Quote of the Day:
"We have these rights, and we must not give them up, even if, at times, it's a little inconvenient and a little cumbersome and the odd guy with some drugs goes free." Larry Myers, Defense Attorney for Ajitpal Singh Sekhon as reported in this Globe and Mail story.

In January 2005, Mr. Sekhon's truck was searched at a border crossing by Canadian customs officials, who found a 'hidden compartment' which contained 50 kilograms of cocaine. Mr. Sekhon was acquitted last week by BC Provincial Court Judge Ellen Gordon, who ruled the search was unconstitutional because customs officials failed to obtain judicial authorization before dismantling Mr. Sekhom's truck. Also, according to Judge Gordon, customs officials further violated Mr. Sekhom's constitutional rights by preventing him from leaving during the early stages of the search and did not allow him access to legal counsel until after the cocaine had been discovered.

This is a complicated issue. In her wisdom, Judge Gordon determined that the border guard's decision to search the truck was based on "a lucky hunch" rather than 'reasonable grounds'. This is a helpful distinction and is, I'm sure, appreciated by the veteran customs officer who ordered the search, just as we all enjoy others telling us how to do our jobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to see someone taking an interest in overseeing Canada customs officials defending us from drugs, as well as 'obscene' porn books imported by a bookstore in Vancouver, and those evil 13-year olds bringing in oil paintings without a signed appraisal from the artist (and yes I'm still bitter about spending over $65 to satisfy Canada customs that the painting I bought in the UK for $85 was indeed only worth $85...).

But even I'd rather see customs get nailed for the cars and trucks it dismantles and the people it holds incommunicado without finding drugs. Because, as I see it and if this decision holds up, this is a lose-lose scenario for law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians. On one hand, we can put up with more delays at the border as customs officials cover their butts, ahem, I mean fulfill their legal obligations by seeking warrants. And even though Mr. Myers assures us a telephone warrant can be obtained in four or five minutes, multiply that by 20 cars a day for however many border crossings there are and you get a whole lot of man-hours being used (and paid for by taxpayers) by both judicial and customs officials to distinguish 'lucky hunches' from 'reasonable doubt'. The other option, of course, is even worse. We can just let the Ajitpal Singh Sekhons of the world drive right on through our borders with however many kilos of cocaine that they can conceal in their vehicles.

As I say, it's a complicated issue, made even more so now by last week's decision. I'm unhappy to read about a drug smuggler going free after trying to bring 50 kilos of coke into Canada. But I'm really pissed about reading the comments aimed at law-abiding Canadians by the smuggler's counsel who should have had the sense or decency to shut up rather than exulting in the system his client (ab)used to avoid criminal consequences for his actions...

Dumb Analyst Comment of the Night…

It was a tough call to make, but this award goes to David Taras of the University of Calgary for wondering “What Tory riding is safe after tonight?” after the Liberal victory in Calgary-Elbow in this Calgary Herald article.

Maybe Drumheller-Stettler?

An Honourable Mention to:

Keith Brownsey from Mount Royal College who is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, "Tonight marks the end of the Klein era. It's over."

Uh, right...

You Win Some...

I'm actually talking about my prediction about Drumheller-Stettler here, where after my obligatory disclaimer of ignorance about the riding, I then went and proved it by predicting a big gain for the Alberta Alliance. Instead, they dropped to fifth (!) place. while the Alberta Liberals finished second with about 14% (which is about the same share as the Alliance got in '04). This is interesting because it suggests that there's a somewhat significant segment of the population that is anti-PC and will vote for whatever party is most likely to challenge them. Something for PC analysts to think about when planning election strategy...

Still analyzing the poll-by-poll breakdown for Calgary-Elbow. More on that later...

Win or Lose - We Still Lose
The By-Elections on Tuesday

On Tuesday, June 12, provincial by-elections will be held in Calgary-Elbow and Drumheller-Stettler to replace the seats vacated by former Premier Ralph Klein and former Deputy Premier Shirley McClellan. How the ruling PC Party does is being considered a key test for Ed Stelmach, who just started his seventh month as Alberta's latest Premier.

Now, I like Ed and I think most people who've met him and talked with him on a one-on-one basis come away with a positive impression of his capabilities and his genuine desire to make Alberta a better place for all. But that message seems to be getting lost in this world of 15-second soundbites, Mayors who want to be Premier and media outlets determined to 'report' Alberta's superheated economy being almost as bad as the Great Depression!

But the grim reality for Premier Stelmach is that whether his party wins or loses the outcomes on Tuesday, it's still going to be painted as bad news.

Drumheller-Stettler
What I don't know about this riding could fill volumes. But what I do know is that rural by-elections in Alberta usually produce out-of the-ordinary results. The only separatist elected in Alberta's history from the WCC party was elected from Olds in a by-election and in a much more recent by-election in Wainwright, a Liberal MLA was elected, only to be tossed out a short time later when the riding went strongly PC in the following general election. In the last election in 2004, the incumbent, Shirley McClellan, won two-thirds of all votes cast and over four times as many votes as her nearest opponent from the Alberta Alliance. What's notable is that the then (and current) Official Opposition party, the Alberta Liberals, did not run in that riding.

No one is expecting that kind of result on Tuesday and most PC's are just hoping/praying for a win, whatever the margin. Personally, I think the prayers will be answered just because a 53% margin of difference is too high a mountain to overcome in one go. But in the larger sense, it doesn't matter, because even if the PC candidate, Jack Hayden, wins, the story is going to be all about the impressive gains made by the Alberta Alliance (and they will make big gains). So even if Premier Stelmach's party wins in Drumheller on Tuesday, the focus is going to be on the 'threat from the right' and the 'challenge in rural Alberta' to a Premier whose strongest base of support is considered to be in rural Alberta. Of course, it's quite possible that the Alliance could win, particularly if the Liberals do well in third place. But really, the story dynamics don't change in that case, they just become more emphatic.

Calgary-Elbow
I know this riding better having worked politically in it about a decade ago. Calgary-Elbow is not, by far, the safest seat in Calgary for the PCs, even under its former incumbent, Premier Klein. To me, the only thing that keeps this race close is the difference in the actual candidates. The PC candidate, Brian Heninger, is a successful local businessman, with strong roots in the constituency that go a long way back making his first try into electoral politics, while his opponent, Craig Cheffins, has twice run for office as an alderman and lost both times. Personally, I think this election's a coin-toss with 'heads' being the local guy comes through for the PCs. But it's equally possible that Elbow voters will choose to shoot the messenger for 'tails'.

But, once again, none of this stops this by-election being a lose-lose for Premier Ed. If the PCs hold on, it will be painted as a good local candidate pulling through despite being dragged down by a Premier who's unpopular in Calgary; and if the PCs lose, it will be hailed far-and-wide as a "stunning indictment" of the new Premier.

So, in both cases, win or lose, Premier Stelmach and the PC Party still lose. In my opinion, It's not so much a leadership thing (yet), but it's largely a function of having had no effective opposition for well over a decade now. The party has gotten lazy and 'sloppy' and hasn't really been punished for it yet (Calgary Varsity aside). Those of us who hoped that new leadership would energize things, have been disappointed so far. To turn things around, we need to do two things.

First, we don’t just have to set the agenda, we have to own it. There’s an adage in politics that a new government has a window within its first 18 months to get things done, before inertia grinds things to a halt. If that’s true, then six months, or one-third of that time is gone, and we don’t have a lot to show for it. While I understand and appreciate that the Premier wants to consult and plan carefully, time’s a-wasting! In other words, if Ralph Klein had spent his first six months in office in consulting and planning, I’ve no doubt there would have been no ‘miracle on the prairies’ to follow…

Adding to our failure to 'own the agenda' is our inability as a party or a government to communicate effectively either through the media or 'over' them directly to the people. Right now, rehashing old announcements (last week marked the fourth time a new hospital has been ‘announced’ for southern Calgary), full-colour brochures (like the June 2007 ‘Report to Albertans’, which likely went straight into the garbage or, if we’re lucky, the recycling bin) with pretty pictures and vague progress reports, endless news releases that rarely have anything ‘newsworthy’, and road-trips by the Premier around the province just aren’t going to cut it.

Something needs to be done. In both these areas. And by September at the very latest.

Otherwise, the PC Party’s going to wake up one morning soon and find out that the Liberals have learned to stop ‘opposing’ and have become what Stephen Harper made of the federal Conservatives (or Decore made of the Alberta Liberals in the early ‘90s), a government-in-waiting. At that moment, the PC Party’s days are numbered and the party’s over.

Gun Control

As a Canadian, my motivation for seeing stricter gun control in the USA includes a large amount of selfishness. And that's because the vast majority of illegal firearms in Canada likely come from legal purchases made in the USA and then brought across a very long border.

Having said that, I have little patience with those who claim that gun controls, including a registration/licensing procedure, is an infringement on their 'rights'. Governments, even in the 'land of the free' restrict the legal operation of cars based on age and a proven competency in its operation (demonstrated through obtaining a driver's license). Governments demand that owners register their cars (and, heck, even our pets). Does the NRA oppose vehicle registration? Is that a restriction to one's right to own property?

Rights come balanced with responsibilities. So, yes, I agree with a strong control system that says if you want the right to bear a gun, you have to demonstrate a responsibility by going through a licensing and registration process. And I'd go further to have stronger mandatory sentences (both fines and jail time) for those carrying illegal/unregistered firearms or failing to report to the authorities if their gun has been lost or stolen or if they are found to be keeping firearms in an unsafe manner. And while I can agree that such restrictions can be burdensome on lawful, responsible gun owners, they should be prepared to show the rest of us that responsible gun use isn't just a convenient phrase, but is a title one has to work to earn.

Having said all that, I think there are enough justifiable uses for firearms (especially in rural areas) that I'd certainly oppose a total ban. Such a ban would, no doubt, cut down on gun-related deaths. But thousands, too, die every year in/struck by automobiles. Should we then ban cars? Not to mention I could also make the argument that in the hands of a crazy person, an SUV can do a lot of damage on a busy street). So then, the whole argument on gun ownership is part of a larger argument about freedom and order. In a world where you have total freedom, you'd have anarchy. In a world of total order, you have totalitarianism. All rational people recognize that there has to be compromise on the 2 extremes, but the staggering number of lives lost to gun violence in the USA shows that the current compromise has to be re-worked in favour of greater public safety.

My own view is if there's going to be real change on this in the USA, it's going to have to come from the ground up, not the top down. There's going to have to be a change in attitude towards guns and responsible gun ownership akin to the changes underway in attitudes of discrimination towards gays, women, people of varying ethnicities, etc. It's sad but the magnitude of the problem means progress will take time. According to the Brady Campaign there were 65 million privately owned handguns in the US in 1996 and another 127+ million privately owned long arms. That's a very steep hill to climb, but the cost of not climbing it was shown all to clearly yesterday morning in Virginia.

A Fundamental Question

Two students were shot dead in their dormitory early this morning, by a gunman, who some two hours later, killed another 30 in a classroom at Virginia Tech University. There will, no doubt, be questions about the slow response of the University to warn students after the first shooting, whether the police investigation could have been more efficient and perhaps prevented or limited the second. And there will certainly be broader questions about gun control once more information is released on the weapons used, and how they were acquired.

But I have a different question that’s probably unanswerable, but for me it cuts to the heart of the situation. How can someone get up in the morning (or night or whenever) and say to himself, ‘Today’s the day I am going to go out and kill dozens of people”? There are certain situations, where I believe I could kill. To defend myself, or others, against attack and maybe even for certain principles in an armed conflict.

But considering such situations doesn't help me make the conceptual breakthrough to understand how someone could do such a thing as this unknown man did today. Religions, ideologies, and patriotism are among the motives that have inspired men to do terrible things, and continue to do so. Maybe we’ll find one of those (or something similar) at the core of today’s tragedy. Because, to me, hatred is so personal and life so precious, that taking 'revenge' by killing 20 or 30 of your fellow human beings in an hour or two, many of whom will have no idea as to why they're dying one morning defies my understanding.

And sure, there's an 'easy' answer that passes this off as the result of some form of mental illness only conceivable by the insane. But that then begs the question how could such a person, possessing such malicious forethought as to plan this kind of deed, possibly pass himself off as a sane human being between the time he conceived such horror and when he executed it?

Goodbye Belinda...

Not long ago, there would be derision in those words responding to Belinda Stronach’s announcement, earlier this week, she would not be running for Parliament again. And yes, I am chuckling at yet another headache for Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, by this example shown by the person Dion tasked with getting more women to run as Liberal candidates in the next election (sorry, but I simply can’t resist the obvious jab…). And yet I'm finding I will miss Belinda's presence in Canadian politics.

When I heard the announcement, that feeling of regret and loss surprised the heck out of me, because I hadn’t realized that my views on Belinda have were slowly climbing, rollercoaster-like, once again. I first became aware of her by hearing of her behind-the-scenes involvement in trying to unite Canada’s Progressive Conservative Party with the Canadian Alliance (former Reform Party). Such a union was vitally necessary if Canadians were ever again to be given a real national alternative to the governing Liberals, and I honoured her efforts to play a role in making that union happen. I was also very impressed with her run for the leadership of the new Conservative Party and her subsequent election as MP, even though she had not won the race.

And, frankly, it was good to see her, as a Conservative MP, continuing to speak up for some values shared by me, and other Conservatives I know of, even if our leader didn’t always see them that way. It seemed to prove to me the Conservative Party was indeed worthy of my support and was big enough to incorporate a diversity of views that Canadians expect from a party with aspirations to govern and not just oppose.

Then, of course, came the jarring crash caused by her decision to cross the floor to prop up Paul Martin’s minority government on the eve before a crucial non-confidence vote that he was likely to lose by the slimmest of margins. Her acceptance of the Ministry of Human Resources in exchange for preserving Mr. Martin’s government was, in my view, a particularly low point in Canadian politics and I remained both angry and contemptuous of her for a long time afterwards.

I’m not sure at what point my opinion of her began to improve. Looking back, I think it was partly due to how well she withstood the abuse hurled at her at the time and afterwards (particularly her low-keyed response to Peter MacKay's 'dog' comment when some of her colleagues were almost frenzied with hysteria). Also, unlike many who switch parties, her decision was eventually sustained by her constituents in Newmarket-Aurora in the subsequent election, and also partly because she ultimately failed to follow Scott Brison’s ridiculous attempt to have run for the leadership of two separate parties in recent years.

But I think what really prompted my feeling of regret this week is my memories of how she has never been afraid to stand up and express her opinions. Sure, some of those opinions have received (and maybe even deserved) a critical and condescending response from the media and elsewhere. But I find it most praiseworthy how she didn't let negative responses intimidate her into silence or, even worse, the the petulance shown by others who have changed parties (I'm thinking of Scott Brison and Garth Turner here). Also, while Belinda's always had access to a big microphone since entering politics (a much bigger microphone than most rookie MPs or Cabinet Ministers have), to my mind she rarely abused it the way so many of her colleagues did and do to talk ‘down’ to Canadians in general. Throughout her short and often-stormy political career, she has shown an independence and strength of spirit I wish I saw in more of her colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons.

I certainly can’t blame her for leaving. After all, her political prospects would currently seem to indicate a continued period in opposition. Or, in a best-case scenario, she might hope to receive a Ministry in another shaky minority Liberal government under a leader who (again) is so far proving to be a disappointment to members of his own party. When you compare those prospects to what’s happening at Magna with their potential acquisition of Chrysler, it's no wonder she’s jumping at the chance to return to an influential decision-making role in corporate life. So, while I wish her well, I can’t help but feel that political life in this country is being lessened a bit by her departure. And I find, to my surprise, I will miss her in the next Parliament.

The Green Party of Canada
Bringing the Smell of Compost
To an Election Near You!

I am of course, referring to the deal announced today by Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion, respectively the new leaders of the Green and Liberal Parties.

Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet (oops, I mean Dion-May) non-aggression pact. The Liberals have agreed not to put up a candidate in the riding of Central Nova, held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, where Ms. May will run in the next election. In return, the Greens will not field a candidate in Mr. Dion’s riding.

The quotes coming from Elizabeth May at today’s announcement are hilarious!

“There is no time to waste. Because of our electoral system, I do not have a choice. I have to collaborate." Nope, no time to waste at all for democracy and freedom of choice. It’s not like May has her choice of 308 ridings to run in to put her case before the people (oh wait, she does!). Instead it's much better to collaborate with the Liberals to fight global warming, even if they let Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions increase by 30% in the last decade they were in power.

"This is an extraordinary expression of putting progress and principle ahead of politics as usual." Absolutely! This is so much better than offering the people of Central Nova a full-fledged choice about what party or candidate they should vote for!

And in response to NDP Leader Jack Layton’s refusal to enter into a similar deal, “I think it behoves Jack Layton to think about getting beyond the kind of traditional, ancestral, tribal hatreds that are part of partisan politics." Unless of course, you’re talking about the evil regressive Conservatives, you can hate them all you want! Not to mention that the NDs came in second in Central Nova, so their support would have been much more valuable.

And my personal favourite, "I see in Mr. Dion a true leader for this country." Which is why she will deny the people in Central Nova the opportunity of voting for his party.

There’s a long-standing tradition (though not always exercised) of not running a candidate against a newly-chosen party leader running in a by-election. That’s one thing. But this scheme denies tens of thousands of Canadians the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice in a general election. It’s an attack on democracy when two individuals can sit down and remove names from ballots, despite what local riding associations may want and feel. In my view, it’s morally repugnant.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s going to prove a very wise decision for either leader. Mr. Dion has, in essence, told local Liberals in a riding that it doesn’t matter who they nominate or how hard they’re prepared to work, Dion will toss them overboard to support someone running for a different party. It shows a contempt for local volunteers and workers that I think will come back and haunt him. It’s one thing for a local campaign to decide in the final week of a campaign that, with no hope for victory, they should support someone who shares some of their values (like the Liberals did, once upon a time, for Joe Clark). It’s another thing for the national leader to sacrifice a riding weeks or months before an election. And Canadians might well wonder what other principles Mr. Dion is prepared to sacrifice in order to win?

As for May, her quotes show she doesn’t even need to be elected before engaging in Orwellian truth-speak. By making this kind of backroom deal, she makes a mockery of Green promises to do things differently and destroys any kind of image of the party as an honest broker working for Canadians’ best interests. She’s also taking a big personal gamble that the voters of Central Nova are going to reward her for this kind of manipulation, when they might instead rally around the native son under attack from an outsider. Finally, with her endorsement of Dion, there are probably a whole bunch of would-be Green canvassers wondering how to respond to voters who ask, ‘why should I vote for your party, when I can vote for a real Liberal?’ (except in Central Nova, of course!)

The moral of the story?

'Whoever throws mud loses ground.'

I'm Still With Ed

This morning, despite a blistering headache, I went out and cast my ballot in the final round of the PC leadership race. That ballot will count in, what I believe to be, the most important election I have cast a ballot for in almost a decade.

Ralph Klein achieved many remarkable things in his 14 years as our Premier and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, but the one that counts today is the unified party he forged and maintained that covered a broad spectrum of Alberta's (admittedly centre-right based) political spectrum. His Cabinet and Caucus contained a remarkable diversity of views from Stockwell Day to Gary Mar, from Lorne Taylor to Dave Hancock and or Victor Doerksen to Gene Zwozdesky. All were free, even encouraged, to express their views openly and frankly in forging a consensus upon which government policy was founded. And it's truly remarkable how few members ever deviated from that consensus, once it was made. For 14 years, while conservative parties were floundering federally or collapsing in our neighbouring provinces, Ralph Klein's leadership was a model of consensus and unity that I think few have understood, at least maybe until this past week.

My support, since June, for Ed Stelmach has been based on many foundations. His integrity, his openness, his common-sense approach to dealing with issues were all very attractive to me as was his record as 'Deep-Six backbencher' and later as a senior Cabinet Minister. But the most important feature to me was the way he talked, both at the beginning, and throughout, his campaign of the need to build a better consensus within our party and the need for our party to renew it's relationship with the people and voters of this Province. More than anything else, this constant feature of his campaign appealed to me and won my support and my vote, both last week and today.

This past week has been frankly, brutal to our Party. It has divided down faultlines even more defined (in my view) than in 1992. Back then, we were so far down in the polls that once our leader was chosen, party members knew they would have to work hard and fast and together if we were to regain the trust of the people of Alberta. This time, we don't have that luxury. For years, the opposition parties have done such a poor job of providing a realistic alternative to Albertans that we've coasted. But that will not last.

Now this week both Mr. Dinning and Dr. Morton have appealed to their bases and argued fiercely against some of the positions taken by the other. And while both may have also been sincere (and still be sincere) about saying how they will reach out to the other's supporters once the race is done; the question must be asked, how realistic are their chances of success? If recent history in BC, Ontario, Saskatchewan and, of course, with the federal conservative movement federally, is any example, such consensus proves difficult and usually only results from a period of time out of government. But the decisions we make in the next few years may well determine the course of Alberta's future for the rest of this century. And they are too important to be left to 'Premier Taft"!

So, if we, as a party, are to unite to face the rising challenge, let it be under a leader who has consistently shown that he knows what consensus-building is all about. Let us support a candidate who has offered a positive vision of a renewed party and province under his leadership, rather than attacking his opponents. Vote for a candidate who has united others who ran for the leadership last week into supporting that vision and his leadership. The man who is (and has always been in this contest, in my opinion) best fitted to fill the void left by Ralph Klein's departure and maintain the broad spectrum of support that he won throughout this province. That man is Ed Stelmach, who I fervently hope will be Premier-designate of Alberta in a few hours.

Today’s Sunday Sermon is on how actions speak louder than words.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech to some professors while visiting Germnay, quoted from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Now, I’m not going to leap to the pontiff’s defence or anything nor do I object to many of the comments which have come from Muslim secular and religious leaders which have strongly condemned the remarks. After all, one of the pesky side-effects of freedom of speech is that others are equally free to criticize or condemn some of the things you say.

But, being somewhat familiar with Byzantine history, I found the source of the quote very interesting. Manuel was one of the very last of the Byzantine emperors (the third-last if you want to keep score). At this time, the once-mighty empire had shrunk down to little more than the city of Constantinople itself (modern Istanbul) and the ‘emperor’ was actually a vassal of the Ottoman Sultan. So Manuel was not one of the ‘crusading’ emperors who led great armies against the Caliphs and Sultans of old. In fact, when Manuel led troops, it was often in the service of his overlord, the Sultan. The Sultan frequently demanded this service of Manuel and his father; partly to ensure they were obedient vassals, and partly to see if he could push them into rebellion in order to have the pretext for seizing their lands (especially, the strategically located Constantinople).

So when Manuel speaks about the evil and inhumanity of Islam being spread by the sword, he’s talking about events that he has personally witnessed. A number of his letters reveal his great sadness at the devastation being wrought by the Sultan’s army, which he was nominally a part of. So it’s a very interesting source that Pope Benedict XVI chose to use.

But enough of the ancient history, let’s now look at current events. Since the pontiff made his (possibly ill-chosen) remarks, what has happened? Well, an Italian nun along with her bodyguard and another hospital worker were shot in a hospital in Somalia. Since no one’s claimed responsibility, it’s impossible to know whether the two incidents were linked. But on Saturday, five churches came under fire from guns and firebombs in the West Bank and Gaza during protests by Palestinian Muslims. Two more churches (neither of them Catholic) were set on fire today in the West Bank.

So while I greatly respect the Islamic religion, I am forced to wonder whether Manuel II knew of what he spoke? And do I listen to the words of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood when he says “Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and co-operative”, or do I instead look at the body of a murdered nun and the burned out churches in the land where Christ lived?

Don’t actions speak louder than words?