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.

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.

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.