I had a fairly long post about day 2 of the election campaign that somehow got fried while I was spell-checking (ah the wonders of technonogy). So you'll have to make do with this much shorter post on a different topic.

While I agree reforms to our 'Justice' system are needed, creating an office to prosecute public officials is not what I have in mind...

Webster's killer freed, victim's family urged to 'move on'

I don't know what disgusts me more, the fact that two years behind bars can possibly be considered a just sentence for beating a man to death, or the spectacle of the judge who freed him lecturing the victim's family on the 'merits' of forgiveness. I realize that the judge was acting in accordance with the law when he took this action and I know nothing more of the judge involved. Perhaps it's possible that he has lost a close friend or family member to a senseless act of violence. Perhaps he has even been able to look the killer in the eye and forgive him/her, BUT EVEN IF HE HAS, he still has no right to tell the victim's family that it's time to "move on and forgive". That's an insult of the highest order and an unforgivable abuse of the authority which has been vested in him.

Less than five years after his death, Aaron Webster is apparently all but forgotten since according to Judge Romilly, "The sole preoccupation at this stage should be to help the youth, who committed a terrible offence, while still a youth." Pfagh!!!

How have we come to this???

Quote of the Day

"I accept Mr. Grewal's decision, and I understand his reasons. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, I would like to thank Mr. Grewal for his years of service to the people of Newton-North Delta. I wish Mr. Grewal all the best in his future endeavours." Stephen Harper's reaction to MP Gurmant Grewal's decision not to run for re-election. Source: Globe and Mail

It's almost like the Rabbi's prayer for the Tsar: 'May God bless and keep Mr. Grewal... far away from us!!' Mr. Grewal, as you'll recall, was the MP who had audio tapes (which may or may not have been altered) showing that the Liberals may or may not have been offering him and his wife future patronage appointments if they crossed to the Liberals, prior to a non-confidence vote this spring (you know the one that wasn't held until after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to be given a shiny new cabinet post?). Afterwards, Mr. Grewal decided to take some stress leave. I notice his wife, Nina, is still running in her seat though...

Tories reopen same-sex marriage debate

That didn't take long. I was hoping for at least a few days to hammer my thoughts out on this issue before it made headlines.

What I do think now is this is what's going to be remembered as Stephen Harper's 'big gamble' of the campaign. If he succeeds, he'll be hailed as a political genius (see reasons below) and if he fails, he'll be accused of destroying the Conservative movement for years. As big as the stakes are, let's look at it dispassionately for a moment. My own reading of the polls on this issue in recent years is that 40% of Canadians are very open to, and supportive of, gay marriage, about 40% are generally opposed to it, and the other 20% waffle one way or the other depending on how the question's phrased, who's been commenting in the media on it, etc. So I understand Mr. Harper's sensing an opportunity here and that opportunity is magnified by the fact that all the other parties are on the other side of the fence from the Conservatives on this.

In 1988, Brian Mulroney made used of united opposition to free trade and won a majority government. In 1992, Preston Manning's Reform party broke away from the rest of the Canadian political establishment and campaigned openly against the Charlottetown Accord and the resulting victory for the 'No' side established the Reform Party as a serious political force in this country. I'm betting that Stephen Harper (who's no fool, whatever else he is) remembers those events very clearly and is betting that he can follow in those footsteps.

But it is a gamble (just as it was in '88 and '92). Still looking at it dispassionately, is this really an issue that's a vote-getter? Are Sikhs, Muslims and others who've voted Liberal for years suddenly going to vote for Mr. Harper and his party based on this one issue? Even if he's also chanting 'Gomery, Gomery, Gomery' all day? After all, even when Ontario MP, Pat O'Brien, left the Liberal caucus over the issue last June, he still chose to sit as an independent rather than join the Conservatives... In other words, Liberals abstaining because of this issue may not be enough to lift Mr. Harper into the 35%+ range of the popular vote that he'll need to form (even a minority) government.

But if my head's telling me that this is deep (though risky) strategy, my gut's churning... Why? Well for one thing, while the electorate, as a whole, may be sitting at 40/40/20 on gay marriage, if you look at the under-30s, it changes diametrically to something like 75/10/15. In other words, there's a profound generational shift in thinking on it's way and opposition to gay marriage may soon look as dated as opposition to a woman's right to choose (or vote) or to racial segregation or even slavery, which have all been defended by conservatives of one form or another in the last couple of centuries... In other words, the Conservative Party, to gain a temporary tactical advantage in one or two elections, may be throwing away an opportunity (perhaps it’s last opportunity?) to connect with the voters of tomorrow...

So which is right, head or gut? I wish I knew. All I can say for certain is I'm beginning to think that beneath his bland, policy-wonk exterior, Mr. Harper has the heart and soul of a riverboat gambler. It's not necessarily a bad trait, sometimes even an essential one in a strong leader; and I admit that I used to respect Mr. Mulroney's determination to 'roll the dice' even when I didn't agree with some of the stakes or games he was playing in. And, after all, it was Julius Caesar, crossing the Rubicon who said "Let the dice fly high!" I guess only time will tell if the little Han Solo voice in my head saying "I have a bad feeling about this...' is right or not.

One last thing, I think Égale Canada and other gay rights groups will be making a BIG error if they think that because of this summer's vote in Parliament that the matter is closed and 'it's time to move on'. Because, in my humble opinion, nothing doomed the Charlottetown Accord more than the oft-expressed consensus in the media and political establishments that Canadians had to accept the deal or face ruin. And nothing is more apt to enrage/motivate a Canadian voter than to tell them that the decision's already been made and how silly or stupid they are not to recognize it and ‘move on’.

That was Fast!

On the same day the Parliament was officially dissolved and an election date was officially set for January 23, 2006, I received my very first piece of campaign literature from the Conservative candidate in my riding, Laurie Hawn.

Mr. Hawn is, of course, itching for a rematch since he ran a close second to Anne McLellan in 2004, being the latest in a line of Reform, Alliance and Conservative candidates who have made Ms. McLellan's hold on her seat a very shaky one. Known by some as 'Landslide Annie', Ms. McLellan's 721 vote margin of victory, in 2004 is actually an impressive gain on her margin of 12 votes (after a judicial recount) in her first election in 1993. That slim margin, plus Ms. McLellan's profile as Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, means my riding will certainly attract more media attention from down east than any other riding in Alberta. Oh, joy...

But getting back to Mr. Hawn again, receiving a drop on the first day of campaigning speaks of organization, determination, and at least one really committed volunteer (especially since today is practically the first 'wintry' day we've had so far this season). I mean I remember when I used to be that committed and in every case, it was because the candidate had brought it out in me. So, maybe it will be worth visiting Mr. Hawn's campaign office in the next few days or so...

What's also ironic is that I also received a drop in my box last week from Anne McLellan. The difference that's worth mentioning, of course, is while Mr. Hawn's drop of today was partisan literature paid for and produced by his party, Ms. McLellan's drop, delivered days before an election call, was funded through her parlimentary budget, paid for by the taxpayer. And while Anne's drop scrupulously obeyed the rules of non-partisanship, it also included 2 pages of electoral information, including the tidbits about the narrow margin of Ms. McLellan's victory in 1993... The rest of the drop was a 2006 calendar filled with many inspring pictures of Anne with schoolchildren, Anne with a senior, Anne with community volunters, with police officers, with firefighters, with residents of a homeless shelter, etc. etc.

What I did find very interesting, is that while the November photo showed Canadian veterans at a local Remembrance Day ceremony, it was one of only two calendar photos not to include Ms. McLellan (the other was of a local singing group to which Ms McLellan apparently does not belong). I am left wondering why... Is it because there are no photos of Anne with veterans (something I find hard to believe), or is it because Anne so honours our vets that she's giving them a precious photo without her (though I notice the RCMP and firefighters were not so treated)? Or are there other motives? Because I have a nasty and suspicious mind (one of the reasons, no doubt, I'm drawn to politics), I do feel compelled to note that Mr. Hawn is also Lt. Colonel Hawn (ret.) of the Royal Canadian Air Force, with which he served for 30 years. Maybe, just maybe, there are no votes to be gained in an 'Anne with veterans' photo... Nah, surely even the Liberals aren't so cynical... are they?

Anyway, this is just the first round, the preliminary skirmish, in what is likely to be one of the hardest-fought races in Canada. Should be fun to have a ring-side seat to it!!

The 2006 Race In Edmonton Centre, A Tale of Two Drops...

Quote of the Day

"They decided that forcing an election was more important than giving middle-income Canadians the full benefit of our tax cuts. Well let me tell them that they can explain themselves to Canadians, because as Liberals we will go into every riding in this land, and we will say to the people of our country, you have a real stake in this election." Paul Martin to his caucus after the non-confidence vote of November 28, 2005... source: Globe and Mail

Ah yes, let's start the campaign by rewriting history (a sound Liberal tactic). Let's ignore the fact that Mr. Martin has been Prime Minister for almost two years and in that time has brought down at least two budgets and two economic updates before this month's promise of tax cuts. And that promise just happened to be delivered one day after the three opposition leaders agreed to bring down Mr. Martin's government (and less than three weeks after his own Finance Minister had said that any changes to taxation rates would have to wait until next February's budget). Let's forget the fact that he had two years left to run on his first mandate and that 17 months passed in his second before he could 'find the time' to promise these middle-income tax cuts.

I'm left wondering if the Prime Minister of Canada thinks I'm stupid or I merely have serious memory problems. I sure hope that Anne McLellan tries that line on me when she knocks on my door, it will be a fun time!

Have to give the Godfather credit for one thing, the last part of that quote is the unvarnished truth...

This is probably going to be a rare 'political' non-election post, but I just want to say 'thank you very much' to the voters of PEI

Electoral reform rejected in PEI

Everyone loves the Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented, save for all the others that have been tried from time to time". Well, I feel that way about our 'first-past-the-post' (fptp) system. It's not without its flaws and I know it can distort the voice of the voters (I was one of the almost 2 million Canadians who voted PC federally in 1993 to only get 2 MPs out of the deal), but I do find it superior to proportional representation (or PR for short), for two reasons...

1. I like the 'connection' between people and their elected representatives offered by fptp. I know that even under a modified PR system there would continue to be constituency MPs/MLAs (reps) directly elected as before. However, those reps would have peers sitting in the House, simply because they were at the top of a list prepared by their party's leadership. The party list reps don't ever have to pick up their phone and talk to constituents, the only calls they have to take are their leader's. And taking accountability away from reps is not the way to go, otherwise we could just hand it all over to un-elected Judges (but that’s another post!)
2. My other concerns are more pragmatic. PR tends to tends give disproportionate influence to smaller parties who play the kingmaker role, it dilutes a party's policy because those policies get compromised in order to survive, in short it creates a form of government like the one we've endured for 17 months, except that the short-term, 'survive 'til Thursday evening' viewpoint lasts for years. There's no certainty for long range planning if a coalition partner can pull out and leave you high and dry. Sometimes, the really important decisions are also controversial and need time to be proven effective. These decisions almost never happen under a PR system. Do you think that Klein could have accomplished his 1993 reforms, or Mulroney got free trade through (or Douglas got medicare, for that matter) under a PR system?

It's no coincidence to my mind that the oldest continuously functioning stable democracies in the world (the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia) all employ a ftpt system. Yes, it has its flaws but if you want to looked at flawed PR systems in action, you only have to look at Germany taking months to form a government, or the imminent collapse of the government in Israel, and that's just this fall. Or you could look at the New Zealand experience...

Also, one other note to the 'Yes' side supporters, I think it's really bad form to be still complaining about the 60% threshold required for a change after more than 60% of PEI voters cast their ballots against changing to PR...

Liberal Government Falls

In other words, 171 MPs would seem to be backing the 'organized crime' theory... I wonder if the GG will exercise her prerogative and ask Stephen Harper if he could form a government... wouldn't it be cool if it happened?...

"In this weak and piping time of peace..." Shakespeare's Richard III laments a lack of proper employment (i.e. violence and mayhem). Well, you might be forgiven for thinking that the 17 months since our last general election have been anything but peaceful, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts it's likely we'll soon look back with longing at those 'quiet' months once the real mudslinging begins.

Now new characters will appear to frighten us. Terrible, deformed, maniacal monsters come to destroy our country and bearing about as much resemblance to reality as Shakespeare's Richard III bore to the actual king. But, thanks to the propaganda wings of Canada's political parties we'll soon be seeing, hearing and reading about:

• 'The Godfather', a.k.a. Mr. Dithers, a.k.a "Pleading' Paul Martin... who has schemed for years to finally gain control of the national political syndicate only to find that it might have been doing something illegal (like stealing taxpayers' money). Who has managed the feat of simultaneously apologizing for said action, setting up an enquiry into it and threatening to sue anyone who doesn't spout the party line... Claims a number of priorities, but has shown he will promise or do anything to hang on to power.
• 'Mad Jack' Layton dreaming his dreams of a carbon-free Canada, where we can all bicycle to our (unionized) jobs singing 'Solidarity Forever' and will learn to do without pesky things like cars, SUVs, an economy, or Alberta.
• 'Gorgeous' Gilles Duceppe, best known outside Québecfor his failed attempt to make hairnets fashionable for men. His fondest dream, to replace a semi-socialistic Dominion of Canada with a semi-socialistic Republic of Québec.

And of course the 2005-06 political 'epic' would be incomplete without:

• 'Scary' Stephen Harper, a man so terrifying... he's well, bland. A man who spends every waking hour plotting the destruction of medicare and earnestly seeking to put women back into the kitchen (perpetually pregnant) and gays into prison, where he thinks they belong.

Of course, the real question is whether Canadians will take the time and effort to penetrate these caricatures and find, for instance, that Stephen Harper's positions on virtually everything from gay marriage to medicare is vitually the same as Martin's position on those subjects a few years ago; or that the media while gleefully exposing every gaffe made by a Conservative candidate on say, abortion, will likely stay silent about similar gaffes from Liberal candidates...

Personally, I think it equally likely that Canadians will dive under the covers with several gallons of rum-laced eggnog. We'll also be lucky if 6 out of 10 of them get out from under the covers long enough to vote on election day... But, you never know, Canadian voters are an odd bunch and they may yet take time off from their shopping expeditions, family quarrels, digestive upsets and other traditional fun-filled holiday activities to give this election the attention it deserves.

Stranger things have happened...

Oh yes, in other news, I'm thinking the Liberals are also expecting to form another minority government after the election. That would explain the latest offering from my favorite political rat, "Stronach calls for fixed election dates".

OK, maybe I'm overly cynical and this really isn't an attempt to give Mr. Martin a four year term, whether or not Canadians elect enough Liberal MPs to ensure this. On the other hand, it seems par for the course...

As enjoyable and cathartic experience as bashing the Conservatives has been over the past few days, it's time to return to the even more enjoyable (and usual) practice of bashing the Liberals...

There's an often-told tale of an incident that occurred during a campaign stop made by Sir John A. MacDonald (the Canadian politician I'd like most to meet in the afterlife). As was his custom, Sir John had indulged heavily in a liquid lunch before his afternoon speech. However, a lengthy ride in a badly-sprung carriage left the distinguished gentleman feeling a bit queasy. And, after making his way up the stairs to the speaking platform (an unkind observer might have said he staggered somewhat), Canada's Prime Minister completely lost control and vomited his luncheon up in full view of the rather stunned crowd. Drawing himself up, he looked the now-silent crowd in the eye and said loudly, "And that's what I think of the opposition!" I can't help but contrast this with our current Prime Minister's reaction to the opposition, which is to call his lawyer...

In a collection of pathetic pre-election headlines, "Liberals send lawyer's letter to Harper over organized crime jab" deserves special recognition. I particularly liked the line: "The legal threat indicates the Liberals will punch back if they feel their opponents make unfair use of the sponsorship scandal in the coming election campaign." I mean, gosh, wouldn't it be unfair if the opposition were to imply that my government handing over millions of taxpayer dollars in a kickback scheme was... well like a crime!

Now compare and contrast that article with: "Liberals will face problems head on, be straight: Martin" and a disturbing picture arises. 'You can trust Big Brother, the Dear Leader knows what's best for Canadians...' and then sotto-voice 'and we have lawyers ready to go after the opposition the moment they say anything unfair.' I have expressed reservations about the current opposition's apparent strategy to campaign on 'Gomery' all the time every day on every channel, but, on the other hand, if the Liberal response is going to be this arrogant and contemptuous of public intelligence it just might work...

But, in the meantime, can someone please tell our thin-skinned Prime Minister about the fate of Al Gore, the last politician who tried to sue his way to victory? On the other hand, don't. I'd relish the chance to see Mr. Martin out of office with a scruffy beard...

"Tories hope Gomery fallout will help them in Quebec"

And the laughs just keep on coming...

Seriously, one doesn't expect a political party to acknowledge failure before the election even starts. But this reminds me of when Nancy MacBeth proclaimed she could still win a majority government in Alberta a couple of days before the Liberals lost half their seats (including MacBeth's) in the 2001 election finishing with a grand total of seven out of 83 seats.

Nevertheless, Josee Verner seems determined to give Ms. MacBeth a run for her money for political optimism. Not that the Conservatives could hope for as many as seven seats in Québec. Now it is true that the Conservatives could make some 'inroads' in Québec this election. After all, when you're virtually at rock-bottom, there's nowhere to go but up... So how many distant second-place finishes would be defined as a Conservative success anyway? One? Two? As many as six?

And of course I can't miss noting "Verner denied the opposition had chosen unwisely in unleashing an election." Oh no, of course not; wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to make those 'inroads' in Québec...

Yep. "It's time to make another gargantuan effort to move Field Marshall Haig's drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin," (Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder Goes Forth BBC TV).

"Bono expresses disappointment in PM"

Well, I know how he feels...
and so, I imagine, do many Canadians. I remember a time listening to the then Prime Minister butcher both official languages and watching two right wing parties quarrel with all the sophistication of eight-year-olds in the playground. And I remember wistfully looking at our well-respected, world-renowned Finance Minister who achieved the feat of balancing the federal budget for the first time in decades. I even remember thinking that Paul Martin might actually inspire me to vote Liberal for the first time in my life! And then he became Prime Minister and soon thereafter, like Bono, I was 'crushed'...

Now I must confess to an aversion to celebrity endorsements in politics to begin with. It's not that I want to exclude anyone, let alone celebrities from participating in the political process. If a celebrity wants to work on a campaign or donate or *gasp* vote, then by all means he or she should do with my grateful thanks. But it does stick in my craw to see someone, who can instantly command media attention because of their success in another field, stand in front of a microphone and tell their fellow Canadians what the should/shouldn't support or do. I'm sorry, but if you feel that strongly about it, run for office yourself! Of course, in Bono's case, he'd have to take the intermediary step of becoming a citizen first...

But my repugnance of seeing Bono lecturing my fellow Canadians from a press conference on Parliament Hill is tempered by the remembrance that Paul Martin has brought this on himself (and us) when he sought out and gained Bono's endorsement in the first place. And my political funny-bone is once again tickled by the thought of many Liberals wandering around muttering 'I told you so' under their breaths.

I strongly suspect that the Liberals will now rush to release a plan to double foreign aid spending with most of the heavy lifting to be accomplished 8-10 years down the road. I only wonder if Bono will fall for it, again?

"Tories shrug 'that's Ralph' as Klein predicts another Liberal minority"

On Monday, I made some gloomy predictions about the federal Conservative Party's chances in the upcoming general election. Not long afterwards, Premier Klein made some of the same observations. While I would love to expound some wonderful fantasy that the Premier is an avid reader of my new blog, I'm forced by my natural integrity (and modesty) to confess that it's a simple coincidence caused by us both sharing a characteristic that's rather important in politics: we can both count (now, what 'skills' some of the people around Stephen Harper bring to the table is another question).

Over the years, I have often found that the reaction to some of Premier Klein's comments are more interesting than the comments themselves. And sure enough, out rush the federal conservatives with the usual reactions of shock, indignation and amused condescension. 'That's Ralph' they say and 'he's a character'. Well, here's a thought: WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO HIM??!!!

Ralph Klein is the most successful conservative in Canada. In the 25 years since he entered public life, he's not lost an election, not one!! That's three elections as mayor, one as a PC MLA, a cut-throat leadership contest, and four provincial general elections as leader of his party. There isn't another conservative alive in Canada with that kind of winning record. Heck, last year he even won an election with the vaguest platform in Canadian politics since Kim Campbell scrawled hers out on some napkins partway through the 1993 federal election. And yes, I'm aware of the role played by Rod Love in Klein's political success, but let's face it, Ralph Klein's done better without Rod Love than Love's done without Klein...

As any political junkie knows, one of the biggest advantages a government usually enjoys in Canadian politics is the ability to control the timing of an election. But now, for the first time in 25 years, the opposition gets to pull the trigger. Too bad they didn't think to line up their ducks first.

So, onward march the Conservatives showing the most misguided optimism since Field Marshall Haig, and no doubt they'll be shocked when the smoke clears and they find they got their butts handed to them (just like Field Marshall Haig); and at that point some of them will even try to blame Premier Klein for trying to warn them. But the reason the Liberals will be back in power after the next election is because somehow the Conservatives remain more disconnected from the electorate than a Liberal Party that stole our money.

And that's a damn shame...

Yesterday, I received inspiration in the mail for a wonderful post for today, but in light of today's news out of Afghanistan, I've chosen to shelve it for a few days. Instead, I offer my condolences and sympathies to the family and friends of Private Braun Scott Woodfield, who died doing his duty to his country. My thoughts are also with Sgt. Tony Nelson McIver, Cpl. James Edward McDonald, Cpl. Shane Dean Jones, and Pte. Paul Shavo who were injured in the same incident. I wish them a swift recovery.

Indeed, it's important to remember that every day, tens of thousands of out fellow Canadians don their uniforms to serve their country and its ideals, sometimes in almost unimaginable circumstances. The many years of neglect and decay that our armed forces have suffered is not the fault of a single government, or even of a single political party. It's something we all need to take responsibility for, and act to correct at a time when our national politicians will (or should) be listening very closely to us.

Because one day, I would like to wholeheartedly agree with the Defence Department spokesman who said today that our troops were "brave, well-led, well-equipped and fully prepared for their mission." I'd really like not to have to roll my eyes at the last two adjectives...

My friend, Duncan sent me this link "If at first you don't succeed, fire and fire again" last night. The article led me to draw a few observations:

• As I suspected, Mr. Martin did regard the firing of M. Pelletier as "one of the few pleasures he's enjoyed in... being PM", so much so that he wants to do it again.
• Apparently, the Justice Minister agrees with the court decision as the current firing process appears to meet the base requirements outlined by that decision.
• This does not bode well for the government in the civil case M. Pelletier has brought forward, which could cost taxpayers at least $3 million if the court finds in favour of M. Pelletier...
• I wonder what M. Pelletier's response will be (if any) to this new warning letter?
• I also wonder what disciplinary action (if any) former Transport Minister (and current Government House Leader) Valeri will face for not following proper procedures?

On the other hand, at least the government now knows the procedure of how to fire someone...

Few headlines could cause me the peculiar combination of dread and nausea that this one from the online Globe and Mail did this morning...

Liberals hatch plan to snag more Quebec voters

Oh good, that's just what we need...

More later.

And now for our regularly scheduled Monday post…

“You either have the confidence of the House or you do not have the confidence of the House, and there's no grey zone,” said Mr. Martin a few days ago on the subject of election timing. Well, it certainly looks like we’re going to see the latter within the next week or so, thus unleashing the ‘dreaded’ Christmas election upon Canadians.

A ‘Christmas election’ does not fill me with joy, though I don’t dread it for most of the reasons being reported. For one thing, it won’t be me out there door-knocking in the snow (although we have hardly seen any snow here in Edmonton yet, and it’s already Nov.21! Hmmm, reminds me to post my thoughts on global warming soon). For another, since it looks like I’ll be visiting Ontario over Christmas, it will give me a rare opportunity to see (at least) the election from a non-Alberta perspective (and also determine if there’s an ‘Ontario perspective’ that’s different from a ‘national media perspective’). And finally, because no matter how many Liberals and Conservatives over the next two months are going to be saying (and saying, and saying…) that their party needs a strong mandate (i.e. a majority government) from Canadians to get things done, my fearless election prediction is that the next Parliament isn’t going to look a whole lot different from the last one. In other words, it’s not that I dread an election now, it’s that I don’t see much point to one.

Let’s look at it from the Conservatives’ point of view. As I understand Conservative thinking (which is not an oxymoron!), is that if they say ‘Gomery’ loud enough, often enough during the campaign, there will be a groundswell movement to ‘throw the bastards out’. The problem is that so far, this particular groundswell has only been seen in the West and in Québec. In the West, there simply aren’t enough bastards left to throw out that will make all that much difference, and in some ridings (like Vancouver-Centre) the beneficiary is much more likely to be the NDP (how I loathe the thought of Svend Robinson back in the House again) than the Conservatives. And it takes some real Technicolor dreaming to envision Conservative MP’s from Québec in the near future… So that leaves Ontario.

But to produce a majority, the Conservatives will have to win (by my calculation) 75-80 seats in Ontario, which is a big swing and big swings like that are not just usually produced by ‘throw the bastards out’ alone. There has be a strong element of ‘throw the bastards in’ as well, and if that’s what Ontario is thinking, they’re hiding it very well! Of course, a smaller swing in Ontario might produce a Conservative minority government. Now in the last campaign, that was a realistic and even acceptable goal as the first Conservative government in over a decade could at last demonstrate to the country that Conservatives aren’t ‘scary’. But this time, that goal is much less satisfactory. Because in the limited lifetime offered by a minority government, either Harper will have to something fairly big to distinguish himself from the current government (which will immediately be translated as ‘scary’ by the Toronto Star, the CBC et.al. and likely precipitate another election). The other option is to govern much as Paul Martin has, making daily deals to survive, announcing long-term changes to taxation/spending that don’t have to fulfilled, not rocking the boat, etc. The problem with that (apart from being dull as dirt and about as heartening to the conservative ‘base’) will come during the next election where Mr. Harper’s ‘non-scary’ ‘liberal-lite’ government will be then up against the genuine article, which will almost certainly be revitalized and under new leadership and I’m not optimistic about that contest.

The problem with all this analysis is that I really don’t see all that much to do about it. I don’t think that changing leaders is the answer and not because I have any attachment to Mr. Harper – I don’t, but because I don’t see anyone out there who can do a whole lot better.

So, to come full circle, now you know the source of my dissatisfaction with this election, I don’t really see how it helps us (by us I mean conservatives as well as Conservatives) and even if we achieve a minority government (which I think is the best, realistic goal to hope for) all we end up doing is a favour for the Liberals by giving them the chance to remove Mr. Dithers (I mean Mr. Martin), currently our biggest asset…

(This post was written for Sunday but problems with my connection meant it couldn’t be posted until now. I realize that I could modify the ‘date stamp’ after the fact but that practice strikes me as too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984 ‘We’re at war with Eastasia, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia’…)

So, on Friday, while the Federal Court of Canada was rebuking my government for it’s firing practices, Public Works Canada was also making some interesting changes to its hiring practices. Hopefully these changes will also prove to be illegal, but until they are, any healthy white male applying for a job with that department will be wasting their time. In an e-mail, the department’s Deputy Minister, David Marshall, ordered his managers to hire only the disabled, visible minorities, women, aboriginals (leading me to wonder how ‘aboriginal’ one has to be if you don’t already qualify for either of the proceeding categories). To violate this order without written permission from their superiors would be a very bad thing. You can read more about this here (hoping link works).

This might not be the dumbest e-mail from a senior civil servant to fall into the public domain since Jo Moore’s September 11, 2001 advice to her fellow British administrators that 'today might be a good day to bury news that one doesn’t want the media to find out', but I can’t remember another contender. I, personally, am very tempted to immediately apply for any Public Works job I can find and when I’m rejected, take this e-mail and a lawyer and sue the government. Hopefully, someone else will do so, after all if it works for M. Pelletier…

Now I’m all for diversity in the workplace. I strongly believe that bringing people with different backgrounds into the same environment creates a synergy otherwise absent from workplaces lacking such diversity. So that’s a ‘good’ reason to have a diverse workforce. A ‘bad’ reason is the one articulated by Mr. Marshall, as executives and managers, our role includes ensuring that the public service is representative." What is ‘representative’? Why is one visible minority out of every five new hires ‘representative’? And if your managers aren’t meeting this goal, could it be that there just aren’t enough qualified candidates who also are visible minorities? And isn’t your primary role to deliver the best possible service at reasonable cost to the taxpayers who foot the bill? And how does your memo really address these issues other than adding another approval layer to the hiring process?

I can only hope Public Works Minister Brison can take some time off from his current bashing of Stephen Harper to ask his deputy some of these questions. Business before pleasure, after all…

I'm impressed and employees of the federal government should feel a bit more secure. It's not that the federal government can't fire you, it's just that it doesn't know how to fire you... or at least that's how I interpret the Federal Court of Canada's reinstatement of Jean Pelletier to his position as Chairman of Via Rail. I almost feel sorry for Paul Martin, you have to wonder if pulling the trigger on his former boss' ex-chief-of-staff was one of the few pleasure he's enjoyed in two years of being PM; and now that bullet seems to have ricochet back and hit Martin in the foot.

According to Justice Noel, the government's decision to fire M. Pelletier was unfair because he wasn't informed of the reason for his dismissal or allowed to respond (ironic that, since it was a 'response' by M. Pelletier that got him into hot water in the first place). Which sorta begs the question of what process was used that didn't cover these fairly basic points? Presumably, we'll now have to pay Pelletier for the 18 months he's been off the job, yet another example of value for money in patronage appointments.

Federal Justice Minister Cotler is now 'studying' the decision. Am I naive for wondering if they couldn't have consulted a lawyer before firing M. Pelletier, and if they did, could we at least fire him?

A Tale of Two Governments (and one very long post)

I can't help but compare the systems that produced the two economic updates released this week; one from Canada's federal government and one from Alberta's provincial government.

On the federal side, Liberal Finance Minister released an economic update (referred to by some as a 'mini-budget'). This update, which while it includes spending and taxation adjustments for the current fiscal years, is mostly phased spending over several years, while the government has a life-expectancy of anywhere from a few weeks to a few months at most. Indeed, some of the promised taxation reductions may not come until 2010 (begging the question of who knows what the economy, let alone the government, will looklike by that point!). The update also came the day after opposition leaders agreed to intoduce a motion calling for the government to call an election in January or face a non-confidence vote that would trigger an election before then.

Now, you might be forgiven for assuming that this economic update is a thinly disguised election platform for the forthcoming election. While I would forgive you, apparently Mr. Goodale would not. He insists that the timing of this update is sheer coincidence and that planning for it began as far back as May (i.e. while they were adjusting the '2005 budget' in order to stave off another non-confidence vote). In other words, I can be assured of economic updates from the government based firmly on a process established by and known only by the Finance Minister. Apparently, this rather opaque and obscure process can easily be distinguished from the Minister's whims, though I'm not sure how...

Now, by contrast, let's look at the Alberta model (relevent because I am an Albertan, but also because Alberta is the apothesis of everything evil, according to many Liberals -- well at least during elections). Under Alberta law, along with its annual budget, government release a 3 year business plan, including 3 year plans from each government department and other governmental organizations. These plans lay out the strategic and operational priorities over the three year cycle, along with performance measure designed to track progress that are recorded and reported each year in the government's annual report.

However, in addition, the Alberta Finance Minister is also required (again by law) to prepare and publicly report (whether the legislature is in session or not) quarterly updates on the current fiscal year's revenues and spending compared to the initial budget predictions. This means that the inevitable fluctuations that occur in government spending and revenues over the course of the year are reported on a regular basis about two months after the quarter has ended (i.e. the first quarter (April-June) is reported in August, the second quarter in November and so on. This transparency and regularity is vital to government accountability. If an unbudgeted contingency arises that requires more spending, that that must be reflected in the next quarterly update. Similarly, if revenues turn out to be lower than expected, the quarterly update will show this along with whatever measures the government is taking to compensate.

So why do I bring this up today. It's because I read that Paul Martin is planning to run on a platform emphasizing the Liberal record of fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship. And if that's what the election will be about, maybe Mr. Harper might have a few things to learn from Mr. Klein after all.

I love Québec. I firmly believe that a strong, proud Province of Québec within Canada enhances and strengthens both sides and that a Québec decision to leave Canada would be unfortunate for Canada and probably even more unfortunate for Québec.

However, I must say that the selection of André Boisclair to lead the Parti Québécois tickles the ironic side of my political funnybone. Why? Just considering that a young, gay, cocaine user might actually succeed in divorcing Québec from Canada where the wise old statesmen like René Lévesque, Lucien Bouchard, and Bernard Landry have failed. If nothing else, it would prove the universe has a (rather nasty) sense of humour.

Since much of this blog will involve political commentary, I think it's only fair to articulate some of my own views. Most people would define me as a 'conservative'; actually, I really tend to identify with late 19th and early 20th century (British) liberalism. In other words, I favour small government, free trade and social equality for all. In my view, the more roles a government undertakes, the less well it performs those roles and that a free market is much better at meeting people's needs than even the best-intentioned central planning.

Government's core responsibilities are:

• fiscal responsibility,
• maintaining law and order,
• promoting our interests and relations abroad and defending those interests when required (i.e. foreign policy and national defence),
• providing an infrastructure for its citizens (including environmental stewardship for future generations),
• provide an educational foundation to allow citizens to pursue their aspirations and fully participate within society, and finally
• assist those in our society who are in genuine need.

My views on government role in health care (the quintessential Canadian question) are more complex and deserve (and will no doubt receive) a post (or posts) of their own.

The words most likely to fill me with despair are 'why doesn’t the government do this?' or 'the government isn't doing enough about that'. The continuing abdication of personal responsibility in favour of a larger 'faceless' entity called 'government' is perhaps my greatest fear for the future; mainly because I don't believe government can handle it...

So those are my political views in a nutshell and will maybe give you an insight into my thoughts as I comment in future posts.

After years of reading blogs and seeing my friends blog I have (insert drumroll) decided to overcome my natural inertia and enter the blogosphere myself. One of the reasons I've hesitated is the fear of going many days without anything relevent to say. So I've decided to adopt what I'm calling the triple strike approach defined as three instances where I go 3 days without a post (without a fantastically good reason like hospitalization or other inability to access the net) then I'm going the shut the whole thing down as a failed experiment. So that gives me until Thursday to come up with another post...

The other reason I've avoided blogging is because while I have used computers sucessfully in a number of areas, web pages/html is definitely not an area of expertise for me. So this blog is going to be very minimalist (e.g. few pictures, links, basic template, etc.) until I get more confident in what I'm doing.

So what's my blog about? Naturally, things that interest me. These are: current events, politics, history, science-fiction and fantasy, writing (I'm working on a novel, which I hope to publish one day) and anything else that catches my eye. You will not see a lot of references to popular culture (like Madonna's new CD, I acknowledge it exits and try to have as little to do with it as I possibly can) with the possible exception of the occasional movie that interests me (there have been three so far this year). Nor will you see much reference to sports (except that I'm a big Calgary Flames fan, which will no doubt come through from time), or my personal life (which is pretty uninteresting anyway).

So, I hope you enjoy the ride (long or short as it may be), but I must confess since I'm doing this for my own pleasure, I won't really lose sleep if you don't enjoy it.