeth May. Layton, if he's smart, would do the same. In this election, perhaps more than ever before, a vote for a third party (Bloc, NDP, Greens) really is a vote for the Conservatives.

What's more, just like Free Trade in 1988, there's no need for the Tories to moderate their policy on the environment. They can own the business-friendly, fiscally-responsible vote (larger than you'd think, by the way), with little fear that a single left-wing alternative will defeat them in many ridings. It's a complete reversal from the 1990s, when the Liberals were able to champion healthcare at the expense of a divided right.

Remember: Leading up to the 1988 election, nobody expected Mulroney to win as big a majority as he did. Harper's had the same opportunity handed to him on a silver platter: an issue over which a divided left can't possibly defeat him.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Back-Seat Governing?

Here's a scary thought.... What if the Liberals decide to implement their entire 2006 platform through a series of private member's bills? If C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Bill) worked, what's to stop them from moving forward with the rest of their programme? John Ivison's column suggests that Paul Martin is preparing to move a 'Kelowna Implementation Bill', requiring the government to come up with a plan to implement a Liberal pact with Aboriginal groups. (The bill was to be debated last night, but the government managed to delay it's introduction.) What next? A Liberal childcare plan? As long as the Bloc and NDP are on-side, and as long as the bill "asks the House to approve certain objectives" (i.e., make a plan) as opposed to "asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives" (i.e., spend money), the Speaker is prepared to allow its passage. It's a fuzzy distinction, though. Back-seat governing is an interesting tactic, but questionably constitutional. At some point, the government will have to come up with a counter-strategy.

Respecting Parliament

Thank you, Mr. Harper. The government will respect the will of Parliament with regard to the most recent Kyoto Bill. No matter how ridiculous its judgment in this case, we ought to abide by legislation enacted in the House. It's simply tory principle. But it's also an opportunity.

As I said on Hobbs's blog yesterday, the opposition's handed the Conservatives a gift with this bill. I don't think Harper should come out against the legislation, but embrace it for what it is: the opportunity to table a report on precisely how damaging Kyoto will be. Tell the public that shutting down the Oil Sands completely, plus every coal generator in Ontario, will only get us halfway to meeting the Kyoto targets. Make sure the report also includes shutting down churches, schools and abortion clinics in Quebec (people have to drive to them -- creates too many emissions). Send the report as a bill, itself, through two readings. Have the Liberals make their own suggestions for how to destroy the economy. Accept every single Liberal amendment. Then table the report for the third reading in the House. Make it a confidence motion. Debate it on national television. Have the entire Conservative caucus vote against the bill. The Bloc will join you. The government falls. You then run the election on Dion's plan. Brilliant.

Comparing Eco-Plans

In the interests of full-disclosure, let's have a look at what each of the major parties is planning to do to save our planet:

From the Globe and Mail (07/02/16):

The Conservative plan

Total Cost: Will be revealed in next month's budget.

Environment Minister John Baird has said meeting Kyoto's 2012 targets at this point would cause "economic collapse" because the Liberals allowed emissions to rise too high.

Mandatory regulations will soon be announced requiring reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions from all industry, including the automotive sector.

The budget is expected to include a host of environmental initiatives. The Prime Minister has already announced a $1.5-billion EcoTrust to finance large projects in the provinces that reduce greenhouse gases.

An EcoEnergy Renewable Initiative, worth $1.5-billion over 10 years, was announced to encourage more renewable power production.

Budget 2006 contained tax credits amounting to two months of free bus passes for citizens who buy passes each month.

The Liberal plan

Stéphane Dion said yesterday he stands by his 2005 Project Green plan for honouring Canada's Kyoto commitments, but will be updating it shortly.

Total Cost: $10-billion

Key elements include the following:

Large Final Emitter System: Regulations would set maximum emission levels for each industrial facility in the country. Companies that are under the target could sell emission credits to companies that are over the target, creating a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

Partnership Fund: Between $2-billion and $3-billion to finance projects jointly with the provinces to reduce greenhouse gases.

Climate Fund: Between $4-billion and $5-billion for technology that reduces greenhouse gases and to buy foreign and domestic emission credits.

Automobile Industry: A voluntary agreement with the auto industry to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 5.3 megatonnes.

Renewable Energy: $1.8-billion over 15 years to encourage more wind and renewable power.

The New Democratic plan

Total Cost: $15.1-billion (net cost of $6.7-billion over seven years after cancelling the capital cost allowance for the oil sands)

The plan is divided into five parts:

A greener homes strategy, including energy retrofit projects: $1.3-billion over seven years.

A greener communities strategy, including reductions in landfill emissions and funds for municipal projects: $5.4-billion over seven years.

A greener transportation strategy, including GST rebates on the purchase of low-emission cars: $2.8-billion over seven years.

A greener industry strategy, including caps on industrial emissions and an end to oil-sands subsidies: saving $8.4-billion over seven years.

A greener Canada and the world, including incentives for renewable power and earning Kyoto credits through investments in the developing world that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: $5.6-billion over five years.