Politics with Kirk West

Hudak's 2011 Prospects Looking Good...

2010-01-13T10:19:00.003-05:00

I think there are going to be a lot more Liberal resignations coming before the end of the year.

George Smitherman and Jim Watson are just the beginning (I'm not going to count Michael Bryant because that was almost a year ago). As Election 2011 approaches, the prospects for another Liberal government are diminishing and the PCs are going to capitalize on every misstep.

The Liberals are burdened by a mountain of growing scandal, mismanagement, and tremendous tax hikes. Here's a short list:

HST (don't get me started!)

e-Health (David Kaplan presiding, but involving George Smitherman)

OLG (David Kaplan)

March Madness Cultural Lottery Giveaway (remember the $1.5M photo opp for a cricket club that only asked for $150,000?)

Health Tax (after signing a symbolic contract for the Taxpayer's Federation not to raise taxes, he called this a 'levy')

Generous Public Sector wage and benefit hikes so he could avoid further 'crisis' in health and education (isn't McGuinty's wife a teacher?)

Today’s resignation is further evidence that even Dalton McGuinty’s ministers have grown tired of defending his tax grabs, reckless spending and runaway deficits. How many more ministers are going to end up abandoning this scandal-plagued administration?
-- Tim Hudak, Leader of the Ontario PC Party

Liberal MPPs are worried about what will happen in 2011. Some may decide to 'retire' early and avoid the humiliation of a defeat they know may be a foregone conclusion, especially for those in swing ridings. The acid test will be whether McGuinty himself passes the torch, which I think he will before December, 2010. If he does, then Kathleen Wynne may be in the leadership chair come October 2011.

Below is a copy of a release from the PC Caucus:

For immediate release:
January 12, 2009

ANOTHER LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER ABANDONS SCANDAL-PLAGUED McGUINTY GOVERNMENT

Another senior Liberal cabinet minister has chosen to abandon the McGuinty Liberal caucus and instead seek municipal office with the resignation of Jim Watson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and MPP for Ottawa West - Nepean

Watson is the second high profile Liberal minister to resign from Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet in as many weeks. Last week, former Deputy Premier George Smitherman – who was heavily implicated in the eHealth Ontario scandal – resigned as the MPP for Toronto Centre.

Watson’s and Smitherman’s resignations come on the heels of the resignation of former Attorney General and MPP Michael Bryant, who quit the McGuinty cabinet on May 25th, 2009.

The resignations of these high-profile ministers clearly demonstrate how the rot of entitlement and waste has spread across the Liberal government. Even the most senior ministers in Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet have grown tired of defending his record of reckless spending, runaway deficits and higher taxes, including the upcoming $ 3 billion HST tax grab.

Today’s resignation is further evidence that even Dalton McGuinty’s ministers have grown tired of defending his tax grabs, reckless spending and runaway deficits. How many more ministers are going to end up abandoning this scandal-plagued administration? ”

-- Tim Hudak, Leader of the Ontario PC Party

It saves money to hold two by elections at the same time and it is no secret that Jim Watson has been eyeing the Ottawa Mayor’s chair. Dalton McGuinty should have demanded that Watson make his decision known before calling a by election to replace George Smitherman. Even in quitting, the McGuinty Liberals still find ways to waste our tax dollars.”

-- Lisa MacLeod, MPP Nepean-Carleton

There Will Never Be A Better Time To Break Government Monopolies

2009-12-16T10:10:00.002-05:00

This story has the potential to either be a real winner for economic freedom or another nail in the coffin for entrepreneurship and innovation in Ontario.

Finally, we have a government that is at least willing to look at selling off crown corporations like Hydro (read: poorly run debt ridden sinkhole), the LCBO (read unnecessary monopoly that competes with private business), and the OLG (scandal ridden, monopoly that sustains the massive administrative money sucking machine that runs so-called charities and allows government to spend recklessly on any and every petty vote buying project they can think of).

I don't really care what the reasons are, but if you care at all about making Ontario a better place, then I urge you to support this initiative. I've written and podcasted about the unfairness of the LCBO before. The same applies to the Hydro and the OLG.

But this could be bad, too. For example, what good is selling the LCBO if you still have to buy from the LCBO? If the LCBO is sold off but still maintains its monopoly status, where's the benefit to the people? All we would be doing is providing profits for a privately owned monopoly instead of a publicly owned one. If that happens, then this is a bad idea.

Economic freedom, entrepreneurship, competition. These should be the goals of selling off crown corps. But if we sell it merely to cash in now on future profit and hand over the mismanagement to someone else instead of truly 'renovating', then we'll be in worse shape tomorrow.

Call, write, beg, plead. Make sure your MPP knows exactly what is best for Ontario. If we leave it up to them to decide, then we're in trouble, and no better off than we are now.

Tim Hudak: Champion of Ontario

2009-12-14T21:13:00.005-05:00

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak recaps fall session and talks about the 3 key priorities the party focused on:

1. Rebuilding the economy and spurring private sector jobs
2. Holding the McGuinty government accountable
3. Fighting for seniors and families by doing what they could to prevent HST implementation

Other highlights:

1 year anniversary of Ontario's "Have-Not" status
$25B Budget Deficit, $65B of new provincial debt

Looming Billion Dollar Boondoggle signaled by provincial auditor over Welfare Program (remember Jane Stewart?)

Here's the video:

Why is the Bloc supporting the HST?

2009-12-08T16:21:00.001-05:00

I have to ask this question. Where is the motivation for the Bloc to support the HST?

Time after time they have made it clear that they vote according to the interests of Quebec, so what's in it for them to support it?

Do you think they would ever support a HST initiative in Quebec?

I can think of only one reason the Bloc would vote in favour of a HST in Ontario and B.C.; to protect their seats and avoid an election.

Is that in the interests of Quebec?

Hudak Fights for Ontario Families

2009-11-25T22:43:00.003-05:00

Hi All,

Here is a great video showing the PCs of Ontario kicking some butt over the HST. Check it out:

Can We Have an Adult Conversation About Taxes? Sure, but...

2009-10-26T10:57:00.003-05:00

An editorial entitled Can We Have an Adult Conversation About Taxes? was published today wherein the The Star attempted to blow a hole through one of the central tenets of modern economic theory: the idea that lower marginal tax rates result in higher government revenue.

There is a detailed explanation of this theory (known as the Laffer Curve) here.

You may also recall hearing about this theory in Economics 101. I'm sure its also mentioned in Economics for Dummies.

The Star column reads:

Then there's the right-wing's childish fantasy that if you lower tax rates, government revenue will actually increase. We can all pay less tax, and government will get more revenue.

Try that one on a 4-year-old. It defies logic. Here's the reality: Data from the OECD demonstrate that, since 1995, tax revenue in Canada has dropped from 36 per cent of GDP to 33 per cent of GDP. That may not sound like much, but it represents a loss of nearly $50 billion a year in public revenue. And we wonder why Canada plunged into a $50 billion deficit magically overnight.

Perhaps a reality check is in order. I know this may be difficult The Star, but for a goof, try it anyway.

1995 GDP: $788.04 Billion, resulting in $283.70 Billion tax revenue
2005 GDP: $1,368.73 Billion, resulting in $451.7 Billion tax revenue

source: IMF Financial Statistics, Canadian Economy Wiki.

Maybe the problem with the Star is they don't have any 4 year olds doing their math.

Landon a Party Pooper...

2009-09-29T09:37:00.000-05:00

Poor Gordon Landon. The councillor for York Region was moonlighting as a CPC candidate for Markham-Unionville, but was audacious enough to hope that speaking his mind in public might result in making a difference for his constituents. It made a difference all right. He is no longer the candidate. Imagine having to 'ask permission' from the PMO to speak to the media!

Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking about entering politics. If you expect to get anywhere in federal or provincial politics you must tow the party line or be squashed.

It's a hard lesson, and it exposes an awful paradox of our democratic process. The idea that an individual aspires to public office for the purpose of representing the interests of his constituents is at odds with the reality that party bosses lay down the law and anyone foolish enough to speak on behalf of the people is quickly dispatched.

The fundamental question is do MPs represent the people, or the party? In most cases, I think its the latter.

I have long maintained my desire to serve the people in Ottawa (or at Queen's Park), but the reality is unavoidable: I would be forced to put the priorities of the party above the priorities of the people.

If it's true that Landon stepped aside voluntarily because he couldn't work within the 'confines of partisan politics' then I applaud him for being true to himself and not sacrificing his principles for ambition.

2009-09-19T20:23:00.002-05:00

I had thought I was being politically astute when I called no election this fall. I had even patted myself on the back for correctly predicting that the Bloc would end up supporting the Conservatives.

But I was wrong. Here's the real reason there was no election this week, and why there won't be one for the foreseeable future.

I tweeted this Sept. 1st

2009-09-15T20:21:00.002-05:00

"Just a guess: Liberals are talking election only because they know Bloc will back the Conservatives. #roft #canpoli"

My record remains unbroken: 4 for 4.

I'm just sayin...

cuz no one else will!

Ignatieff's Gambit

2009-09-15T12:27:00.002-05:00

Given the recent polls, if anyone is scratching their heads wondering why Ignatieff suddenly came out several days ago to declare that he will no longer support the Conservative government over EI, the answer is simple... and it has nothing to do with EI.

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious, but the Liberal Party simply could no longer allow themselves to be forced into supporting the government. After suffering through three years of having the Bloc and the NDP hold a gun to their heads all but daring them to force an election, it's obvious Ignatieff simply decided to turn the tables.

If I was a Liberal strategist, my thinking would be that it was time the NDP and the Bloc ate a little crow, too.

If Ignatieff hadn't withdrawn his support, Layton and the NDP would be thumping their chests with indignation over the government's recent proposals with respect to EI.

Ignatieff's declaration was simply a realigment of the chess board. Nothing more.

As I have said before: no election.

Hudak's debut as Leader of the Opposition

2009-09-15T09:07:00.003-05:00

Great coverage on CTV yesterday of Tim Hudak and the PC Party of Ontario holding the government to account

Great coverage on CTV yesterday of Tim Hudak and the PC Party of Ontario holding the government to account

Newmarket-Aurora MP Might Relish Election

2009-09-12T08:59:00.003-05:00

Are you looking forward to an election? Neither am I. Good thing there isn't going to be one.

Rex Murphy takes a poignant look at the foot soldier-candidates in today's G&M. I thought of our own MP Lois Brown when I read this passage:

Now a very few candidates, true eccentrics – what the biologists call “sports” – actually enjoy the marathon ordeal of campaigning. These are a set of hyper-extroverts, like the manic Fuller Brush salesmen of days gone by, who live for encounters with other people, regardless of whether the exchange is bitter or friendly, useful or pointless. They just like being out.

Yup, that's Lois.

Elections, Polls, and the Importance of Being Ernest...

2009-09-08T18:51:00.002-05:00

I find the daily polls boring. I find politics boring.

Who are we trying to kid? Does anyone really expect the polls to move substantially in any direction? One day their neck and neck, the next, they're edging up 3%, or down 3%. Honestly, the only people benefitting from these polls are the polling companies.

As long as the two parties continue to operate as they have, the results will be the same. Minority. Maybe Liberal, maybe Conservative. At this point, I don't care.

But the whole thing is moot, anyway. There will not be an election this year. Perhaps in the spring, who knows.

But it's in the interest of all parties to play the brinkmanship game, isn't it? As each party releases their fundraising hounds the idea of an impending election can only help fill the war chest. So for now, don't expect any of the parties to make like their going to cooperate with the government. When the donations dry up, they'll be talking softer.

And how about the conservative's sudden interest in fixing EI? Is it really about fixing EI, or disarming the Liberals?

Yes, I'm just an ATM card to be taken out at will and drawn upon. I feel so used.

Is the PM making a statement?

2009-09-01T13:40:00.001-05:00

Maybe I've got the PM all wrong. Maybe instead of falling into the same cronyism of his predecessors, Harper wanted to make the most cynical and deliberately patronizing appointments he could make so that people would get mad enough to demand real senate reform. If so, the PM is genius.

If not, well, there's always the Beer Store.

Tim Hudak Announces New Chief of Staff and Principal Secretary

2009-07-22T20:51:00.006-05:00

UPDATED:

Word from Tim Hudak's office is that he has appointed a new Chief of Staff and a Principal Secretary. The story should appear in tomorrow's papers.

The position of Principal Secretary is not new, but the position had disappeared after the Mike Harris days. Apparently neither Ernie Eves nor John Tory had employed one during their respective tenures.

The new COS will be none other than Lynette Corbett and Principal Secretary will be Carrie Kormos.

Corbett is a veteran from the PMO and Kormos has been heavily involved provincially. If you're thinking the name 'Kormos' sounds familiar, you would be right. She is related to the very outspoken and relentless critic Peter Kormos.

I haven't had the privilege of meeting either, but Kormos was pointed out to me while visiting Hudak's campaign HQ during the race.

To see the news release click here to download the pdf.

I would Betray Myself, If I Didn't Vote Randy Hillier

2009-06-22T11:04:00.002-05:00

This is it. For what it's worth here is my official endorsement.

I choose Randy Hillier as my first choice on the ballot. To choose anyone else, would be a complete betrayal of the reasons I got involved with politics to begin with.

Whoever said "politics is about character", had Randy Hillier in mind.

Hillier has driven the policy debate from the very beginning by coming out with bold policies. Although abolishing the Human Rights Tribunal has received much of the attention, other excellent ideas such as his desire to end the liquor sales monopoly, allowing towns to de-amalgamate, and putting property taxes back in the hands of towns are some of the most impactful ideas of the campaign. While the other candidates tinker, Hillier offers solutions.

What's so 'redneck' or 'uncouth' about economic freedom, equality, and real justice?

If we can't see the value of killing foreign owned monopolies, putting the responsibility for property taxes squarely where they belong, and restoring the noble idea of equal treatment for all under the law, then what the hell are we doing this for?

Maybe Hillier isn't as silver tongued and urbain as the other candidates, and maybe he has to pick his words carefully when he speaks, big deal. Let's remember that plenty of damage has been done to our democracy by the most charismatic and popular leaders of our time. Trudeau was an articulate and suave devil in a suit whose social programs have left a legacy of big government, high taxation, and a decidedly more interventionist state.

We have two years before the next election, plenty of time for Hillier to receive good media training and get used to the cameras and media scrums.

Randy, you're a star, and you've earned my first ballot choice by being unashamedly conservative. And I think people are going to be surprised at the ballot results.

Tim Hudak is my Second Choice
As I have said before, I like Tim Hudak. In all liklihood he will win the leadership race, and I'll be satisfied if he does. But I want him and his campaign team to know that as much as I am unhappy with some of his boutique policies I believe he is the most capable to become Premier.

Hudak wears his leadership position naturally and I would be happy to support him in the provincial election. In fact, I would be happy to support him in a volunteer capacity starting next Monday.

With Hudak, I am confident in the future of our province and confident that it would move in the right direction. I predict Tim Hudak will win on the Second Ballot.

Third Choice - Frank Klees
I apologize to my aquaintances on Team Klees, but I can't support him. He's too much of a big government politician. In fact, I am still toying with the idea of not marking a third or fourth choice. Klees has offered very little in this campaign, and what little he has offered was driven more by other candidates than his own desire to improve government and the lives of citizens.

Despite this assessement, there are some qualities in Klees that I admire. For example, he appreciates and respects both his volunteers and his constituents, and even though I openly criticize his brand of politics, I know that as a constituent I would be welcome in his office to discuss whatever matters may arise and that Klees would genuinely listen. This is one of the most admirable qualities of any politician, and he gets my full support as my M.P.P. because of it.

Fourth Choice - Christine Elliott
I don't think I need to go into too much detail as to why Elliott will be number four. Aside from her flat tax policy, there is nothing in her policy that is particularly appealing.

Elliott is embodiment of the left wing of our party. She talks about compassion like some kind of open admission that conservatives are without it. I find it insulting.

No matter what I think, Elliott's campaign is a campaign to nowhere, and though she has mapped out 'The Path to Victory' it will be a path to defeat when in 2011 when PC voters choose to stay home like they did last time.

Overall
When we're sitting around talking politics, do we say we want more government? Do we say we want to pay more taxes, or that we need to have more regulations? Do we say that we aren't interested in politicians that do what's right instead of do what's expedient? Do we say we want politicians to tell what we want to hear, instead of what we need to hear? No, we want politicians to speak truth, to advocate for justice, freedom, the rule of law, and equality for everyone.

That kind of politician, the one we say we want, is among us, but we laugh at him because he is a regular guy. We snicker because he's folksy, honest, and forthright.

Now is the time to stand up for ourselves and vote for a politican who believes in people, not government.

Now is the Time for Courage

2009-06-16T10:00:00.000-05:00

My friends, this is probably the toughest leadership campaign I have followed.

All four candidates have some quality that makes them each deserving of the Ontario PC Party top job.

For Christine Elliott, the flat tax idea could be the single most important platform plank in a provincial election. For Randy Hillier, his focus on democracy, freedom and justice could be the clarion call of a renewed PC Party. For Tim Hudak, his reliance on simple conservative messages for the middle class are reminiscent of the five simple priorities that put the federal conservatives in office. And for Frank Klees, his experience and easy demeanour along with his 'reduce red tape' focus is also a winning combination.

However, one issue is separating the leaders from the followers in this campaign. The issue is the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

I empathize with Elliott's belief that the abolishing the HRC is a loser policy that will cost us the election. She has made this assertion over and over again.

But in empathizing with her, I am reminded of the damage that has been done by the Barbara Halls of the world to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of action.

In agreeing with Christine Elliott, are we saying that we aren't willing to take up the cause of freedom because it might be hard, or tough? Do we have the courage to stand up for what's right "not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

Are we saying that it's OK for the government to allow an unaccountable panel of bureaucrats to destroy the lives of citizens because someone else was offended by words?

We teach our children that 'sticks and stones may break our bones, but names can never hurt us', but in adulthood, are we so frail that we require protection from government because of mere words?

Are we saying that in Ontario its OK for someone to lay the accusatory finger of blame at another and not bear the responsibility for doing so?

Christine Elliott talks about compassion. Where is her compassion for the members of society whose lives have been upended by capricious persons bent on imposing their own morality on others? Where is her compassion when the process of being investigated is sometimes worse than the punishment? Where is her compassion when the accused is force to prove innocence, instead of the accuser forced to prove guilt?

That Elliott feels this is a no-win scenario speaks a lot about the value she places on freedom and democracy.

We cannot allow our freedoms to remain under 'the tyranny of nice'.

There are only two candidates with the courage to deal with this. The first out of the gate with a pledge to abolish the HRC and replace them with real courts and judges was Randy Hillier. The second was Tim Hudak. Frank Klees has vowed to tinker with the process, but that is inadequate.

Either Hudak or Hillier is deserving of our support on this issue. Elliott and Klees are not.

What kind of Conservative is Tim Hudak?

2009-06-11T17:52:00.003-05:00

I like Tim Hudak. He's young, direct, and like Hillier, he doesn't apologize for being a conservative.

But not all his policy positions sit 'right' with me. Hudak is a retail politics guy, and it troubles me.

If you've read my prior blog posts, you'll know my goal is to get behind the spin so voters look at the candidates from a fresh angle outside the narrow view of campaign spin doctors.

Here are my thoughts on a couple of Hudak's policies:

1 Year Payroll Tax Holiday on New Hires
As a business owner, I took advantage of the federal liberal program for new hires back in the 90s. Simply put, you didn't have to pay the employer portion of EI taxes on new hires for the first year. It wasn't a huge savings (Between $1000-$2000 per employee depending on the salary level) but it helped reduce the tax burden. But the program failed in that it didn't directly result in increased employment.

Think about it, why would someone hire a person at $35,000 per year, just to save $1,500? If you need a new employee, you need a new employee and no program from the government is going to change that.

By the time you took corporate taxes into account, the amount you actually saved was only about $1000. Hardly enough to cause increased employment.

Unscrupulous employers would simply lay off employees in October so they could take advantage of the program in the new year.

The New Hires policy may be appealing in a sound-bite, but look behind the headline and a truth emerges: most small business in Ontario won't benefit at all.

Here's why. Hudak can only reduce the provincial portion of taxes. He can't change EI Premiums and he can't change CPP Premiums (which are the biggest burdens) because they are under Federal jurisdiction. The only thing he can change is the Employer Health Tax and the Provincial Tax on Net Income. Any small business with less than $400,000 in gross payroll expenses are exampt from the EHT to begin with, so that rules out about 40% of all small business in Ontario. The Provincial Tax on Net Income is the only place where he could make a change but the amount of Ontario tax is actually income tax withdrawn from the employee, not the employer, so I'm not exactly sure how his program will work, unless the savings comes when companies file their tax returns.

Regardless of how the program works and to what extent, whatever savings a corporation makes as a result of this tax break will undoubtedly be taxed by both federal and provincial jurisdictions. So, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

The Unavoidable Truth about Job Creation: The only job a government can directly create is a government job. Private sector job creation often occurs in spite of government policy, not because of it (unless you are Bombardier).

Income Splitting for Families with Young Children
Why should families with young children get to split their income while everyone else doesn't? It's time we were all treated equally and without prejudice. That's what democracy is all about. I want a candidate who believes in equality and fairness.

Newborn Savings Account: $1,000 for each child
I don't typically buy into policy that attempts to bribe us with our own money. This kind of policy is more at home in the Liberal or NDP platforms. If it becomes a reality, let's hope he won't tax it like our federal government has done with the universal child care benefit. I'd rather just have a tax cut instead.

Conclusion:
Despite Hudak's assertion during the Markham debate that we cannot move the province forward by picking winners and losers when it comes to economic and taxation policy, that's exactly what these proposals do.

The new hires program is simply corporate welfare with a positive name. I believe it would also be ineffective because the net benefit (after paying corporate taxes on the amount saved) would be too little for any significant impact. Only lower taxes and reduced regulation across the board can stimulate growth because companies would have more money to direct in the way they see fit instead of having to keep up with higher taxes just to give it to other businesses who are receiving breaks on new hires.

Income Splitting for Families with Young Children is an unfair policy that penalizes everyone else. Everyone in this province should benefit from income splitting.

The Newborn Savings Account seems out of place in the Hudak campaign and is indicative of the kind of policy that increases government intrusion into our lives. Give us all a tax break instead, and let parents decide what's best to do with the savings.

The more I look at this campaign, the more I question just what kind of conservatism Tim Hudak believes in.

Thoughts on Last Night's PC Leadership Debate

2009-06-05T11:03:00.002-05:00

I enjoyed watching the debate. All the candidates were really strong. They all spoke thoughtfully and the platitude factor was kept to a bare minimum.

Randy Hillier:

Hillier is inspirational. He speaks the truth that others are afraid to talk about. He doesn't take himself too seriously and he is tremendously confident in himself. He is not afraid to say what's on his mind, and he's not afraid tackle tough issues. And his belief in what he says is unmistakable, so much so that he is able to hold his own among his peers, some of whom were clearly coached in the subtleties of debating.

Unfortunately, the crowd treated him with mild amusement, often snickering at his mannerisms. The other candidates treated him kindly but almost like he was some kind of comic relief. I guess despite how inclusive we wish to be, we still can't get past what's on the outside and focus on his ideas.

Which is a shame, because his passion for freedom, justice and democracy is unmatched. His thoughtful argument about the HRC would have brought the crowd to its feet if spoken by any of the other candidates. Instead, there was sporadic half hearted polite clapping.

While Frank Klees almost had me convinced removing section 13 of the human rights code would be the right move instead of killing the commission altogether, Hillier came back with a passionate defense of justice for all and equality in the rule of law as to why the HRC needs to be abolished and real instances of human rights infringements need to fought in the courts with real judges. I am firmly committed to supporting that.

Hillier also showed tremendous insight on a number of issues. On the arts and arts funding he made the statement that the arts flourished well before government funding came along and pilloried the idea that government funding for the arts is vital for it to flourish.

Hillier is the only candidate talking about freedom justice and democracy. It is disheartening that so many pc party members view him as a joke.

Christine Elliott:

I thought Christine Elliot debated well. Her flat tax idea is her most visible and identifiable policy. I believe it is the best tax policy put forth by any of the candidates. She was professional, polished, and articulate. She clearly understands this leadership race will end and made sure she highlighted her fellow candidates' strengths.

Its obvious that Elliott has connections through her husband and has received many endorsements as a result. Those connections brought a lot of professional back room people and she was coached very well.

Elliott makes an excellent point when she says abolishing the HRC would be toxic and almost guarantee another liberal government. Both she and Klees likened it to the faith based school issue from the last campaign in that Liberals would have a field day with it.

Unlike the faith based school issue, abolishing the HRC has support among a cross section of the population including some ndp and liberal supporters. Furthermore, everyone agrees that the HRC is broken and has overstepped its bounds so moving to abolish it won't be the shocker like the faith based schools announcement.

I just don't get a sense of sincerity from Elliott. It's almost like she was holding back on letting her true self come forward. I think she lacks a genuine desire to lead change. Sure, she may want to be leader, but I don't think its because she believes she has a better way to do things. I think she's running simply because she wants to be leader (or perhaps someone else wants her to be leader).

Frank Klees:

Klees definitely has a presence on stage. Although I don't agree with many of his policies, he is a thoughtful man with a fiercely loyal group As Elliott reminded the audience, Klees is a candidate who appreciates and values the people who volunteer to work for his campaigns. I found myself applauding many of the things he said on healthcare and the HRC. He spoke with conviction and wasn't nearly as scripted as Elliott. I believe Klees has genuine desire to make government run more smoothly and not get in the way of people trying to make a living.

His thoughts on Healthcare were consistent with my own, and I liked the way he framed the idea of getting private delivery into the mix. Instead of calling it private healthcare delivery, he referred to it as delivery in the 'Shouldice Model'. Well done. That is an excellent way to refer to it.

I'm sure the Klees team is even more energized after last night's debate.

Tim Hudak:

I can see why Hudak is the preceived front runner. He carries himself as if he were already leader, which has a significant psychological impact. Having policy is one thing. Having the ideas is one thing. Being the embodiment of a leader completes the picture.

His opening and closing statements were well delivered. His answers were thorough and on message. He was well prepared and had pressed his main themes clearly and without ambiguity. I respect that.

I thought he did really well taking shots from Klees and Elliott. His statement 'thou shalt not speak ill of another conservative' deserved the applause it received. We'll see how far that goes.

There were no surprises with Hudak. He performed consistently and met expectations. I wish he would stop referring to 'middle class' values, though. I find the term unfitting for this day and age. I'm sure he was advised to use this keyword, but true equality and inclusiveness has no class, a point highlighted by both Klees and Hillier.

Overall, it was a fruitful debate. I enjoyed being there. I met up with some past aquaintances and made some new ones. It was a pleasure to meet Scott Merrithew and we had our own debate afterward. I look forward to meeting my political friends again on the convention floor.

eHealth = eEntitlement

2009-06-05T08:02:00.003-05:00

The 'head' of eHealth, Sarah Kramer gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Her VPs get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

eHealth paid a consultant $7000 for speech writing services so Kramer could give an address at a conference.
They also paid a consultant $268,000 to come up with a communications plan and branding strategy.

There is also $168,000 paid for someone to help them lead 'organizational change'.

So what exactly do these executives do? Usually, executives get the big bucks because they know how to do this stuff already. If they can't figure this stuff out by themselves, I have to ask, what good are they?

To me, it sounds like another 'culture of entitlement'. I can foresee an expensive round of inquiries.

Perhaps these executives just aren't that smart if they need other people to do their thinking for them. Or maybe the consultants they hired needed a bailout and this was the best way for that to happen.

And what's with the branding strategy? If branding your organization as a money wasting joke in which the taxpayer pays millions and get nothing in return, then job well done. Pat yourself on the back. Like or not, that is now your brand.

Health Minister David Kaplan shouldn't have any trouble justifying this tremendous waste of money. He could easily explain that while these contracts were being worked, eHealth and the consultants went out for a lot of lunches together and contributed to the economy.

See? It's all good.

A few thoughts about Christine Elliott

2009-06-03T08:57:00.001-05:00

Today's Toronto Star has a little piece about Christine Elliott.

My take away was that Christine Elliott wants to dissassociate herself with real conservatism principles and associate herself with blue liberalism. She desires to maintain the Tories' proud focus on fiscal conservatism.

Ironic, considering her husband (long thought to be a 'right wing' conservative) is the biggest spending finance minister in this country's history, and his party doesn't even have 'progressive' in its name.

Speaking of 'progressive'. A note to all leadership hopefuls: "progressive" doesn't mean "socialist". I'm just sayin...

Reducing taxes and regulatory burdens is progressive. A flat tax in Ontario is progressive compared to what we have now. Increasing taxes on people so we can upkeep social spending is not progressive. It is regressive.

She further says:

But another equally important conservative principle to me is the need to take care of vulnerable people, to be compassionate, to help other people in their time of need," Elliott says from her fourth-floor office at the Ontario Legislature.

Allow me to translate. What she's really saying is "I know everyone thinks that being conservative means you're a mean spirited tight wad who doesn't give a 'tinker's cuss' about the sick, the vulnerable, the homeless, and I'm not going to fight that perception, I'm just going to say I'm a tight wad who will fork over millions at the earliest possible time in order to continue every and all social programs so it looks more like I'm a more responsible socialist than that other party."

Here's another one:

We need to talk more about how important compassion is

As Conservatives we believe in a hand up, not a hand out. Therein lies our compassion, and that's the message we should be sending instead of apologizing for being conservative! All this warm and fuzzy talk from Elliott reminds me of Prime Minister Harper in a sweatervest. Give me a break.

So for god's sake, if Christine Elliott's definition of compassion means to keep the tax and spend social policy of liberals, then forget it.

Note to PC members: Ernie Eves abandoned the party's core principles. John Tory abandoned the party's core principles. They both lost. Big.

The Deficit

2009-05-27T08:32:00.001-05:00

Stephen Harper may not want his children to grow up in a socialist country, but he seems to be bent on making sure they (as well as mine) grow up in one that is bankrupt.

Obama Mama Bo-Rama Banana Fana Fo Fama...

2009-05-20T21:37:00.004-05:00

As the Harper government follows the Obama administration lock step in everything from auto bailouts, to credit card regulations, to green policy, I'm left wondering when the accusations that Harper is nothing more than an "Obama-lite" will start flying.

I'm just sayin...

Podcasting on the Ontario PC Leadership Race

2009-05-19T08:06:00.002-05:00

Here is my first podcast on the Ontario PC Leadership Race. The topic is Randy Hillier’s idea to open up beer and wine sales to corners stores, hotels, and bars.

I discuss the idea of taking this initiative one step further and disbanding the LCBO altogether as well as discuss the reactions of the other leadership candidates as well as some blogger reactions.

Hope you enjoy it.

Of course, I welcome any feedback good or bad. So go nuts. It runs about 12 minutes.

Click here to listen.

H/T to The Shotgun Blog, Joseph William, The Blogging Tories, Stephen Taylor, David Menzies and Gerry Nicholls.

Review of Frank Klees Campaign Site

2009-05-15T11:55:00.004-05:00

I present my review of the Frank Klees Campaign Site.

My original campaign review (which did not include the Frank Klees site because it wasn't launched yet) can be found HERE.

You'll recall that I've been scoring the campaign sites on three things: Design & Layout, Content, and Social Networking Presence for a total of 30 points. The latest score sheet can be viewed in pdf format here. I also re-scored the campaigns of Tim Hudak, Christine Elliott, and Randy Hillier.

Design & Layout
The look and feel of the Klees campaign site is well done, and given the intense pressure the team was under to put something together fast, they have done a good job. It's clean, well organized and features a prominent high quality picture of the candidate. It's pretty obvious that the focus of the campaign is Frank Klees. This may seem obvious but the distinction is important. Frank Klees is the brand, and it shows in the design of the site. The navigation bar at the top highlights the major site features. Moving around the site is easy and neat thanks to a good organizational structure. Type is easy to read, and the sections have a natural visual flow.

Design & Layout Score: 6.25 out of 10

Content
The site has all the things you would expect from a campaign site: press releases, events calendar, candidate in action, a section entitled 'Why Frank'. You can follow the campaign from there, as well as on extended social networking sites. The event calendar is updated regularly, as well as the news releases. You can subscribe to RSS feeds on the site be able to follow the campaign without actually visiting the site afterwards, which is great since most people are mobile these days, anyway.

There are a lot of videos showing the candidate in action as well as an audio endorsement from the campaign chair.

I was very pleased to find a section right on the home page entitled 'Policy', but was quickly disappointed when I realized it contained no policy whatsoever. Instead, it contained the following statement:

"Check back with us often to see the latest announcements on Frank’s position on important issues affecting our province."

I've checked back every day since the site launched. Nothing.

Which is a total disappointment given all the things Klees says about how he wants to 'engage' people, and 'energize' the party, and encourage young people to get involved with the political process. Getting involved is a lot more than just showing up at meet and greets. What's the point of getting involved if you have no idea what your candidate stands for?

The other candidates have done a much better job of engaging the membership and energizing. Hudak has an entire site dedicated to discussions and has invited participation from all campaigns. Hillier has a place on his site for people to comment on policy positions and the candidate in general.

Frank Klees is the brand, and as such, the campaign doesn't have a slogan or central message. This makes it difficult to get a sense of what kind of politician Frank Klees is without having to weed through a myriad of videos and other content to figure out wherer he stands. The lack of policy makes the task that much more difficult.

Another element of the site that seems odd is the section entitled 'Frank's Podcasts.' There aren't any. Klees hasn't posted a single message. There is only the aforementioned endorsement from Peter Shurman, and I don't consider that a 'podcast'. It's more like a commercial than a podcast.

Content Score: 3.5 out of 10

Social Networking
Klees scores much better on social networking. He can be followed on twitter and his campaign team posts multiple messages per day. You could almost accuse them of posting too much. For example, there were 18 posts in just two days appealing for memberships. Klees does not personally post his own tweets. He delegates this to staffers and it is obvious.

Klees' facebook page is updated often and contains much of the content from his twitter account, but like his twitter activity, it lacks a personal touch.

The Klees team has done well on the video side by presenting plenty of video snippets from question period and various speeches. I also like the direct personal welcome video on the home page.

As I said before in an earlier post, I have great respect for someone who takes the time to personally contact constituents and others who take the time to contact him. That is an admirable quality missing from many who claim to represent the people. Klees is a MPP who cares about his constituents. He's personable, and has a loyal following. He could really be a force to be reckoned with if he took a some well calculated risks.

Social Networking Score: 9 out of 10

Advice: Klees has been behind throughout much of the campaign. His site was the last to be launched, and he has yet to produce any policy announcements, conceding ground and momentum to his opponents when he should be commanding the field. This isn't encouraging for someone who thinks of himself as the right candidate to be Premier. But it is not too late. It's time to get serious, PDQ. Put out some bold policy positions to turn the tables and put the other candidates on the defensive.

I also recommend that Klees start taking his social networking to heart. This is a case where Klees doesn't match the words with action. In order to engage the membership, you must at least appear to be engaged yourself. Stop delegating social network interaction to staffers

Total Score: 18 out of 30

Summary of latest evaluations:

Hillier: 26.5 out of 30

Hudak: 24.5 out of 30

Elliott: 23.25 out of 30

Klees: 18 out of 30

Review of Online Campaigns for Ontario PC Leadership Race

2009-04-12T15:44:00.008-05:00

With the Ontario PC Leadership race more than a week old, I thought I would provide everyone with a comprehensive review of the online campaigns.

Why am I doing this?

I believe the success of the online campaign will almost certainly determine the winner. Most people today go to the web first for news, information and the act of simply keeping in touch. It has helped people connect in ways that just weren't possible a short 10 years ago. I believe this to be true no matter what age group.

As much as policy destroyed the party's hopes in the last election, it will be policy that decides its future. As a citizen, this race is a tremendous opportunity to participate and shape the debate. If the contenders are genuinely interested in "engaging" the party faithful, and indeed all citizens who care to participate, then the online campaign is where this will happen.

I devised this review to provide insight into each of the candidate's commitment to driving change, and measure the degree to which the candidate's words about engaging the people match their actions.

I have tried to keep this review as objective as possible. Although I will be evaluating the calibre of content in many ways, I will not evaluate policy positions. Those will come at a later date in a separate post.

A good online campaign will have the website as the hub holding all the parts of an online presence together with links spreading out to other online areas such as YouTube, FaceBook, twitter, etc. It will provide comprehensive policy content as well as frequent updates in terms of campaign buzz and campaign mechanics.

Each campaign will be scored and can earn a maximum of 30 points with each of the following three areas being weighted at 10 points each: Design & Layout, Content, and Social Networking Presence. Full results can be downloaded in pdf format here.

I did not review the parliamentary sites of the candidates because they pertain to the duties as MPP and not as leadership candidate. If the MPP's site is converted to a campaign site, it will then be included in the evaluation. I will attempt to re-evaluate each online campaign every two weeks.

Summary of Results

Frank Klees

Klees' online presence is virtually non-existent. As of this writing he has no campaign site. It was tough to award any points at all but I relented and awarded something to acknowledge the simple fact that there are flickr, facebook and twitter accounts.

As for campaign content, there hasn't been a single policy or platform announcement that I can find. If there are announcements or releases, Team Klees has done a poor job of getting the message out. There is no central campaign message at all. However, while doing research on the online presence, I came accross a post by a blogger who was impressed with the fact that Klees personally contacted him to discuss the campaign. For this, I awarded some value because there's nothing more impressive than a candidate who shows that your opinion is valued, or at least, taken seriously.

On the social networking side of the campaign, Klees scores better. He can be followed on twitter, facebook, and YouTube. However, he loses points for not personally tweeting, or updating his Facebook page. Another disappointment is his lack of YouTube messages. I wonder if Team Klees understands the importance of social networking and the power it has to propel the campaign into the forefront. But they use it instead for official messaging. His followers seem to be doing more for his campaign than Team Klees has been doing and the lack of personal touches leaves his social network presence wanting.

Total Score: 4.25 out of 30, DISMAL

Advice: Mr. Klees needs to get the show on the road. Quickly. The complete lack of anything substantive makes me wonder whether he's serious about leadership at all. It's also possible he may be running just so he can pass support to the ultimate front runner in hopes he'll be highly placed when the dust settles. But if he doesn't get his act together, his support won't be worth much.

Randy Hillier

The overall look and feel of Hillier's site is very impressive. It is the freshest and most visually appealing political site I have ever seen. It is simple in design and yet conveys an atmosphere of excitement and momentum. It makes excellent use of the traditional tory blue colour. It is nicely laid out, well organized, and has an appropriate amount of white space to read content. There are custom graphics everywhere to highlight major site features (e.g. joining, highlighting new members, etc). Important campaign pillars are highlighted right on the home page along with the most recent site updates. It is very easy to navigate and simple in its approach. The individual responsible for this design is to be commended for a beautifully executed site. Hillier has great branding. For example, on his facebook page you can download Hillier branded avatars and badges to use on your own profile pages and blogs.

It is obvious where Hillier stands on issues. His main policy positions are in your face from the get go, so there is no mistaking what Hillier is about. His use of the term 'Common Sense' is splattered throughout various pages along with the words 'freedom, justice, and democracy'. It is easy to learn more about Hilliers policies by simply clicking on the 'Learn More' button where a nice page is displayed to explain Hillier's position. He gets right to the heart of the matter by breaking down each policy directive into simple chunks (The Problem, Randy's Solution, and a Background). It makes it very easy to follow.

Although there is no information about how Randy has voted in the past, there is a section about Randy. Not only does it have a succinct background, it has a section where readers and supporters can leave comments. Moreover, those comments aren't just left on the site dangling, they actually have responses posted by the campaign team. Some commenters have left questions which were then answered by the team. Well done. This is a nice feature.

While I think Hillier's site is an example to follow for other candidates, I was disappointed that I couldn't learn more about Hillier than just his campaign platform. For instance, where does Hillier stand on other issues? What is his position on taxes? How does he think the province can manage increasing healthcare costs? Is there a financial plan? What ideas does Hillier have to create a manufacturing friendly environment? What about corporate tax rates? These are questions that will arise from the campaign. Hopefully, Hillier will expand his campaign platform.

There is also a subscription feature where you can receive campaign updates via email, and I am happy to say I have received my first news release update on the subject of MPAC (you can read my analysis of the announcement here).

While I wanted to give Hillier a perfect '10' on content, I was disappointed that there was no personal video messages or podcasts. These are ideal for keeping in touch with mobile followers.

Hillier's site has an Event page, a Volunteer Page, as well as links to facebook, YouTube, and twitter. You can choose to subscribe to RSS feeds as welll as sign up for email updates. As mentioned earlier, there has already been one campaign policy update sent via email. When I checked out the Event page, I was disappointed to see that no events were scheduled. So following the candidate could be difficult.

His tweets, while very personal, are 'out there'. For example, a recent tweet bragged that Randy can down two bears with one stone. While this may appeal to the rural voters, it leaves us urbanites wondering whether Hillier is just some crazy gun toting hick. It is completely incongruous with his thoughtful announcements on policy and democracy. Hillier's Facebook pages are filled with content by both the supporters and the campaign team carrying much of the content available at his website as well as comments and requests from supporters.

Total Score: 24 out of 30, IMPRESSIVE

Advice: Hillier has done an excellent job with his site, and there isn't a whole lot to complain about. He is dominating on the policy front as well as effectively established his brand. If I was on his campaign, I would advise he post up some personal video messages, record some of his public appearances, and use his tweets more effectively. Other slight changes would be to add a mobile friendly version of the site and increase the frequency of his press releases and campaign updates.

Christine Elliott

Elliott's site has the polish of a professional design. Its use of pastel colours is refreshing and bright and it is well organized with easy to follow menus. Graphics are clear and easy to read with all the major campaign elements accessible from the home page. There is a great little section on the home page featuring all the latest news, videos and events. A campaign follower could easily get the latest from the home page and not have to go any further into the site. The type style is readable with plenty of white space.

The links are arranged in a compartmentalized and organized fashion, very easy to identify and use. The site doesn't display properly in IE6 but I don't fault them for that. It is a bit cumbersome to view with blackberry but displays perfectly on the iPhone and reasonably well on the PocketPC.

While the site may be professionally designed, your expectations quickly fizzle when you realize there is no policy content whatsoever. Unlike Hillier who appears to have an agenda, you are left wondering just what Elliott stands for. There is no policy declaration, nothing on her site to suggest policy announcements are forthcoming, and no where to leave feedback or discuss policy at all.

Elliott's campaign lacks a slogan or central message which coupled with the absence of any policy ideas earns a low score on content. She earns points for having events listed on her site which makes it easy to follow her whereabouts and it is updated regularly. Her speeches are available in a mixture of text and video format with a small amount of audio content. Unlike Hudak and Hillier, there are no discussion boards or input areas from supporters which makes it difficult to interact with the campaign at all, not even a direct message to the candidate. Very disappointing given the expectations when first landing on the site.

Following elliott's campaign is made easy by subscribing to RSS feeds and checking her event schedule. The feeds are updated regularly. While you can follow her campaign on twitter, Elliott does not do any tweeting herself, the few tweets that have been published are obviously written by a staffer but are at least updated regularly. The same goes for her facebook page. Her YouTube videos are adequate enough to get a sense of what the candidate is about, and there is a single personal message on the main site from the candidate addressed directly to the membership.

Total Score: 18 out of 30, ADEQUATE

Advice: Elliott scored high on the design of her site and the social networking presence, but scored almost nothing on content. Cold and formal speeches aren't enough. Elliott needs to establish herself on policy and tone down the 'platitude factor'. The fact her entire campaign lacks any kind of personal touch is noticeable when compared to other candidates. When first landing on the site, I thought it was a bit presumptuous with her in-your-face request to join or donate. It felt like I had come up against a gatekeeper tasked with extracting a 'tax' before I could enter the site. Give us a reason to be on board with your campaign before hitting us up for money.

Start making more personal tweets and contribute to the facebook page instead of delegating these tasks to staffers. While the campaign embraces all the social networking tools, they don't 'get' what it's about. Her facebook pages are updated by the campaign team and lack any kind of personal touch. Her tweets are obviously written and published by a staffer which renders them cold and impersonal.

Elliott is behind what I call a 'campaign firewall' that prevents supporters or followers from contacting her directly. Elliott makes the point several times in various forms that she can be a leader that 'engages' people, but how does she expect to 'engage' anyone when people can't engage her?

To put this campaign in the running, introduce some bold policy positions and get personal.

Tim Hudak

Hudak's campaign boasts two separate websites, one at timhudak.ca, and another at right-here.ca. Both sport the same basic design which aids in identification with the candidate. Both sites lack the professional polish of a designer's touch, but what it lacks in eye candy it more than makes up for in both form and function. The look and feel is utilitarian but carries through to the social networks so at least its consistent. Hudak also has taken the time to create badges so users can brand their blogs, websites and avatars. The site's basic blue colour aids in reinforcing the PC brand, but does so in a subtle way.

Hudak's personal site is well laid out and organized, but Right-here.ca is jam packed and it takes a time to make sense of the page. Sites like these are difficult to spend time on because there's so much going on you aren't sure where to begin. Your eye automatically draws to the centre of the page and you end up unconsciously ignoring all the junk on the sides. The type style is readable but spacing is a problem and the whole page ends up looking like a big mess. That said, after a few minutes on the site your brain begins to decipher the page and you can navigate with some ease.

Both sites display reasonably well, but IE6 again is a problem. Viewing from Blackberry and PocketPC is difficult, the exception being the iPhone which displays both sites well.

On content, Hudak has obviously put his money where his mouth is when he says 'engage'. Right-here.ca is a haven for political discussion. There is a forum with a mix of topics, a centralized area showing the latest tweets, messages from various people, summaries of the week's events, access to blogs, and so on. Discussions are invited by all members, including those about other candidates. Despite this, however, Hudak has made no policy announcements.

His campaign slogan "Right for Ontario" is a double entendre to indicate he is the right choice for leader, but also is a subtle reminder of where his policy preferences will lie. But without actual policy positions to support the slogan, there is no guarantee his campaign direction would match his words.

Following the campaign can be done numerous ways. You can subscribe to RSS feeds and subscribe to the email list and have updates mailed to you. The site boasts an event calendar that shows all the planned events and where. The site is updated daily and there is also something new to look for whether its replies to discussions or new news and information on the campaign. The email list, however, is not updated often so you are left visiting the site to see the latest updates.

Contacting the candidate directly cannot be done from the site, but unlike Elliott, there isn't the sense that a 'firewall' surrounds Hudak. With his site as interactive as it is you are able to participate at any time.

Hudak's approach to social networking is indeed much more 'social' than the other candidates. He tweets frequently, often on a personal level. While other candidates use tweets to announce a new video or event, Hudak clearly 'gets' social networking and tweets on things other than the campaign. It leaves you with a sense that he is truly connected to the people who follow his campaign. Again, this personal level side of the campaign leaves you with a sense that he is open and outside the bubble that often envelops candidates. His Facebook page is also a flurry of activity and contains much of the same content as the tweets that go out several times per day. Hudak has his own YouTube channel and there are many videos including a personal message to the membership that is cross posted on YouTube, his campaign website, and right-here.ca. Although the video is scripted, it's delivered sincerely and introduces themes central to his campaign.

Total Score 21.5 out of 30, IMPRESSIVE

Advice: Like Hillier's, Hudak's campaign has a commanding lead in some areas. The interactivity with the campaign is something that should be emulated, but his lack of policy positions might leave some on the sidelines, unwilling to lend their support. Put out some ideas. Hudak's campaign has taken the first step by stating Hudak is 'Right for Ontario' but doesn't say in what way by coming out with strong policy declarations.

I would love to see a makeover with the website's overall design, but perhaps some minor tweaks with the layout to make it more visually organized would score some points. Overall, Hudak has done an excellent job 'engaging' the membership, which is a common theme among all the candidates. He has taken the lead by tapping all the aspects of the social networking universe and working it with a sincerity that says he 'gets' it.

Tim Hudak's Candidacy Announcement

2009-04-06T18:17:00.002-05:00

In case you would like to see the announcement from Tim Hudak on his candidacy:

Despite the fact that the campaign is early, some encouraging words from Hudak caught my ear:

"We must stay rooted in our party's conservative principles. I want to put conservative principles into action."

And shortly after he says: "The PC Party of Ontario wins elections when we speak plainly and offer conservative ideas..."

Well, amen to that.

Hillier Gets it Wrong on MPAC

2009-04-06T10:55:00.002-05:00

Today, Randy Hillier, leadership hopeful of the Ontario PC Party, got it wrong when he vowed to kill MPAC, the Municipal Property Assessement Corporation. While the idea sounds good, the true enemy is Market Value Assessement (MVA) and the role it plays in your annual property tax bill.

MPAC sets the value of Ontario properties which is then used to calculate your property tax. A more democratic solution would have been to remove MVA altogether.

The idea that your home's value should affect the tax a municipality can collect on your home is a license to raise taxes. If we're going to charge property tax then it should be calculated strictly on the square footage of your property and applied equally accross the board. That is the only fair way to do it. I can understand collecting different rates between commercial and residential properties, but there is great injustice done with the way things are now.

It also deflects responsibility for taxes. For example, under the current regime, if you have a problem with your property tax, who do you go to? The town will blame MPAC. MPAC will then say their assessements are only a component of the tax calculation. In other words, the ratepayers, citizens, etc. cannot properly hold anyone responsible for soaring or unfair tax rates.

This is not good for democracy. Who do you hold accountable at ballot time? The provincial government? The Municipal? The Regional? It makes me wonder whether this was the true intent in the first place.

Charging tax rates on market value also penalizes anyone who tries to make their homes a better place, or increase its value for resale, and it rewards those who let their properties fall into disrepair.

The traditional justification for MVA was that it allowed towns and cities to increase revenues in order to meet ever increasing obligations. But that's the problem isn't it? There's no incentive to reduce obligations to match revenues, it's alwasy to increase revenues, therefore giving towns more money to spend.

Hillier's policy is only a half measure. It doesn't go far enough at all. Instead of blaming MPAC for soaring, inequitable and unfair assessements, we can now blame municipalities. Big deal. Taxpayers will still be in the rotten position they are in today.

While MPAC came under the scrutiny of Andre Marin and the press back in 2006, under Hillier's policy, no such champion for the taxpayers will exist.

Hillier's policy may sound good in a headline, but think about it for a second, and you realize it has the potential to be worse.

Will we never learn?

2009-04-01T08:27:00.000-05:00

I just don't get it. Months ago it was obvious that GM could not continue as a going concern. Yet our so-called 'learned' leaders figure pumping more of your money into GM and Chrysler would help them.

Any idiot could figure out that if GM needed $14 Billion just to make it through January, it's ability to continue without ongoing government help was highly doubtful.

Now, that money is more or less GONE.

We should have just let GM fail. All we did was prolong the inevitable and place the burden of doing so on our children's shoulders.

Thanks Canada... for friggin up my children's future.

I'll end this little post with a fitting quote:

The problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher

The CRTC (Complete Repression & Thought Control)

2009-02-18T23:21:00.005-05:00

A bunch of "interested parties" are currently making submissions to the CRTC with the goal of convincing them that regulating the internet is the best way to ensure our culture is given some 'shelf space' in a multimedia world. They think that taxing profitable businesses (Internet Service Providers) and giving the money (approx. $100 Million) to unprofitable businesses (people who make 'canadian content') is the best way to do it.

I didn't have time to make a submission to the ~~Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda~~ CRTC but I thought I would put out some ideas:

no sentence shall be uttered in public by any government sanctioned entertainer unless it ends with the word 'eh'

Celine Dion recordings shall be played at the beginning of every high school sporting event

Poutine followed by ice cream with maple syrup will be served at every state dinner

Bloggers must post in both official languages and may not host their blogs on any server not situated in Canada

But then again, maybe these hearings aren't about preserving our culture at all. Maybe a bunch of actors and producers just aren't making enough money so they figure everyone else should pay for it.

Now that's "Canadian Content".

Levant Makes a Case...

2009-02-04T09:38:00.002-05:00

"Mr. Federal Budget, you stand accused of 'Impersonating a Conservative', and 'Overspending' in the 3rd Degree. How do you plead?"

The federal budget has been blasted recently, especially by small-c heavy weights like Gerry Nicholls and Tasha Kheirridan. And rightly so.

Levant's column in today's National Post was supposed to be a rebuttle to the argument that the government is now conservative in name only. It didn't do the job. In fact, Levant unknowingly admits the futility of a big deficit budget. He writes:

"...by the time the spending in last week's federal budget kicks in, the economy will already be growing again."

This begs the question, if the economy will be in recovery mode without the help of any stimulus, where's the justification for this spending spree?

Moreover, Levant tries to throw a bone to small-c conservatives by saying that all our criticism provides some kind of balance to our national discourse:

"That grumbling is a good thing. With all three opposition parties and much of the media to the left of the government, conservative dissenters provide at least some counterweight to those demanding even more spending."

But what he fails to admit, is that all this counterweight does nothing. We elected a conservative government, but we got a statist big spending liberal government instead. Some "counterweight".

Sorry Levant, but the jury is back from deliberations.

"Mr. Federal Budget, you have been tried by a jury of your peers. How does the jury find?"

"Guilty". Case closed.

Conservatives Face A Choice

2009-01-30T10:45:00.002-05:00

John Gormley, a former MP, writes in today's StarPheonix that conservatives accusing Harper of betraying his principles are too rigid and didn't learn their lesson of how to compromise after the lost decade. He writes:

...for those of us who understand that governing is different from opposition and prudent compromise is different from idealism, we can only wonder if the conservative base has learned anything yet about realpolitik."

But I think poor Gormley has gotten it backward. The conservative base certainly understands that governing is often about prudent compromise, but now they can only wonder if the Conservative Party has learned anything about idealism.

And this budget is not a 'prudent compromise' as Gormley suggests. This is a no-holds-barred capitulation.

Compromise means both sides give something up to acheive an agreement. It's pretty obvious what the conservative base is giving up, but not at all obvious what the opposition is giving up, if anything at all.

Let's Stop Fooling Ourselves. It's not really a budget, is it'?

2009-01-27T09:01:00.002-05:00

How did we get from 'the oppositon is panicking' and 'this government will not go into deficit' to a $34 BILLION deficit in less than 90 days.

Jeez.

They're not even trying to pretend it's a budget anymore. They're calling it a 'stimulus plan' or 'spending plan'. Forget the word 'Budget'. That alone should have us all running for the hills.

I would personally like to thank our 'conservative' government for saddling my 5 year old son with a debt he will have to pay back just so we can all pretend we're doing something constructive. The numbers they are throwing out makes me wish Paul Martin was still the Finance Minister.

Who's panicking now, Steve? Jim?

And here's a question. Every financial manager out there is recommending that people pay down debt, invest carefully, and rethink spending. Why does our national national government see fit to do the exact opposite? Anyone? If overspending and living beyond our means contributed to the credit crunch, how does replicating that behaviour qualify as sober thought? The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

Have we learned nothing from the last 20 years? This country has been paying through the nose in higher taxes for more than a decade so we can pay down debt left from successive governments (including that other so-called 'conservative' government) and now we see fit to reverse all that work. We paid down $108 Billion since 1995 and some analysts are predicting the deficit could very well hit that number in 5 years.

If anyone finds a lost conservative government out there, could you let me know? It's been a while since I last saw one. I hear they are extremely rare. Don't be fooled though, most conservatives look conservative on the outside, but after careful study of their behaviour, they turn out to be Liberals. Sometimes, they turn out to be old fashioned "Trudeau-Liberals" of the tax and spend variety, the dreaded "Trudeausiris-spendaliscous Liberalis"

I highly doubt that 'stimulating' the economy now is worth the price we'll pay down the road.

A Call to Action

2008-12-03T10:32:00.002-05:00

The mess in Ottawa was created by one thing: the proposal to remove the $1.95 per vote annual subsidy paid to political parties.

For now, let's forget why this proposal was tabled, the manner in which it was done and for what strategic reasons it was done. It is unimportant.

What we the people have learned is that nothing is so sacred to the politicans as money. It is their singular focus. We look no further than the uproar and chest thumping that is occuring in Ottawa this very minute for proof. Never have MPs acted so fast, and cooperated with such swiftness, over such a small thing as they have in the last week. And it was all started by $1.95.

It reminds me of the instance several years ago when the speaker of the house read into law a pay raise bill in record time so the house could adjorn for the christmas break. Remember that? The speaker read with such speed that the words were incomprehensible, and the MPs clapped their hands in self congratulation that they had performed this service to Canada with such efficiency.

While they play their little game, we the people are left to observe the farce.

We the people.

We the people require our elected members to discharge their duty in the service of Canada.

We the people demand that the politicians be mindful of the oaths they took upon their election.

We the people demand that politicians remain focused on the great challenges facing our country and be aware that their petty squabbles hurt our country's ability to solve them.

We the people require our elected representatives to work together and remember that parliament is the one forum in our nation where voices from sea to sea to sea are brought together in the hope that our country will be better tomorrow than it is today.

It is time that Ottawa learned that we hold the power. And what better way to demonstrate it than to immediately cease all donations and attendance to political events until January 31. No donations. Do not attend any holiday events.

Do this to show your support for integrity and truth in politics.

No more donations until the politician's can prove they deserve it.

One more thing, I recommend a week of silence in the blogosphere to commemorate the death of this parliament. It's done. Stick a fork in it.

As of 12:00am Monday December 7th, no blogging whatsoever for 7 days. Let the blogosphere remain silent to show our politicans that we will not accept things the way they are.

I am appealing to the entire blogosphere, red, blue, orange, and green. If you believe in this message, pass it on.

Humbly yours,

Kirk West
Citizen

Pigs at the Trough

2008-12-02T14:58:00.000-05:00

With all the crap going on in Ottawa one truth has escaped the entire mediasphere:

if MPs attacked the real problems of this country with the zeal they have demonstrated in their response to the removal of their government funding, the issues of consequence that face our nation would seem as a trifle as we leap from one problem to the next, dispatching them with sureness and efficiency.

It's rock solid proof that politicians love themselves first; their country second. So much for "peace, order, and good government."

I acCUSA'dem of hypocrisy

2008-11-26T14:34:00.000-05:00

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.

Carleton students have excluded the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation from fundraising benefits in the name of being more 'inclusive'. Is that correct?

Excluding... to be more inclusive. That's like being cruel to be kind! Brilliant.

Now how can we use this to help the Leafs win the Stanley Cup?

Quick Question...

2008-11-24T23:04:00.002-05:00

If accusations of being 'Bush-lite' could be so easily levelled at Stephen Harper for doing anything even remotely congruous with the American government, do you think charges of being an 'Obama-lite' will also be in the offing?

Jack? Iggy? What say you?

just askin...

Of course it would have to be October

2008-10-17T07:39:00.002-05:00

Has anyone else noticed that all these market gyrations are happening in the month of October?

$80 million worth of options are expiring today. The markets may be extremely volatile today.

Hold on to your hats.

A Little Bit of Life Wisdom...

2008-10-09T09:14:00.003-05:00

In today's Globe & Mail, John Heinzl offers 10 lessons that the credit crunch taught him. Mostly, the lessons tell you to abandon conventional wisdom. One nice thing he tells us (that we should already know) is that debt is the real enemy.

Money isn't the root of all evil, debt is. Whether you're talking about 1929, 1987 or 2008, most financial calamities are variations on the same theme: too much debt. Debt is intoxicating on the way up, and horrifying on the way down.

The most important lesson, however, has nothing to do with the market crisis:

Some things matter more than money. After the horror of 9/11, people came together like never before. It is my hope that, united in our anguish over the stock market's brutal collapse, we can all discover deeper meaning in our lives. So give your kids an extra hug today and take a moment to feel the sun on your face, because it's not like you can afford a trip down south this winter.

Good advice indeed.

Here's What I Would Have Said...

2008-10-09T08:26:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried to show empathy for the current market situation by talking about how his Mom is worrying, too. I don't think this warm and cuddly response reassured the voters.

If anyone at the PMO is watching, I humbly offer the following advice, instead of pretending to be empathetic, here's what I would have said:

"Despite what the other parties leaders might say, I most certainly understand what Canadians are feeling. They feel like the sky is falling. Well I'm here to tell you that the sky isn't falling, nor will I as Prime Minister allow the sky to fall, not on my watch.

Yes, times are uncertain. Yes the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Yes people are worried about losing their jobs. But I'm going to tell you something. We're Canadian! And Canadians don't run and hide when the going gets tough. We step up. When Canadians face disaster, we step up and at the end of the day we're the better for it. We did it during the Quebec floods in 1996, we did it during the Ontario and Quebec ice storm of 1998, and we did it during the Manitoba floods in 1997, and we'll do it again now. Never have I been more proud than when I watched my fellow Canadians be heroes.

And Canadians can be heroes again. Jack Layton and Stephane Dion might think that panic is the answer. Well, they're wrong. They are feeding on your fear. I am not fearful. And Canadians aren't going to fall for that. We're much smarter than Jack Layton and Stephane Dion give us credit for.

Make no mistake, everything that the government should be doing is being done. The Bank of Canada yesterday made a move to lower interest rates for Canadians. Lower interest rates will help spur more economic activity and at the same time lessen the burden on Canadians. As a government, our job is not to intervene in the economy, it is to create a prosperous environment for the economy to flourish. And our plan of measured tax cuts and sound fiscal management will help us weather the storm. Our budget and surplus situation is exactly where we planned it. our economy grew in the last quarter by .7%. The IMF just yesterday released a report showing that Canada is on track for economic growth in 2009 and will outperform all the countries in the G8.

A steady hand is what is needed to guide this economy. Stephane Dion and Jack Layton are offering panic.

I'm just sayin...

Lois Brown Slams the Door HARD!

2008-10-07T18:56:00.002-05:00

Well this is more like it!

Lois Brown just slammed the door hard on Liberal Tim Jones by calling BS on the Liberals claims about yet another National Childcare Program. Good Job Lois.

She rightly put him in his place by citing the removal of thousands of low income Canadians off the tax rolls but reducing income taxes and thereby putting more money in the pockets of low income Canadians.

Congratulations Lois. You ended the debate on a high.

Leading Questions from the Moderator at the Newmarket-Aurora Debate

2008-10-07T18:45:00.002-05:00

The openly Liberal Supporter John Taylor who shouldn't be moderator at all because of his previous Liberal candidacy in provincial politics just asked a 'gift' question to the Tim Jones the Liberal candidate about banning hand-guns. Of course, Jones was prepared to say all the liberal stuff about banning hand-guns.

The Progressive Canadian, Christian Heritage, NDP candidate all did well pointing out the obvious, that banning hand-guns won't prevent gun crime.

A surprising question from the Chamber of Commerce asked the candidates what their plans were to eliminate poverty in York Region.

The Liberal and Conservative candidates are surprisingly quiet. I guess their briefing books are sparse.

So far the most active discussion is between PC Dorian Baxter, GP Glen Hubbers (who is doing very well) and NDP Mike Seaward.

Liveblogging the Newmarket Aurora Debate

2008-10-07T18:40:00.001-05:00

Ok, well, it was actually taped last night, but I'm watching it right now!!! So it's live for me :)

First Impressions:

Having John Taylor as the moderator is downright crap! What idiot at Rogers Television thought this was a good idea? For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, John Taylor ran as the Liberal Candidate in the Provincial election of 2003. I think it sucks. Lois Brown must have been demoralized when she found out who would be moderating.

Having Dorian Baxter of the Progressive Canadian Party at the debate as well as Ray Luff of the Christian Heritage Party was not warranted. Both candidates together get less than 2% of the vote.

Having said that, both Dorian Baxter and Ray Luff answered questions with sincerity and you could tell they believe wholeheartedly in what they say and they know their material. They didn't have to read from the "Official Party Phrasebook of Canned Responses".

My next comment is sure to receive the usual rolling of the eyes, but the questions directed at Lois Brown from the moderator were unquestionably negative.

Again, we have a debate with too many candidates.

This Debate is just too hard to watch...

2008-10-02T21:05:00.003-05:00

Wow.

Paikin: "Are Conservatives Barbarians?"

What the hell kind of question is that?

Issues of the country reduced to 45 second diatribes. It's a pile - on. And the Prime Minister is hardly allowed any time to defend and explain. This is terrible.

The debates are a disaster. A format disaster. Too many people. The French debate by comparison was far easier to watch.

This is just too hard to watch...

Changing the channel.

Insight into the financial meltdown...

2008-09-26T22:07:00.004-05:00

While the press and the left blame 'deregulation' as the cause of the current financial meltdown, you might want to take a look at these videos and then see if it makes you think twice.

And here's another one...

These aren't my videos. They were created by the Mouthpiece. Check this and other videos here.

Thanks to Gerry Nicholls for posting it on his blog in the first place.

Isn't it Ironic?

2008-09-23T10:11:00.000-05:00

In the words of the immortal Chris (Shepp) Sheppard, Canadian Politics is CRA-ZY!

Who would have thought that in just 5 short years a complete role reversal between the Liberals and Conservatives could have happened. In 2003, it looked like the Liberal Party would have an eternal stranglehold on the country. The Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives were still slogging it out. Peter McKay would be crowned leader later in the year on the basis he wouldn't move to merge the two parties. Then in 2004 it was like the big bang when the Conservative Party of Canada was born and the Progressive Conservative Party was cast aside.

In 2004, the great hegemon of Canada, the Liberal Party was reduced to a minority government. Conservatives were greatly encouraged, or should I say ecstatic. Liberals were demoralized knowing full well that the internal feud between Chretien and Martin had done its job. The divided party could no longer stand. The sponsorship scandal was wreaking havoc in Quebec and the rest of the country. It should be noted here, that the current slump of the Bloc in Quebec had started in 2001. Nationalism in Quebec was given fuel by the sponsorship scandal. Now that the scandal is past history, the Bloc is resuming its downward slope. It will be interesting to watch this election play out in Quebec. Will the Bloc fade away? Will its raison d'etre light anew?

In May 2005 when it looked like Martin's government would fall, we had the eleventh hour defection. Then the inevitable election just a few months later which saw the Liberal party banished to the opposition benches. And so gave rise to the Conservative Party of Canada, surviving the longest minority run in Canadian history. And here we are in 2008, looking at the real implosion of the Liberal Party.

It's stunning, actually. And a classic case of irony. But to say this is a surprise would be false. From the first day that Stephane Dion emerged as the leader, shocked Conservatives across the country pinched themselves to make sure they weren't dreaming. Did the Liberals just commit suicide?

Dion was an innocent naive babe brought into the world of politics. The country's punditry gave a collective 'ooh' and waited for this new babe of politics to get his legs and become a warrior. Instead, he bought a new pair of glasses. It was only a matter of time. This new babe would be eaten alive.

It was a colossal mistake, but the party made its choice. Now they will pay the price, just as the Alliance Party paid the price when they had their little mutiny back in 2002. Remember when Stockwell Day was the laughing stock? The parallels are uncanny (but like a pheonix from the ashes, the Liberal party will rise again).

There's little doubt that Harper will hand Dion his hat in the debates. And on October 15th, the Liberal Party will show Dion the door.

Greg Weston may have said that politics in Canada is 'stupid', but right now, it's damn fun to watch.

At this time, I would like to offer my sincere best wishes for victory to the following candidates:

Lois Brown, Newmarket-Aurora
Rob Zandee, BC Interior
Peter Kent, Thornhill
Lisa Raitt, Halton
Tony Clement, Parry-Sound Muskoka
Garry Labell, Sudbury
Michael Chong, Wellington-Halton Hills

Good luck to you all!

Liberal INCredibility

2008-09-22T14:40:00.003-05:00

In a Globe and Mail article we get the following from John McCallum on the Liberal pledge to remove the tax on Income Trusts:

"The fact we've written it in the platform in black and white means we're serious"

I was just wondering, when the Liberals vowed to axe the GST in the Red Book of 1993, was it written in a different colour?

Do you think McCallum will promise to resign his seat if the Liberals fail to follow through?

just sayin...

Read My Lips...

2008-09-22T11:46:00.001-05:00

A Liberal Government will scrap the ~~GST~~ Tax on Income Trusts!

I promise! Really, I do...

Where's Sheila Copps when you need her!

Shifty Logic Subverts Shift

2008-09-22T11:36:00.002-05:00

Read the following line published on cbc.ca :

It would be "law of the land" that every penny of the $40 billion raised in the Green Shift's carbon taxes would be returned to Canadians in the form of tax breaks, Dion said.

This begs the question if every penny taxed is to be returned to "Canadians", why bother collecting the tax in the first place?

I'm just sayin...

And the Next Federal Liberal Leader is...

2008-09-18T12:18:00.002-05:00

Dalton McGuinty!

See below and email I just received:

Later today, McGuinty will inform the public that Michael Bryan is being removed from Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue to completely removed and will be put back into the Ministry of Finance.

This is sent as 12:47 pm - we have the breaking news on this from within the Government.

The reason for the changes is the following:

McGuinty wants to replace Dion after Dion loses to Harper - Bryan is being removed from Aboriginal Affairs so that he doesn't become a target during the Federal Election and so he can help run McGuinty Federal bid to replace Dion as leader of the Federal Liberals.

Stay tuned to CaledoniaWakeUpCall where you get the breaking news here first.

Dion's Carbon-Faith is his Downfall

2008-09-16T08:17:00.004-05:00

Like John Tory's faith based school funding debacle, Dion's Carbon-Shift will destroy the Liberals. Already it's driving people to the Conservatives. In my riding, many people I've talked to who claim they usually vote Liberal are looking to move their votes to the Conservatives this time because they have had enough with higher costs.

In an economy where energy prices (particularly gas) have risen so much in the last year, people are saying enough is enough. They aren't dumb enough to believe Dion's malarky that the Carbon-Shift won't result in higher gas prices. They also realize it won't reduce our emissions (does any government program really succeed in the ways its supposed to?).

And last, they simply can't imagine a Canada with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister.

Whether this will translate into a Conservative win in Newmarket-Aurora is an entirely different matter. I hope it will.

Yet another reason to drop May from the Debates

2008-09-12T07:49:00.001-05:00

The Green Party may be on the national scene, but they should be dropped from the debates immediately. Their latest tactic just proves it. If this is their campaign strategy, why bother participating at all?

On a postive note, if an outpouring of letters, blogs, and such can get May into the debates, can the same thing get Duceppe out of the debates?

H/T to National Newswatch, the best news aggregator EVER!

Drop May from Debates

2008-09-11T12:31:00.002-05:00

The country is drunk on Green! And it's time for a bucket of water.

While the Green Party may be a de facto national party, their place in the televised debates is a bad decision, driven more by hysteria than logic or fairness. I know this goes against the general consensus, but I believe my position is valid, and if you stop to consider the reasons, you will agree.

I wish to make it clear though, that I'm not saying the Green Party is irrelevant. On the contrary, the Green Party has a role to play in our national discourse, but the televised debates is not an appropriate forum.

First, the Green Party doesn't have a single elected member of the house (Blair Wilson doesn't count because he was originally elected as a Liberal). Despite running candidates in all ridings they have yet be elected in a single riding. That alone should be enough to keep them out of the debates. The communist party could have candidates in every riding, does that mean they should be included? What about the Christian Heritage Party, or the Marijuana Party? If the Green Party wins seats then maybe they will then be entitled to a spot in the debates. Until then, the Green Party is just another seat-less political party, albeit a national one, and no more entitled to a spot in the national debates than the Communist Party.

But wait! The Greens got 665,940 votes in the last election!

Big deal. That's barely 2% of the population. Even if you consider the popular vote based on votes cast it's still only 4.5%. The Green Party is an "also ran". Which brings me to the second reason why the Greens should be excluded: they do not have the representation to demand inclusion in the debates. Let's consider what 4.5% represents. It means that 95.5% of voters rejected the Green Party. It means that 98% of the entire population wasn't moved enough by what the Green Party represents to bother casting a vote in their favour. How does this poor showing entitle them to a spot in the national televised debates?

What 4.5% does mean, and this should anger a few people, is that $1.2 Million per year of your hard earned tax money goes directly into the Green Party bank accounts because thanks to Jean Chretien, political parties get to suckle at the public teat in the amount of $1.75 per year for every vote they received in the previous general election. Nice, eh? I wonder how much greenhouse gas gets expended so people can earn the money to "give" to Elizabeth May's party every year? But I digress...

Third: if the environment wasn't in the top five issues of the day, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's right, Elizabeth May is going to participate in the debates because its fashionable, because people want to hear her tear a strip off Stephen Harper, and because the media made a big deal out of it. Most people won't even take the time to learn about what the Green Party really stands for. Other than the environment, what has she been vocal about? What policies does Elizabeth May have?

Conflict of Interest

Elizabeth May supports Stephane Dion for Prime Minister, that's no secret. If ever there was a conflict of interest, this is it. How can Green Party candidates across the nation expect May to properly debate when she has a well known soft spot for the leader of the official opposition? This will affect her performance and she will be less likely to score points off Dion when the opportunity presents itself. When you participate in the nationa debates, you are debating because you want to be Prime Minister. Elizabeth May does not want to be Prime Minister, therefore, she shouldn't be in the debates.

Most grievous, is that the nation, having left its collective wits at the door, argued to include May when they should have been lobbying to have Duceppe disqualified. Duceppe is the real elephant in the room. Those that demanded May's inclusion should have argued for Duceppe to be booted from the debates entirely. No one outside of Quebec gives a 'tinkers cuss' what Duceppe thinks.

It's bad enough that issues of national importance affecting our future, our stability, our freedom, our wealth, our pride, and our place in the world are compressed into a single 2 hour event. To cloud it with the likes of a single issue fringe party, and a separatist group bent on the destruction of our country is something none of us should be fighting for.

VEEP PEEP...

2008-09-03T11:49:00.001-05:00

Let me see if I understand this properly,

Voters want a politician that isn't the 'same old same old'.

And the moment we have one, we complain that the person is a poor choice because he or she has no experience.

Just sayin...

Election Primer

2008-08-26T09:19:00.001-05:00

This past weekend, as I was doing my best to ignore news and politics of any kind, I was asked if an election was in the cards.

Anyone who has read my blog knows I'm pretty good at calling it, so here are some facts to consider:

1. An election now, or in the foreseeable future, will accomplish nothing for the average voter, and the parliamentary landscape will change very little.
2. An election loss for Dion will bring about a leadership change in the Liberal party, resulting in a (possibly) more formidable opponent for the Prime Minister in 2009.
3. All political parties will be coy and perhaps bullish on the possibility of an election because it will bring in more contribution money. For obvious reasons the Conservatives will raise more cash than the other parties combined.
4. Dion's established pattern is to bring us to the brink of election then back down.
5. Most Liberals want Dion out.
6. The Prime Minister wants Dion to remain the leader of the Liberal Party for as long as possible.

These are the facts.

And they are undisputed...

Not sure if this is wise...

2008-07-10T08:22:00.000-05:00

'Never help sink an already sinking ship' is a phrase I heard a long time ago, and for some reason it has stuck with me since the day I heard it.

Which is why I think the Conservatives would be on the losing side of this. To my mind, its just mean.

I hope I'm wrong.

Liberal Carbon Tax anything but 'Brilliant'

2008-06-24T08:29:00.001-05:00

Many pundits think Stephane Dion's Carbon Tax Plan is a big policy gamble with undertones of 'brilliance.'

Forget the policy. We all know what happens when governments start talking about big policy ideas. It just translates into bigger government, more taxation, less economic growth. End of story. And if you believe this 'revenue neutrality' proposition, I've got some land on the coast of Florida guranteed to stay dry when the oceans rise.

Pundits think this carbon tax idea is a stroke of brilliance wrapped up in an enigma. The idea is that the Conservatives will be caught like deer in headlights by an unexpected 'shift' in the public's thinking that the government should tax them for their carbon wasting ways. The conservatives, not realizing this, will automatically attack the plan and come off as a bunch of 'climate change deniers' just when public sentiment is turning toward this carbon tax plan. But that's where the pundits are wrong.

We all know what shape our economy is in. If gas prices continue to rise, economic activity will diminish further. And with natural gas prices set to increase by as much as 50% on July 1st, the last thing the public is going to do is vote in favour of higher taxation.

However, if the public buys in to the claim that a carbon tax would be revenue neutral, the Liberals could come out ahead.

Free advice for the Conservatives: You would do well to focus on revenue neutrality as the enemy. If you attack the 'carbon tax plan', you will come off as angry climate change deniers and play right into the Liberal hands. Instead, attack revenue neutrality, make the people believe they will be poor under the Liberals, and you will be tax freedom fighters. 'Power to the people!' That's a positive message that will resonate with voters and be a subtle reminder that under the Liberals, there won't be any power, just taxation.

Now that's a campaign I could 'buy' into.

Human Rights Commission could be scared...

2008-06-19T08:39:00.002-05:00

I have a sneaking suspicion that the BC Human Rights Commission may rule that the Steyn case does not merit any intervention on its part.

Here's why:

If I was in charge at the BC HRC I would be thinking that given the immense media attention, the fact the PMO is 'reviewing' the CHRC mandate, and given the fact that NDP MP Keith Martin has a private member's bill in the works to remove Section 13, and given that if the BCHRC rules against Steyn and Maclean's it could backfire on them if it goes to the Supreme Court, it might be in the longer term, advantageous to give MacLeans the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Just sayin...

Dion must have read my mind...

2008-06-06T07:45:00.002-05:00

Just this morning I woke up and it was like a bolt of lightning! A light bulb! I thought to myself, 'If only we had a Gender Equality Commissioner, that would solve all the country's problems!' And then, it was like Dion himself descended from the mount with the stone tablets, vowing to create that very post if elected PM.

He's got my vote for sure, now! How could I ever have questioned his motives before?

Go Stephane! You da man!

As the Wheel Turns...

2008-06-05T11:36:00.002-05:00

Let me get this straight,

Demand for trucks has plummeted near 40% in less than six months. The market is saying no to trucks and other high fuel consumption vehicles. General Motors decides to close the plants that manufacture these high gas consumption vehicles. Stephane Dion says Flaherty should be fired because of this.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course, that would also imply that Dwight Duncan, Finance Minister of Ontario, who has sent millions of taxpayer dollars to GM, Ford, and Chrysler in 'investment' (read Corporate Welfare) should also be fired because of this.

Which is why Dalton McGuinty will steer clear of such frivolous comments by Dion.

This is important! (UPDATED)

2008-05-17T12:41:00.003-05:00

I know it's been a while since I last posted, but I urge everyone to let their voices be heard in the CRTC's latest at controlling internet content. If you care about free speech, the CRTC must not be allowed to control anything. No doubt Richard Warman and his Human Rights Commission cohorts will be submitting their reasons for controlling us upstart hate mongering bloggers.

The CRTC is accepting electronic consultations for the next 30 days. Officially, Nik Nanos of Nanos Research is moderating the electronic consultations. You can let him know what you think by emailing nnanos@nanosresearch.com.

UPDATE & Backgrounder:

The CRTC has been asking questions about internet content for years. Since 1998, they have been 'asking' through consultations whether they should regulate the net. It seems they will keep asking until they get the answer they want.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/globe.01aug98.html

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=e4b2f886-3dc5-4ca7-92c7-7b10f5a8fe8a&k=5904

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/425759

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-CRTC-and-the-Internet---Forbidden-Domain&id=488662

http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/2531/206/

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e279871a-b08d-4092-a761-6045bb0d90a5

I'm sure there's plenty more, but you get the idea.

UPDATE 2: URL for participating in the consultation process: newmedia.crtc.econsultation.ca

This is important!

2008-05-17T08:55:00.004-05:00

A little Double Standard for your Monday (Pt. II)

2008-03-10T14:44:00.002-05:00

If Danny Williams didn't have oil, he'd be singing a completely different tune.

And while these dudes slam Jim Flaherty for lecturing Dalton McGuinty on high taxation levels, I don't see them coming to the Prime Minister's aid when the criticism goes the other way and is more vicious in its tone, too.

Smoking, Free Trade, Tax Credits, and the stupidity of Government

2008-03-05T15:37:00.002-05:00

Here's a few thoughts:

Free Trade
Aside from all the hot air being 'traded freely' between the U.S. Democratic nominees on NAFTA, there's one aspect that has encapsulated the essence of modern politics. No one has mentioned the implications of both Obama and Clinton admitting that they didn't really mean what they said about renegotiating NAFTA. In my books, they openly lied to their respective supporters. I don't buy that it's 'necessary' sometimes. When you're running for President, or Prime Minister, integrity, belief in your country, belief in your people (all the people) isn't just a slogan, soundbite, or catchphrase. It's a life philosophy that manifests itself in your actions and they way you carry yourself.

It is immensley depressing when Obama, whose campaign slogan is 'Change you can Beleive In' openly admits that his comments on Free Trade weren't serious. So what does one believe in? Is he serious about the other stuff? Or is it just words to placate the mindless masses? If I was an American Democrat campaign worker, I'd be wondering whether my efforts were of any value.

Tax Credits for Film
Orwell's 1984, continues to be increasingly prophetic. I find it stunning that our current Conservative government would be the one's to bring us closer to that kind of thing. Isn't freedom one of the those 'fundamental' things about being a Conservative?

To my mind, a conservative government would have scrapped the tax credit altogether. Why should taxpayer's fund television and movies? If they were so great, they would be popular and would generate plenty of income all on their own. If a film is good, and has good prospects for profit, the producers will find a way to fund its production. This is no different than corporate welfare.

Smoking in Cars with Children Present
Before I comment on this, I should tell you I'm an ex-smoker. Which probably means I'm the last person who should be commenting on this sort of thing, and it's likely I'm in the minority on this, but enough is enough. Whether you agree or disagree with smoking, no government is going to tell me whether or not I can use a legal product when enclosed inside my own private property (car). Why stop at cars? How soon before you can't smoke in your own home if you have children? If we aren't allowed by law to commit suicide, why allow us to smoke?

Health Promotion mininister Margaret Best said in a press release today that The proposed ban is the next logical step in our efforts to protect Ontarians from the dangers of tobacco use.

If this is what passes for logic among our elected officials, it's no wonder the really big issues of the day confound us. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but wouldn't the next logical step be to outlaw tobacco altogether? But hey, that's just me. The continuing crackdown on smoking is a joke, and it threatens our fundamental freedoms. Besides, anyone with half a brain should realize they are harming their children by smoking in the car. I don't need big brother telling me how to live my life. I'm a free man.

My parents smoked in the car, I turned out ok. I think.

A little double standard for your Monday...

2008-02-25T12:16:00.001-05:00

An article in the Vancouver Sun entitled "Canada swept up in Obamania" (found on National Newswatch) talked about how the Obama Campaign is drawing the active participation of Canadians. What caught my eye was a comment by a Vancouver citizen working for the Obama campaign by making phone calls into the US. The person was nearly moved to tears when she phoned a guy in Louisiana who had never participated in politics before, but because of the phone call and being told that Obama was a black man, is now a local precinct captain (similar to our poll captain).

It was all very heartwarming. Canadians are such nice neighbours to our friends in the south that we even 'help out' with US politics, too.

Imagine if republicans were actively phoning on behalf of a Conservative Leadership Candidate. I can just see the headlines now: "Bushites interfere in Canuck Politics", or "Canadians being told how to vote by US Republicans". This would get even more outlandish with wacko Jacko Layton accusing the PM of "inviting the George Bush Republicans to help brainwash Canadian voters into thinking that we should become the 51st state", or that "the Prime Minister has just told the White House that we can't think for ourselves anymore, that we need Americans telling us what to do". Not quite the same warm and fuzzies, eh?

Just a thought. Enjoy your day.

66.9% is smack dab in the middle of nowhere...

2008-02-24T11:02:00.001-05:00

Which is where the PC Party will find itself for the better part of the next 4 years. 66.9% is neither a defeat, nor a ringing endorsement, but it is technically a win. However, when the person that received that number lost his own seat in an election the course should have been clear. Tory should have called a leadership race and run as a candidate. Even if Tory won the race, it would have been a cleansing act with the potential to wash away the sins of last October.

If conservatism stands for personal responsibility, advancement of democracy, smaller government and lower taxes, Tory has transgressed against all those principles:

1. He should have called a leadership race and run again as a candidate (goes to personal responsibility and the advancement of democracy),
2. He should never had offered the faith based schools proposal, because it was never a grassroots approved policy decision (goes to the advancement of democracy),
3. He put forth a policy platform document that increased program spending by 14% and almost mirrored Liberal policy (which goes to smaller government and the fact that his policy platform didn't even qualify as a 'conservative' platform)
4. His financial plan only marginally pledged to reduce taxes by phasing out the hated health tax over four years but would have increased government revenues through some magical economic expansion which everyone saw as unrealistic in order to compensate for it. Bottom line is that taxes would have had to increase somewhat because Tory would not have been able to significantly reduce government spending without hurting his 'red tory' reputation (which again goes to smaller government and lower taxes).

Democracy dictates that 50% + 1 is a majority. Tory got 66.9%. He has legitimacy behind him. Therefore, I'll stand behind him.

If he wants to win the hearts and minds of conservatives and energize the party his path is clear: work to increase the individual freedom of people in this province, pledge to lower taxes, vow to reduce the size of government, show why our province can be great when we extol the virtues of personal effort and belief in oneself instead of reliance on an oversized bloated money draining government and you will win the hearts and minds of voters. Behave like a liberal and you will give the electorate no reason to choose you over a real liberal.

I am hopeful.

Tory gets called to the Boardroom...

2008-02-22T11:31:00.001-05:00

In advance of John Tory's make or break weekend, I thought I would throw out a thought for those delegates that would be attending. Perhaps looking at the situation from a different angle might put a new perspective on things.

I found myself imagining if last fall's provincial election was just another 'task' on an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Try to picture the dustup that would result when John Tory et al got called into the boardroom to explain themselves for the drubbing they took at the hands of the Liberals.

The losing team has to explain what went wrong. After that, the floor blows wide open with Trump squarely laying out where he thinks things went wrong. He points to obvious things. For example, it might go something like this:

Trump: 'Whose idea was it to pitch the faith-based school thing, I mean that was terrible decision? Was it you, John?'

Tory: 'Yes Mr. Trump, it was me. I take responsibility for it.'

Trump: 'Why did you think that was a good idea, especially after the heat the Tories took when Flaherty offered credits for private school tuition, why would you think that would be better? I don't follow politics, but to me that just seems like a bad decision.'

Tory: 'Well Mr. Trump, we thought it was the right thing to do, it was a question of fairness'.

Trump: 'But the voters didn't think it was the right thing to do, did they?'

Tory: 'No Mr. Trump, they didn't, but they didn't really understand the issue either, the Liberals ran a campaign of obfuscation and scare tactics to deflect the debate from the real issue'.

Trump: 'Come on, John, don't blame your opponents for exploiting your own weakness. You know Liberals are adept at obfuscation and scare tactics, that's why they've had run of the country for the better part of the last 50 years! You should have seen it coming. John, you ran a bad campaign for Kim Campbell. You lost when you ran for Toronto Mayor, you lost against McGuinty's Liberals. You have a history of political losses. You made a string of bad political decisions. You lost your own seat, and no one's going to give you one, either! You divided and disenfranchised many members of your own party for God's sake. You did a good job fundraising, you're a likeable guy, I mean, I like you! You're a great guy, you're smart, your team is loyal, but in the end, you blew the election big time. If I didn't see it, I wouldn't have believed it could happen. I've never seen such a disaster. John, you're fired!

Tory: 'Thank you, Mr. Trump.'

Trump: 'Now go, get outta here.'

Speaking of Castro...

2008-02-20T12:56:00.001-05:00

An ultra politically correct friend of mine recently scolded me for not buying 'fair trade' coffee. I admitted to him that I didn't really understand what 'fair trade' meant, although I could guess it had something to do with not exploiting coffee workers. Apparently my coffee buying habits are part of the 'problem'. I asked him to name one thing that any of us do normally that 'isn't part of the problem'. He rhymed off a few things like buying local groceries, not using plastic bags, etc.

I wasn't in the mood for a deep discussion, but I shot back (a little angrily, I admit) and questioned why he had such a big ethical problem with coffee but apparenty no ethical issue with vacationing in communist Cuba. Why was he ok with putting hundreds of dollars into an oppressive regime but felt it necessary to lecture me over a lousy $2 cup of coffee?

He was unusually quiet after that.

Dion Will Fold Like a Cheap Tent

2008-02-19T13:25:00.001-05:00

A couple of days ago Stephane Dion was quoted saying he might let the budget pass if it isn't "too harmful to the economy". That implies two things. First, he has already made up his mind that the upcoming budget will be hurtful to our economy. Second, that despite what he believes is a hurtful budget, he is willing to sit on his hands and pass it anyway.

So what's the story Stephane? If you truly believe the budget will hurt the economy, how could you possibly allow it to pass? Where is your principle? Where is the courage to stand by your convictions? Where is the willingness to put your money where your mouth is? Where is the bravado that was so visible just two weeks ago? First you were going to bring the government down over the crime bill. Then it was Afghanistan. Then it was the budget. What's it gonna be?

Are you going to bluff, or call?

Funny (but depressing) Observation

2008-02-13T09:51:00.001-05:00

I was chatting with a friend about U.S. politics earlier today, and we discussed what the word 'debate' has come to mean in both the U.S. and Canada. Both of us realized that the 'debates' are anything but a serious discussion of issues and solutions. In Canada, as Greg Weston so accurately stated, it's 'stupid what passes for debate in Canada'.

It occurred to my friend and me that in hockey, to win the Stanley Cup for a single season, we have to watch several rounds of 'best out of 7' matches equating to dozens of hours of hockey.

In politics, we get 2 hours of carefully scripted two-tier linguistic rhetoric from politicans who read from a 'playbook' at a podium to decide who gets to be leader of a nation for four years. All the important issues of our time, summed up in tidy 12 minute segments. Sounds wonderfully tv-dinnerish.

Could you imagine a stanley cup game played out like a leaders debate? Let's see, each team captain (party leader) would have a beautiful uniform and would skate towards the opposing team's net attempting to score a goal (electoral victory). There would be multiple pucks which would represent the issues of the day. Each team would try to get as many pucks into the nets. Body checks, high sticks, low sticks, hooks, and whatever other tactics could be employed would be allowed.

What would probably happen is that the players would be fighting each other all the time and the pucks would always remain untouched.

On second thought, that sounds just like what we already have.

Here we go again...

2008-02-07T22:13:00.000-05:00

Well it's time for me to make my bi-annual election prediction. I feel like Wiarton Willy here. Will there be an early election? Does Kirk see his shadow?

Well folks, I've come out of my winter hole, and I say... NO SPRING ELECTION.

I've been right the last three times, will there be a fourth? Don't listen to people like Garth Turner, either. He's been wrong every time. I'd say his election prediction credibility is about zero.

Let's look at the scenario. The liberals are dying for an excuse to go to an election, not because they have a clear direction and proposal for the people of Canada, but because they no longer wish to be accused of sitting on their hands and propping up a government that they profess is taking the country in the opposite direction of what Canadians want (which is why the Tories were elected, Dion?). They also wish to end the farcical tenure of Dion, and an election is the only way to do it.

Unless you're one of those 'retiring' MPs, or one with a safe city riding (like Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal) you'd be hard pressed to slit your own throat. Stephane Dion is fooling himself if he thinks Afghanistan will win him an election. It won't. Since the Manley report was issued, Dion's opinions have been rendered obsolete. The environment will be a loser for him, too, especially if he goes on about carbon taxes.

No, this election (if there is one) will be about the economy, which is prime Tory territory. They are better equipped to manage the economy than that utopian seeking socialist Liberal Leader. And if the economy is what we go to an election on, the Liberals will most certainly lose. Liberals know that, which is why they will back down from pressing the button (unless they just want to get rid of Dion, in which case they will willingly commit political suicide to do so, but I'm betting Liberal MPs will not commit suicide.

Aside from John McCallum and perhaps Ralph Goodale is there anyone in the Liberal caucus with any street cred on economic policy?

And let's face it, the only way to bring the government down over the economy is on the budget. Do you think the Tories aren't going to put forth another big spending budget? They most certainly are. Some of the things to watch for will be economic development money for Canada's manufacturing, more family friendly policy, eastern economic development agency money, Olympics investment, and, of course, plenty of health and infrastructure based provincial transfers.

The Tories will position themselves well for an election, and they most certainly will outwit, outlast, and outplay hapless Dion. They can control the agenda, the election, the timing, and how, when, and if, they decide to allow themselves to fall.

But what of Duceppe and Layton? With both leaders already professing their desire to bring the government down over Afghanistan, it will be up to Dion in that regard, but the budget is another thing altogether. Another hail mary for Duceppe would ensure this government's survival until the political landscape changes, but with things remaining largely the same since the last go around, I suspect the game will play out the same, that being Duceppe and Layton will come out of the gate early by staking their policy positions before Dion can react, leaving Dion with the final decision as to whether the government lives or falls.

As before, I believe it is in the government's interest to keep Dion as head of the Liberal Party. With him there, major rivals for leadership can work their knives slowly and in secret, leaving Harper to govern until the scheduled 2009 election. I believe this is Harper's end game. And because he's a master strategist, I believe he will get there, which means... no spring election.

And perhaps the most important reason there won't be an election is the fact that people don't want one. They didn't want one before, they don't want one now. Is there any reason to believe that an election now will change parliament in any significant way?

Well, they say that a month is a lifetime in politics. We'll see what happens after the budget.

Are we taking bets this time?

That coffee tastes like Crap!

2008-02-05T22:43:00.001-05:00

Is it just me, or has Tim Horton's forgotten how to make coffee? For the past few months I have become increasingly dissatisfied with Tim Horton's coffee. So much so, I avoid it now and look for a starbucks or second cup.

Maybe they're too busy making sandwiches, bagels, and pretty little strawberry tarts that coffee is no longer their cup of tea, so to speak.

If only Country Style could make a decent cup of coffee...

Warren Kinsella is full of it

2008-01-24T23:17:00.000-05:00

And he's either deliberately trying to stir the pot or he's being obtuse.

To suggest that Ezra Levant's fight with the Human Rights Commission is because he's 'against human rights' is absurd. His assertion that Levant is being hypocritical because of this is also absurd. Isn't free speech one of those basic kind of 'Human Rights'?

First, Levant's case against FFW will be a court case, bound by the rules of evidence and presided over by a real judge, with robes and everything. If Levant's case is successful, it will be because there is precedence in case law, not at the whim of a bureaucrat. What's Kinsella thinking?

Second, Levant's case will be funded by Levant, and is based on (what I assume to be) the idea of damages, or libel. Perhaps he felt FFW caused him some hurt in some way. But the bottom line is that there must be some legal impetus for the case.

On the other hand, the HRC case against Levant is not going to court. It is being 'heard' by a bureaucrat, not a judge or jury, and launched by someone who couldn't get it heard in a real court. It was initiated by someone who will not put up a single penny. It's funded by the taxpayers. To suggest that Levant should answer to the though police should be throwing up red flags for any freedom loving individual, including you WK!

But what Levant is fighting for (on behalf of all citizens), is the protection of free speech and the right of every citizen to make up his or her mind on any issue. He is also fighting against an over reaching government bureaucracy.

No, Levant isn't against human rights. He's against the repression of those rights. Kinsella can see that. He just refuses to admit it.

Throne Speech a Lethal Injection

2007-10-17T20:21:00.000-05:00

Michael Ignatieff was right about one thing, the throne speech didn't contain poison pill. It was a bloody lethal injection put right through the heart of the Liberal Party.

Stephane Dion has been forced into voting for a throne speech that abandons Kyoto and extends the mission in Afghanistan. How much more obvious does the Prime Minister need to be, Iggy? Geez.

Harper has easily called Dion's bluff who now has to suck and blow at the same time. Dion is on a path to a spectacular crash and burn and he's going to take the entire Liberal Party with him.

Of course, there was really never any question of whether or not the Liberals would swallow such an obvious provocation. It was a "political imperative" that the Liberal party avoid an election (ht to Gerry Nicholls).

Just as Harper was once the "greatest asset" to both Chretien and Martin, Dion is now the "greatest asset" to Harper. Does Dion fully realize the squeeze play the PM has put on him?

And to top it all off, during an interview with CTV, Ralph Goodale drove home just how badly the liberals have misjudged by hanging their hats on Kyoto and Afghanistan. By claiming the Liberals are looking at the long term interests of Canada, he unwittingly admits that Kyoto and Afghanistan will not win them an election.

Dion says the same thing, too. He says that the "priority of Canadians" right now is to not have an election for the third time in three and a half years. Again, this drives home the point that the Liberals cannot win an election on Kyoto and Afghanistan alone. They need something else.

Which is why for the last couple of weeks, the Liberals have been talking about tax cuts.

I laughed when Goodale accused the opposition parties of playing 'silly' games by opposing the throne speech. In other words, Goodale and all his caucus colleagues are upset that the Bloc and NDP forced the Liberals into supporting it.

Note to Ralphy:
Stop sucking and blowing.
As a liberal you've spent the last two years almost solely on Kyoto. You elected the Kyoto loving Dion. You made such a fuss when you managed to pass a bill forcing the government into meeting its Kyoto commitments. Is it not your strong belief that meeting Kyoto commitments are in the long term interests of Canada? Has your leader not given the PM an ultimatum on Afghanistan? Then how can you support the government and maintain any kind of credibility at all? By putting yourselves into such a tight policy box, you've allowed yourselves to be outflanked and made to look ridiculous. Who's really being silly here?

Stephane Dion, the Intrepid Tax Fighter!

2007-10-13T09:24:00.000-05:00

This is just so puzzling. Why would Dion go for the "deep" tax cut of .5% to corp taxes and claim that "A lower corporate tax rate is a powerful weapon in the federal government's arsenal to generate more investment, higher living standards and better jobs."

"A lower corporate tax rate is a powerful weapon... to generate... higher living standards and better jobs"

Is this not a cornerstone of conservative philosophy? To hear Dion buy into this idea with such deliberate language is truly a puzzle. Does he truly believe his own words, or is it just throne speech posturing?

This is so incongruous with his political leanings I question who wrote this speech.

This idea was first floated by John Manley a few weeks ago during a speech to the Economic Club, but now Dion is touting the corp tax drop. Curious.

Just a Question...

2007-10-02T22:58:00.000-05:00

I applaud John Tory's committment to kill the hated health tax. But why must it be done over four years? During the next four years (assuming the PC Party wins a majority, and John Tory keeps his promises) the health tax will extract $6.4 Billion from the pockets of citiziens before it is fully phased out. If its that bad, as Tory claims, why not kill it right away?

I say if a tax can be implemented right away, it should be withdrawn right away!

And I don't buy McGuinty's argument that 'every penny of the health levy is needed'. Needed for what, march madness giveaways? The health tax raises about $2.6 Billion in additional revenue every year.

In case everyone missed it, the Ontario budget surplus this year was $2.6 Billion.

Rebuttal on MMP...

2007-10-02T22:18:00.000-05:00

One of the things that appeals to supporters of MMP is that the legislature will more accurately reflect voters intentions. My friend Darryl Wolk is arguing in favour of MMP.

He writes, "results in the legislature do not reflect the results of voting" and points to the fact that every government elected in recent memory received large majorities with less than a majority of the popular vote. While this may be technically true, he misses the simple truth that in every case, the people got the government they wanted. In every case, the people of Ontario got the change they were looking for. The results of the previous elections are indeed representative of voter intentions, just not the exact percentages. So what's the problem with FPTP?

Wolk further argues that "under the current system there is more accountability to the party leadership than there is the people."

This will not change. It can actually be worse under MMP depending on how the list members are chosen by the individual parties. List members, by virtue of being unelected, could find themselves in cabinet and indebted to party leadership for having been chosen in the first place. What motivation is there for a list member to be loyal to voters?

Wolk says that politicians must behave like trained seals "if they want to be rewarded". How true! but he completely misses the fact that this says more about personal integrity than it does about the political system under which we elect MPPs. The problem is not the quality of our electoral system, its the quality of the people we elect! Is Darryl suggesting that somehow MMP will produce better politicians? A politician that wants to be "rewarded" will somehow act differently under MMP?

Backbenchers elected under MMP can belly up to the trough just as easily as one elected under FPTP. Conversely, either system allows party leaders to demote troublesome MPPs for not toeing the party line.

Wolk continues, "grass roots members, opposition parties, back bench MP/MPPs, and voters have virtually no impact on government legislation. What the leader wants, party members are expected to sell with no debate or input. Example: faith based schools."

This holds no water for exactly the same reasons put forth under the previous point. If politicians want to curry favour with the leader they can be counted on doing whatever is in their own best interests. As for having an impact on government legislation, Wolk does not indicate how this will change under MMP. He uses the issue of faith based schools as an example of how the current system creates a top down approach to policy, but offers no reasons why MMP will change this.

However, continuing with Wolks example of funding faith-based schools, since John Tory has backed away from that particular issue, it seems the people have spoken and been heard.

Wolk claims the current system causes a "minimal sense of cooperation."

He argues that minority governments are preferable to majority governments because in majority situations the opposition is token in nature. He argues further that under MMP there will be more cooperation among parties because there will be more coalition governments.

While this may seem like a good thing, it can also work against the people. For instance, what if some issue arose where decisive action (rightly or wrongly) was required. As an example, I use the free trade agreement. There is vastly more support for it today than there was when Mulroney won his last election, mainly because we have had the benefit of strong economic growth. Under MMP, would the free trade agreement ever been struck? Or would it have languished on a boardroom table while coalition governments squabbled over scraps?

"In some ridings, it is a total waste of time for some people to vote".

Essentially, Wolk is arguing that many NDP voters switched to the Liberals in order to defeat the conservatives, that somehow, their choices were forced on them because they didn't want to "waste" their vote on someone who had no chance of winning.

Horse hockey! So-called "strategic voting" (is there any other kind?) is a myth.

A vote is a choice made in favour of an outcome, regardless of reasons.

Let's suppose I am predisposed to vote NDP, but decide for "strategic" reasons to vote Liberal, just to keep the conservative candidate out of government. Is that not a vote in favour of a desired outcome, nonetheless? Was that choice forced upon me by the electoral system? My choice was to defeat the conservative, and, therefore, chose NOT to voice my approval of the NDP candidate. Choice made.

The problem with Darryl's argument is that MMP may actually make it harder for voters. You will still have voters making "strategic" choices because they want to defeat an electable candidate without regard for the possibility of winning list seats. Thus, the problem that Wolk perceives is exacerbated under MMP.

Perhaps the most stunning statement from Wolk is the following: "The list allows for more democracy not less." With all due respect to my friend, he could not be more wrong. How does appointing someone to sit in the legislature who is unaccountable to the voters enhance democracy? Wolk spends half his post talking about how the legislature doesn't properly meet the true democratic wishes of the electorate, yet argues that "appointing" candidates somehow does.

He goes on further to say that "although they do not represent a riding; they represent the will of all the voters who supported a party..." One of my readers astutely pointed out that under MMP, Warren Kinsella could run as a candidate, get thoroughly drubbed in a local race yet still be Minister of Finance! This represents the will of the people!??

Wolk makes one more statement I would like to address, "if you want more power returned to the people... vote MMP..."

To my friend, I say this; returning power to the people is something that every politician could do right now. It is the quality of the people we elect, and our unwillingness to stand up for our rights, that leads us to believe the problem is with the "system".

Whatever shortcomings with our current system we think exists, the blame for its existence rests upon our own shoulders. We have the power, we just don't know how to exercise it. And we abdicate our civic duties to lesser men and women who have consistently shown their disdain for the people, democracy, and freedom.

No federal election... and Dion will step down

2007-10-02T19:21:00.000-05:00

It's fabulous irony watching the slow deterioration of the Liberal Party under Stephane Dion. The accidental leader has performed exactly as an accidental leader would be expected. With parallels being drawn between the spectacular crash and burn of Stockwell Day and the one now underway with Stephane Dion we are left wondering when the bell will toll for Dion.

Since the by-elections it seems the Liberal Party is finally recognizing what is painfully obvious to most Canadians. Simply put Stephane Dion is not a leader. That's really all there is to it. And it was powerfully demonstrated earlier this week by Dion himself when he quipped that he needs "to fight and win against a caricature" of himself. What tripe.

Of course, such psycho-babble makes him unelectable. It's more suitable for an episode of Dr. Phil than it is for our national discourse. One gets the feeling that perhaps Dion needs a therapist, not an election strategy.

With the possibility that the Liberal Party could very publicly tear itself apart at any moment there's almost no chance they'll bring down the government, because it would be financial suicide to do so. The loss of seats and votes would result in a loss of public funding, and given their fundraising woes in conjunction with the new election financing laws, they will have a lot of trouble raising the money to pay for an election. Furthermore, they will probably take all the heat if they're the ones perceived to have pulled the trigger on an election no one wants.

Some Liberals think it's better to have an election now and get it over with so they can choose a new leader, rather than allow the Conservatives to continue to build toward a majority government unchallenged. But that logic is faulty. If an election were held today, the likelihood that the Conservatives would lose seats and the Liberals would gain is remote. And so we would be in the same situation as now, except the Liberals would be heading to another leadership convention. Oh, and they would be poorer, and the Conservatives would be richer, and very likely stronger. Leadership polls have consistently proven that Harper is the preferred choice among all the party leaders.

I think we'll be seeing one or two more "retirements," but no election. The damage is done, and it is irreparable. There is little to no chance Dion can go from limp wristed caricature to Prime Ministerial hopeful in short order. For "the good of the party." Dion will resign some time after the Throne Speech is passed.

And it will pass. It only needs 30 votes from the opposition. Either through enough absentees, or a few rogues.

If the Bloc doesn't support the throne speech it will be left up to the Liberals and the NDP to do so. And therein lies the question. Will there be anything at all to appeal to the NDP?Which brings me to the possibility of an election. Despite the rising stock of the Conservative Party in Quebec, and despite the ultimatums served up last week by both the Bloc and the Liberals, I believe an election will be averted.

I don't think it was ever in Harper's plans to have his government fall on the Throne Speech. Although there is no doubt the Prime Minister considered it a possibility, the object of proroguing parliament was to breath new life into the agenda rather than cause an election.

While the ultimatums had the effect of fueling speculation, the National Post rightly opined that both parties are overplaying their hands, and negotiating from weakened positions. Harper will introduce just enough to allow both parties the wiggle room they need to support the speech. If the Block supports it, the Liberals and NDP will have the pleasure of opposing it (to their great relief).

It is widely expected the Throne Speech will introduce limits to federal spending power.

No MMP

2007-09-30T17:57:00.000-05:00

I notice my friend Darryl over at darrylwolk.ca has put a banner on his blog endorsing MMP. He loves the idea of being able to vote for a particular person but not necessarily the party for which he or she stands. I can't blame him for liking the idea, but MMP is not the answer, and it misses the whole point of electoral reform.

I've read both sides of the story and I believe MMP will harm democracy, not preserve it.

I'll give you a perfectly good reason to reject MMP. Out of the 129 MPPs that would be elected under the new system, 39 of them would be making laws that govern your life without ever having to stand for election. That's 39 MPPs without accountability. 39 MPPs that will never have to answer to citizens. 39 MPPs that won't have to go out and convince the citizens that their vision is right, and everyone else's is wrong.

In my books, that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.

The rest of the MMP debate is just fluff. MMP will leave our province, and our democracy, at the whim of party cronies, political sycophants, and "friends" that are owed favors. How can we justify a system where 30% of the MPPs are appointees? Where's the democracy in that? How is that an improvement over what we have?

This line says it all…

2007-09-30T09:16:00.000-05:00

I could write about the Ontario Provincial Election Campaign for a month and never capture the essence of it as well as Lorrie Goldstein did in today's Toronto Sun:

the people most angry about Tory's promise are grassroots Conservatives, who say they won't be voting Tory for the first time in decades.

Brian Mulroney likes Bank Mergers

2007-05-11T21:17:00.000-05:00

It was interesting today to hear Brian Mulroney giving his official "okey dokey" to bank mergers. Once again, the free market takes a back seat. This is indicative of the downward spiral of conservatism and free markets in this country.

When Jim Flaherty appeared in Newmarket-Aurora last November on the heels of the income trust decision, I had the opportunity to ask him a question that I think all free market proponents would like to know. I asked the Minister, "When is the government going to examine the idea of allowing greater competition in banking?" He answered that it is something "they might consider", that no ideas were "off the table".

If the Canadian market was opened up to allow competition from other banks around the world, small banks, private banks, I could support the idea of bank mergers. But to allow mergers in the absence of greater competition will only hurt consumers, remove choice, and turn people into "assets" as banks exert greater control over individual freedom. They would have power akin to the gasoline companies. Gouging and screwing at every opportunity. Oh, wait, we already have that.

Does anybody support free markets anymore?

SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME!

2007-05-04T08:02:00.000-05:00

Canada's New Government's New Environmental Plan calls for the "banning" (I really dislike that word) of incandescent light bulbs. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently announced the same thing.

Whose decree must I follow? Which "big brother" takes precedence. Why do we need two levels of government making the same decree? Was the division of powers removed from the constitution without my knowledge?

Perhaps this is beyond my simpleton ways. One other thing, did anyone notice we have Conservatives doing the same things as Liberals? Hmmm.

Congratulations to Riding Association

2007-05-03T07:43:00.000-05:00

The Newmarket-Aurora riding association elected its board of directors last night with lots of new blood. There were new youth members elected as well as a number of newcomers. We have one of the most active riding associations around and I'm sure the new board will continue to do excellent things for our riding.

Although I wasn't elected this time around I will still be helping out with election readiness and the database stuff.

Go Lois Go!

No Shortage of Good Editorial

2007-05-03T07:39:00.000-05:00

Some editorials just say everything that needs to be said.

This is no exception.

It's the biggest non-issue of the year, so far.

UPDATE: uh, then again…

Conservative Party Supports Kyoto?

2007-04-26T09:15:00.000-05:00

The following Motion, proposed by the BQ, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY on Tuesday April 24, 2007:

"That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal."

That the motion was proposed by the BQ is no surprise. That the conservatives voted in favour of it, however, is a surprise. It's more evidence that the Conservative Party is behaving less like the government that was elected, and more like the government it replaced.

What happened to opposing the Kyoto Accord? I think its a "money sucking socialist scheme", but apparently, the government no longer believes that.

I was under the impression that we voted for change.

DION'S DAYS AS LEADER ARE NUMBERED. SAME FOR MAY.

2007-04-15T07:57:00.000-05:00

The only thing clear about the deal between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May is that if their leadership wasn't in question before, it should be under rigorous review by now. It is entirely feasible Dion will never face Harper in an election. If there isn't one until next year, my bet is Harper will be facing a new liberal opposition leader before end of year.

What does Elizabeth May expect to gain? Credibility? Legitimacy? What legitimacy is either May or the Green Party entitled to by endorsing the leader of a competing party? It has the effect of transforming the other green candidates into empty political vessels. Why bother running candidates at all? It's madness. It shows May lacks the conviction of her own party's policies. This deal also ruins whatever support the Green Party had for being included in the national election debates.

"Were in a situation where I will fight for 307 Liberals, plus Elizabeth May," Dion said on Friday. May's judgement is questionable if she thinks its perfectly acceptable to receive special treatment from another party and leave all her own candidates dangling in the breeze.

Financially speaking, the deal could also hamper future fundraising efforts. Why donate to a party that endorses another? If the deal results in fewer green votes overall they will lose some of their taxpayer funding of $1.75 per vote they receive each year. When the dust settles from an election, and all the votes are counted, May will likely be looking for a job.

For Dion, it is unclear what real strategic value exists in not running a candidate in Central-Nova, but it will undoubtedly alienate many liberal supporters, especially those that have worked tirelessly for the Liberal cause in that riding. It will certainly drive a few of them into the Conservative camp. It will undoubtedly drive a few more of them into the Green and NDP camps. But I suspect it will just drive most of them mad. This of course begs the question of who's running things in the Liberal Party, and what were they thinking?

If opposition to the decision grows, Dion may face a revolt, and be forced to reverse himself and run a candidate to satisfy Liberals in Nova Scotia.

On the heels of the latest SES poll on Dion's leadership, and with the growing list of retiring MPs, you have to wonder whether or not the Liberal Party is in complete disarray.

As leader of a national political party, even one deemed the "Natural Governing Party of Canada", Dion's challenges seem almost insurmountable. If Dion's polling numbers don't improve soon, he may be faced with having to resign as leader. If he doesn't, he may get unceremoniously dumped in a forced leadership review. If he isn't planning an exit strategy right now, maybe he should be.

He has type-cast himself on the environment, and unless the next election is run entirely on the environment, this will hurt his campaign. Dion's decision with respect to Elizabeth May only confirms his "one trick pony" persona. It will take a heck of a lot of advertising and PR to change this perception.

He is perceived as weak, and the Conservative ads have been merciless at hammering home this point with the voters. Some argue that even Harper had similar numbers in the past, but Dion should take no consolation from that. Harper's strong leadership style is clearly one of the reasons he has a 42% approval rating today while Dion's leadership is coming under increasing fire.

Dion was not the first choice for leader. This may seem like splitting hairs, but after a marathon 10 month campaign he was never considered seriously. It was only after Ignatieff's campaign began to fall apart that Dion was given a second look. The widely known alliance between Kennedy and Dion is what finally allowed Dion to leapfrog over Rae in the final ballot.

His voice cracks. A lot. This may seem minor, perhaps even a mean thing say, but political leadership is about strength. Strong personality, strong physical presence, and strong positions. Dion, however, is a man of small physical stature, and when he tries to raise his voice to get his points across, his voice cracks. People listen to their instincts, and their unconscious selves will perceive his boyishness. His whining about being "bullied" by Harper does not reassure Canadians that he is a strong leader.

His english is attrocious. At times, he is almost incomprehensible.

His party has no visible policy positions. What does Dion stand for? We know he is an "environmentalist" but that's it. The people barely know him, and what they've seen isn't impressive.

People won't elect an environmentalist that can't speak english very well, whose voice cracks like a teenager, who is perceived to be weak (both physically and politically), and who whines about being "bullied".

I doubt there will be a federal election this year, but perhaps in spring 2008. And if the Liberals want in, they will have a new leader in place well before that.

DION'S STRATEGY A REAL PUZZLE

2007-04-13T10:31:00.000-05:00

One of the surest signs that the Liberal Party is in big trouble is when a star candidate like Bob Rae decides to run in one of the country's safest ridings. Rae, who after a decade hiatus from politics should be preparing for a high profile battle is instead yawning his way to the next election. He recently secured the nomination for the riding of Toronto-centre having defeated political hopeful and newcomer Meredith Cartwright. Toronto Centre is Bill Graham's seat, the former interim leader. In the 2006 election, he won with more than 52% of the vote, defeating his NDP opponent by a margin of more than 15,000 votes. Why didn't Rae choose a riding where the Conservatives won by a narrow margin? The former Premier of Ontario is a seasoned campaigner, having fought several elections. Surely he's confident he could take a riding currently held by a rookie Conservative.

There are any number of ridings outside the GTA that could be taken from the Conservatives if given the right candidate. Ridings like Ancaster-Dundas-Flamboraugh-Westdale, Barrie, Burlington, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, Hamilton Mountain, Peterborough, and even Finance Minister's Whitby-Oshawa riding are all potential targets. An aggressive Liberal Party would have no compunction putting a battle ready candidate into those ridings. Today's Liberal Party, however, is meek, content to whine from the sidelines.

Rae's choice to run in Toronto-Centre may be a sign that the LIberals are bracing themselves for a slaughter at the polls. It may be a sign that Rae, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is tired, and unable to mount a fiery campaign of ideas. It may also be a sign that Dion's own strength within the party is limp.

Why has Dion allowed insta-Liberal Bob Rae to pick fortress Toronto to run in, but demand that heir-apparent Justin Trudeau "cut his teeth" in Papineau? Yes, Papineau has been a Liberal stronghold since 1953, but in 2004 the BQ only narrowly lost to Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs under Paul Martin). In 2006 the riding went to the Bloc Quebcois, ending a 50 year Liberal reign. If Trudeau wins the nomination, he has a pretty good chance of winning the riding back for the Liberals in the next election. But why must young Trudeau earn his stripes, yet Rae sleepwalk to the House of Commons?

To a Liberal, there's nothing worse than an instal-Liberal looking for an easy ride. Long time Liberals with battle scars must be hot under the collar to know that Bob Rae, a former NDP Premier and NDP Party Leader can just waltz into one of Toronto's safest ridings knock off a would be female candidate that fits one of Dion's highest profile promises: to have 33% female candidates. It is also perhaps a sign of Dion's personal weakness within his own party. Under Dion's decree that 33% of candidates be female, political hopeful Meredith Cartwright should have had the benefit of seeking the Dion's pledge to meet 33% female content. Instead, he allowed Rae to use his vast political weight to defeat an able bodied female with the drive and resources to fight a nomination. Now, Dion will be in the position of having to "select" another perhaps less able female in another riding.

Another questionable choice is Martha Hall Findlay's decision to run in Willodale. Another easy win for a Liberal. Martha Hall Findlay is articulate, savvy, and a good choice to win a hotly contested riding. After coming so close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004, it would be understandable if she didn't want a fight, but she's a candidate capable of defeating Conservatives on their own ground. Why not use that to win more seats? Now that Stronach has quit, you have to wonder why Martha Hall Findlay wasn't given the opportunity to go after the Newmarket-Aurora nomination.

Now Dion has said he won't run a candidate in Peter MacKay's riding so the Green Party leader Elizabeth May can run uncontested. Liberals have run third in this riding for the last two elections. This must upset Jack Layton to no end because the NDP are gaining ground in that riding. In 2006, they came within 8 percentage points of unseating MacKay.

It's clear that while veteran MPs retire, the party is more interested in closing ranks and circling the wagons. Better to fight from a position of strength than take unecessary risks. But that strategy was decided after Dion was chosen as leader. Liberals may not be so confident that their party can make gains. Which is why they need to solidify their policy positions and start attacking the government with more than just "Harper is a bully", or that "Harper is a climate-change denier". It sounds more like whining.

It seems that Dion is behaving in a reactionary manner rather than on a pre-defined strategy. He seems to stumbling his way through willy-nilly, not charting a course. What will he do next?

POLITICAL PARTY WELFARE MUST END!

2007-04-13T08:29:00.000-05:00

It's time to put a stop to government funding of political parties. It's undemocratic to say the least. Political parties should stand on their own merit.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has brought to my attention that also a slap in the face to the millions of Canadians who receive indexed benefits from the government such as pensioners.

You see, according to the CTF blog (see "Political Pogey"), political parties are having their funding increased 7% to account for inflation while seniors collecting CPP will have their payments increased by only 2.1%.

I guess 2.1% is the seniors discount.

Shameful. And embarrassing for a so-called liberal democracy.

That's why organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation exist, to keep a watchful eye on things, because if they don't, who will?

Congratulations to Lois Brown

2007-04-11T08:01:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Lois Brown on her nomination win in Newmarket-Aurora, and congratulations to all the people who worked on her nomination campaign for a job well done. Lois has a long history in the community and has been a Conservative Activist for many years, involved at all levels of government. She is a well qualified candidate. Visit her website here.

The nomination committee of Al Wilson, Ross Chevalier, Jane Twinney, Stephen Hall, Darryl Wolk, and Dave Sterling did a tremendous job organization the thing and making sure voter registration went off without a hitch.

I was proud to have taken part in the nomination and given the privilege of putting my name forward. Thank you to all the people who supported my nomination, offered words of encouragement, talked to their friends on my behalf, and took the time to send me messages, suggestions, and offers to help.

Thanks to all of who decided to join the Conservative Party and lend me their support, I hope all of you continue to be involved and let your voices be heard. I am looking forward to developing and maintaining all the relationships I established during the campaign.

I would like to thank the individuals who made the special effort to come to the nomination meeting despite the ugly snowstorm we had. I know it took a great effort.

Lois has graciously accepted me into her campaign and she can count on me to help in whatever capacity she sees fit. It is now time to roll up our sleeves and get to work!

-Kirk West

ENOUGH WITH ELECTION FEVER!

2007-04-10T16:42:00.001-05:00

Spring has sprung! The grass is riz! I wonder when the election is?

Conservatives here in Newmarket-Aurora are itching for an election call. Too bad there isn't going to be one. Not this spring, not this year. It simply isn't in the cards, and nothing so far has convinced me otherwise.

Conventional wisdom among Conservatives in this riding was that the government would fall over the budget. But I just couldn't see it happening. If the Conservatives weren't in majority territory by budget time, they could always use their secret weapon: the fiscal imbalance. Gilles Duceppe all but handed it to the Conservatives on a silver platter last year when the Bloc supported the first Conservative budget on the government's promise to fix the fiscal imbalance in 2007. "The real budget will be next year, not this year," Duceppe said to reporters in foyer of the House of Commons last year. Conservatives knew that if there was no guaranteed majority on the horizon all they had to do to win Bloc support was make good on the fiscal imbalance. Winning Bloc support guaranteed passage of the budget.

As things stand now, the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP will do everything in their power to avoid an election. Here's why:

First: regardless of the fact that national polls are putting the Conservatives on the cusp of the magic "40" the reality is that voter intentions are much too volatile at this time. If an election were called today evidence suggests that the results would be similar to what we have now. This is in spite of Dion's terrible leadership numbers. The slightest misstep in Ontario could backfire horrendously on the Conservatives and send their popularity numbers down the toilet, while the Liberals will be given a fair amount of latitude. Harper already knows the public can change their minds in an instant, and the risk to his party's position is greater than the benefit of a few more seats.

In the minds of voters, things are getting done, which is more than they're used to, and there is no appetite among the electorate for a federal election. So as much as the Conservatives are working toward a majority in the polls (as evidenced by the budget and the flurry of announcements since Christmas), the likelihood of an election call simply because there is a possible majority in the offing seems remote. Even if a majority was likely, it is doubtful that the Conservatives could maintain those numbers in campaign mode. They need an issue of significance to campaign on. An electoral question is required.

Harper will not have forgotten how quickly his popularity evaporated when he openly mused about a majority during the 2004 campaign. He is also is aware of the devastation to the Liberal Party in Ontario after an election was called early simply because premier David Peterson wanted to capitalize on favourable polling numbers.

Second: Harper has repeatedly said, and continues to say, that he will not engineer the government's demise, that he wants to continue to govern and that there is still lots of work to do. To then knowingly trigger an election will damage his credibility to the point that his majority could disappear easily. The aforementioned volatility in voter intentions do not support the idea that Harper will engineer his own defeat.

Third: Stephane Dion is the weakest leader the Liberals have had in recent memory. Nothing short of a miracle will change this. And much like the Sponsorship Scandal, Dion is a gift that keeps on giving. With Liberal veterans "retiring" like rats from a sinking ship, the best possible thing for the Conservatives is for Dion to remain leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Unless Dion steps down out of the blue, they will need an election before they can choose a new leader. For this reason, the Conservatives will do everything possible to prevent the Liberals from falling on their own swords, and since the Liberals can't bring the government down on their own, they need the help of all three opposition parties.

Which brings me to the fourth reason there won't be an election this year: neither the Bloc, nor the NDP can afford an election.

After the astounding success of the ADQ in the Quebec election the Bloc is no position to test voter intentions. They are closely tied to the Parti Quebcois, so much so they are considered one in the same in some quarters. And their main raison d'etre, separatism, is no longer the driving force behind Quebec politics, leaving them in the position of being irrelevant to the average voter. Not at all conducive to electoral victory.

The NDP cannot afford to test voter intentions either given the recent popularity of the Green Party and the fact that strategic voting among the left could weaken their party further. Jamie Heath, a former communications director for the NDP recently published a book suggesting the Left is in danger of suffering the same disease that gripped conservatives for more than a decade; vote splitting. Let's also not forget that Jack Layton has made a public plea to cease and desist all this electioneering, a sure sign that he wants to avoid an election.

In fact, Layton has a particular interest in seeing Parliament work because he has a vested interest in getting the revamped Clean Air Act passed.

To further add to Jack Layton's troubles, Elizabeth May has made it clear that she supports parking votes with the Liberal party for no other reason than to defeat Harper. This will complicate life immensely for Layton because he cannot afford to lose any support, which is why he issued his plea on Thursday. All in all, not a good picture for the opposition.

For all of Dion's blustering that "Harper is trying to force an election", and that "the Liberal Party of Canada will be ready", they are woefully unprepared. While they are feverishly trying to get candidates nominated in all 308 ridings, they still have no visible platform or policy. They must do more than offer the "environment," or Kyoto.

What do the Liberals want to accomplish as government? What have they done to earn votes? All they have been able to do is whine that Stephen Harper is a bully. Hardly enough to win the hearts and minds of the people. Not at all enough to raise the Liberals out of the electoral gutter.

Too much credence has been given to the theory that the government could fall over the revised Clean Air Act. It is pretty clear that all three opposition parties will support it, so how could the government fall, even if they make it a confidence motion? Unless I am unaware of some obscure constitutional edict that says the government could fall on the passage of a bill, I don't see how this could trigger an election. If the amendments to the bill are as unpalatable as they seem, I would think that the Conservatives will let the bill die on the order paper without ever introducing it.

There is also speculation that the government will fall over several bills (C-10, C-27, C-35) to tackle gun crime and sentencing, but the reality is the opposition will have to soften their stance and work with the government in order to avoid facing voters.

Bottom line: no election.

I Scared the Heck out of my Family This Morning

2007-03-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

So there I was, happily enjoying a piece of burnt toast in the early hours this morning while my family was still sleeping. I clicked over to National Newswatch as I do every morning to check out the morning headlines. Scanning, Lorrie Goldstein's headline "Dion's Top 10 Kyoto Excuses" caught my eye. Goldstein is a regular read for me, not so much for his poignant opinions, but for the humourous way in which he presents them. The man is a true genius.

As I happily ate my toast, reading along, I was quietly chuckling to myself, but then I got to the end and burst out laughing so hard my wife jumped out of bed, my daughter woke up and started crying, and my son ran out to see what was going on!

The premise of the article is that Dion has been re-elected as Prime Minister and after many years is still offering excuses as to why our country can't meet Kyoto targets. You can read the entire column here, or keep reading an check out the list by itself. Enjoy! It is just plain funny and sad all at the same time.

Dion's Top 10 Kyoto Excuses

Number 10: "Kyoto ate my protocols."
Number 9: "This is unfair. This is unfair. You don't know what you speak about. Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"
Number 8: "I firmly believe that as a good citizen, I have a moral obligation to implement the Kyoto accord on global warming. Meaning, of course, as a good citizen of France."
Number 7: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."
Number 6: One year later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan."
Number 5: Two years later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."
Number 4: Three years later: "Yes, implementing the ... aw, to hell with it."
Number 3: "Define 'implement'."
Number 2: "I lost the Liberal plan to implement the Kyoto accord while I was looking for the Liberal plan to scrap the GST."

And Prime Minister Stephane Dion's number one excuse for not being able to implement the Kyoto accord?

"Ladies and gentlemen, Environment Minister Belinda Stronach."

Our Little Mosque in Newmarket

2007-02-13T16:12:00.000-05:00

Dear Anonymous,

Once again thanks for reading my blog.

At the time I wrote my reply to your original questions the facts as I understood them were as follows:

1. The Town of Newmarket has approved a plan to convert a house into a Mosque. From my understanding Zafar Bangash submitted a plan to the town and it was approved. The Mayor says this is strictly a planning issue.
2. The Era Banner in an editorial says the town failed to have hearings into the proposal.
3. Town council seems to have confirmed this editorial by replying that they didn't think citizens would care or oppose the mosque.
4. The Town appears to have an interest in the mosque because it was be a "first" for Newmarket.
5. In a recent letter to the editor, an individual wrote that the town had denied a request to rezone the same property to another religious group, which raises questions over why one religious group would receive approval over another.
6. To further complicate the matter, the mosque will be run/administered by a controversial Imam.

These were the facts prevailing at the time of my reply. Since then, I have read Saturday's Era Banner and some further facts have come to light.

1. That the other religious group that had originally applied to use the site have apparently not followed through with the paperwork, and, therefore, there appears to be no "political interference" in the zoning system.
2. I also now have learned that there are only 200 or so Muslims in the area that can be considered as potential patrons of the mosque. This is important when compared to the 300 who showed up at town council to oppose the mosque.

These are the facts as I have come to know them. If there is any other pertinent information that you might be able to provide I would be happy to learn it.

Anonymous, I know exactly what the controversy is about. It's about whether or not we are willing to allow a religious leader like Zafar Bangash into our community despite the fact that we support freedom of speech. It's about the greater problem that seems to be growing in this country and in countries around the world. In Herouxville, in England, and other European countries there is a growing discontentment with the beliefs and influence Islamist leaders have over other muslims.

However, I won't indulge in any knee-jerk reactions without having all the facts at hand. Certainly any reasonable person would expect me to get all the facts on an issue before stating a "position" or making a stand. Is this not true?

As of right now, however, I still have questions. For instance, if the approval of the mosque is purely a "zoning", or "planning" issue as the mayor suggests, why would the people show up at council to oppose the mosque? Does the town have the authority to deny a proposal because of the political views of the applicant? If so, would we be leaving ourselves open to an expensive charter challenge? Is that the reason council did not allow hearings?

Furthermore, I would be remiss to comment on the politics of Mr. Bangash without doing my own due diligence. Relying on editorials and guest columns in the Era Banner isn't what I consider to be thorough research. I had only a vague interest in the story to begin with. But since you questioned me about it I took some time to read more on the issue. But even after learning more, I still don't have enough information to take a position.

Anonymous, you have asked that if I don't have a position on this particular issue, what is it that I want to accomplish in Ottawa? My website and my blog entries are filled with the answers to that question. I am committed to taking the voices of the people to Ottawa. I'm committed to fighting for the middle class. I'm committed to instituting my own personal pledge of accountability that will give the people of Newmarket-Aurora a mechanism to hold me directly accountable should I not fulfill the commitments I make. I'm committed to providing as many avenues as technically possible for the people to communicate with me.

I have many times throughout my blog entries made statements about my positions. As I explore new topics readers will get to know much more. But I won't attempt to talk about issues without first knowing all the angles. And as you say, the mosque issue is a local one.

You have stated that you "can agree with most" of Lois Brown's views. Which views belonging to Lois Brown do you agree with? I personally cannot find any information about her position on anything whatsoever. You admit she "would probably [be] a very ineffective MP" yet you seem content to choose her anyway. Why?

You are right when you say people are tired of career politicians and that they "want someone with character that will stand up when it's time to take a stand" yet are happy to support Lois Brown without conditions, without qualification. Is she not willing to go on the record? If not, why? If not, why is Lois Brown the best choice? Was Lois Brown at the council meeting?

We demand our politicians have ideas. We say that it's time to say goodbye to "grin and grip photo-op" politicians yet we continue to elect exactly that kind of politician. When will our desire for a different politician result in the election of one?

Tough Questions About My Candidacy

2007-02-12T07:34:00.000-05:00

Recently, an anonymous blogger left some challenging questions in the comment section of one of my posts. I decided to post my answer openly so that all my readers could see and understand the response.

First, I was questioned why there was no contact information on my blog. I had placed a link to my website on my blog's sidebar and since my website is full of contact links I didn't think I needed to do much else. But I have now added an email link from my blogger profile page, just in case you miss the website link. Hope that helps.

So, here is the list of questions and my responses:

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for the questions.

1. Why would I vote for you over Lois Brown?

I would prefer you vote in favour of a candidate, and not against one. I think you should choose a candidate based on whatever criteria suits you. My website is full of reasons for you to choose me as your candidate. Please visit it at kirkwest.ca. To make a long story short, I offer you "Not the Same Old Same Old". It isn't just a campaign slogan, it's my promise to each and every person in Newmarket-Aurora. You can check Ms. Brown's website at loisbrown.ca.

One thing I am offering is to create a "citizen's advocate" upon my election as MP. It's a citizen held volunteer position to give all people an avenue and mechanism to hold me directly accountable to the people should I not fulfill the commitments I make. Does that sound like the same old same old?

What is Lois Brown offering?

2. Were you at the council meeting on Monday when the Mosque was approved? If not, why not? Sure it's not a federal issue, but I would like to think that my potential MP would have the community at heart.

I was not at the council meeting on Monday because I was being interviewed by the nomination committee for the riding association. But I'm not sure I would have attended the event anyway, not because I don't care, but because I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, yet. I have been unable to uncover the truth about whether or not another congregation was denied approval. If there is evidence that a double standard was applied well, then, I will definitely be letting my councillor know my position. As for the Imam's political views I'm hopeful that the hate laws of our country will apply equally to every person regardless of race, religion, etc. Having said that, I believe in free speech, including someone's right to speak against it, and people's right to express their political views without constraints.

As for whether or not I have the community at heart, you should know that I have addressed council before. I went to bat for a local hot dog vendor who was faced with the prospect of being squeezed by town council. In this case they wanted to institute some new licensing which would have added an extra $400 a year or so to any business selling prepared food and or tobacco. It was also clearly a duplication of licensing already imposed by York Region. For the hot dog vendor, it would have required him to sell another 500 or so hot dogs per year just to cover the cost of the licensing.

I'm tired of seeing people being treated like the personal ATM cards of every level of government in this land. No one speaks up for the middle class anymore, no one speaks up for entrepreneurs, no one speaks up for the people that quietly get up at 6 am everyday, sit in traffic to get to and from work, take their children to activities, pay their taxes, and support those that cannot support themselves. So I thought I would. The end result was that the new licensing was quashed. Can Ms. Brown make that same claim?

I'm sure if you look at the council minutes for September you will see a record of my appearance. I don't tend to advertise these things because it isn't my style. But since you ask I will take the time to add the circumstances to my blog.

As for the council's "mosque decision" not being a federal one: I would definitely go to bat for anyone who asked my help. I don't want to step on anyone's toes provincially or municipally but the truth of the matter is this: when the province or the towns want money for this or that, what is the standard line? It usually goes something like this: "We would be willing to make an investment in 'this or that' but it would depend entirely on whether or not we could get the federal government to come to the table." As far as I'm concerned that opens the door for a federal politician to comment on local or provincial issues. A politician that claims to be a voice for the people would be just more of the "same old same old" if he or she didn't at least try to make a difference for everyone. Isn't that the kind of action we expect from our elected representatives?

3. Are you pro-life? If not, don't bother to answer the first two questions. If you are, would you be able to say "yes" when asked if you are pro-life at the all-candidates debate? Lois Brown failed to bring her spine with her that night, and consequently lost a lot of respect from her core supporters.

I am pro choice. However, my personal stance is irrelevant. I would vote according to the wishes of my constituents. This is a democracy. And if the issue ever came up in Parliament you can bet that I would be holding many Town Hall Meetings and "Virtual" Town Hall Meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to let their voices be heard. Would Ms. Brown consider the voices of all her constituents or just a select few?

Hopefully, Ms. Brown will be given the same opportunity to publicly answer these questions as well. Perhaps you could encourage her to start her own blog.

Community Involvement Doesn't Equate to Electoral Victory

2007-02-10T23:00:00.000-05:00

During one of my "Coffee & Ear" chats I was asked a rather direct question about my community involvement. Someone thought it cheeky that I should seek the nomination when my record of community involvement doesn't stack up compared to Lois Brown. This is a perfectly valid question to ask, and I am more than happy to answer it.

In truth, this point has been mentioned by a few people. The argument goes something like this: you should show that you have a record of long service in the community, that you have taken the time to volunteer, go to events, and generally participate in as many areas that you can. Therefore, when election time rolls around people can see that you are a committed citizen. Of course, this is a logical presumption, and I admit that some people will base their vote entirely upon the community involvement aspect of the candidate's C.V.

Sure, Ms. Brown has been active in the community for 26 years (I on the other hand am only 37 yrs. old and only moved here 8 years ago). But if community involvement precluded electoral victory, shouldn't Ms. Brown already be the elected MP? Clearly Ms. Brown wants her community involvement to be a large part of her campaign because she has taken the time to list all the events she has attended for the past year or so on her website. Does it matter that I have attended some of those events also?

I haven't voted for anyone based on community service. My vote was always based on the candidate's commitment to the democratic process, the ability to represent my concerns, the ideas, the passions, and yes, party affiliation.

Does the fact that Ms. Brown is a tireless community person invalidate my right to seek nomination? Does it make my ideas less relevant? Does it make my commitment to take the voices of the people to Ottawa immaterial? Does my promise to appoint a "citizen's advocate" become inconsequential because I didn't volunteer for x number of years? Does it mean I will not be an effective MP? Does it mean that the population at large will disqualify me at election time? No.

A more important question to ask is did Ms. Brown's community service earn her extra votes in the last election? The answer is an unequivocal no. By my calculations Ms. Brown was only able to raise the conservative vote count by a mere 558 over the 2004 results, while Ms. Stronach raised the Liberal vote by more than 6,000.

The election results do not bear out the assumption that community service translates into votes. Clearly, other factors were at play, and there is no reason to think that the upcoming election will be any different.

By no means am I questioning people's reasons for choosing one candidate over another. That isn't the point. But if we are going to have a serious discussion about why we should choose one candidate over another, then we should be free to scrutinize all the angles.

What matters most at election time is the candidate's relevance to the aspirations and needs of the people.

Some Cosmopolitan Ideas

2007-02-09T22:57:00.000-05:00

I think it's a bit unfair that the federal government should be getting all the attention when it comes to the environment, and I thought it rather curious that the provincial and municipal governments have been relatively silent on the issue. It's time to stir the pot.

Municipal governments could be doing a tremendous amount to lower greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, why isn't the municipality putting more energy efficient bulbs in traffic lights? LED lights, which use 90% less energy than conventional bulbs aren't just for christmas lights! How about making improvements to municipal buildings to use less energy all year around? What about rooftop gardens on city properties to cut down on air conditioning? What about enacting policies for powering down comuters not just at night, but putting them into low power mode after 1 minute of inactivity? What about all city vehicles being hybrids?

Municipalities need to alter building standards so that new houses use significantly less energy than they do now.

What about a civic challenge? We offer a five year property tax break for the house that cuts their ghg's the most. Or, how about a challenge of some kind between the towns of Newmarket and Aurora, and the town that meets their emission targets first, gets treated to an all out wiz-bang party hosted by the losing town!

All I hear these days is climate change denier this, or climate change denier that. I'm not hearing any ideas.

If you like mine, spread the word. If you don't leave me some feedback and offer me some of your own.

"Coffee & Ear" Chats Going Very Well

2007-02-09T22:14:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, my website offers the ability to book your own "Coffee & Ear" Chats. You supply the coffee, I supply my ears. It's a great opportunity for me to understand what is going on in people's heads. What gets people excited? What gets their blood boiling?

One couple I met with discussed their disappointment at how it seemed that previous governments just seemed to give away citizenships. What bothered them most was that immigrants were receiving benefits which seemed to be too generous. This particular couple had come to Canada 50 years ago. One from Trinidad, one from Barbados. Both arrived with nothing, educated themselves and built a life for themselves in Canada. They had 5 children and are enjoying their retirement. They feel that their own contributions are somewhat devalued when new immigrants get healthcare, eyecare, and other financial assistance when those who had to work and build from nothing are the ones providing the benefits.

Their suggestion to the current government was that if we want to continue to bring "new" Canadians into the country, we should be recruiting the best and the brightest. We should be bringing in entrepreneurs, skilled tradespeople, and those that can generally contribute to economic activity, instead of just collecting benefits.

I was surprised and pleased at the same time. Surprised in that I wasn't expecting comments like these to come from former immigrants, and pleased that it confirmed my belief that immigrants also value hard work contributing toward Canadian society.

They also expressed disappointment at the situation that developed during the brief war between Lebannon and Israel where many citizens who were apparently dual citizens were rescued at great expense. It saddened them to know that many have since moved back to Lebannon.

For these conservatives, these were their "issues", and I would be proud to make sure Ottawa hears their voice. They feel it is a sad commentary on what citizenship has come to mean.

I'm interested to know what others feel about this.

Enviro Fever and "Climate Change Denial"

2007-02-05T09:27:00.000-05:00

Discussion on the environment "issue" has reached a fevered pitch hasn't it? Thankfully, we can all breath a collective sigh of relief at least for now since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its 4th assessment report. We can also expect to not be subjected to anymore politicians accusing each other of "climate change denial," a label that seems to have taken on a tone similar to that of being called a "holocaust denier".

With a 90% certainty, the IPCC Report concludes climate change is caused by human activity. Right now the focus is on the federal government to act, but before we shout "off with their heads!" step away from the emotion of it all and ask each ourselves this very important question: "What changes am I going to make in my own life to be environmentally conscious?" For this is the true issue that is before us in Newmarket and Aurora.

Certainly, a national policy that addresses reducing greenhouse gasses, regulating atmospheric pollutants, and managing the chemical content of the goods we use is a must. Without a doubt we will be facing tight auto emission standards. Furthermore, a complete overhaul of local building codes is also a must. But beyond that, what are we as individuals prepared to do? Are we going to go about our lives as before expecting that the federal government can solve this problem by itself? That is folly. Do we believe that the provincial and municipal governments have a part to play? If so, what? And if we believe that all levels of government have parts to play, then logic dictates that citizens have their own parts to play as well.

In communities like Newmarket and Aurora, the car is everything, so central to our lives that living in these communities is virtually impossible without one. The average car produces 2.4Kg of C02 for every litre of gasoline. My wife drives a Mazda3, and conservatively fills up about 50 litres per week. So annually, she is spewing 6,240kg of C02!. Scary, huh? That's just my wife! If I was going to live without a car, I would not be able to have my current job. I would be forced to find a job in downtown Toronto because the GO train is the only efficient way to get anywhere without sacrificing every spare moment left in a day. My wife would also have to leave her job of 13 years because she works in Barrie. No public transit to solve that one.

I recently used an internet carbon calculation tool to estimate my household's greenhouse gas emissions and my house worked out to 17,000 kg of carbon gas per year! I have personally begun to take an active interest in some of the things we can do to reduce that number. Fewer trips with the car is priority number one. No more spontaneous trips to Home Depot. From now on, I'll plan one trip per week and do everything in one go, groceries, video store, hardware, the mall, etc.

I won't be buying a plasma TV because they use 5 times the hydro of a conventional tube TV. I also will not be buying home theatre because I figure I just don't need big theatre sound to go with my big theatre carbon emissions! I'm also turning off my TV until I will sit in front of it. Often, our TV is on from the time we all get home until we go to bed. We're not actively watching it, mind you, it's just on. I already keep my thermostat at 70 when we're home and 68 when we're not, but I think I'll turn it down a notch anyway. My water heater has been turned down, and I limit my showers to under 5 minutes. No more leaving the coffee pot on either. I was going to buy a carafe, but then I figured that would just mean I have to wash it (with hot water). So I decided to limit my coffee to just two cups in the morning and the pot gets shut off the moment its ready. I just leave the beaker on the warmer plate and that keeps it warm until I'm ready to have my second cup. I also don't leave my computer on anymore. I use to let it sit in low power mode, but then with the millions of computers in our country currently sitting idle in low power mode, I figured I could just turn mine off until I need it. I wonder how many kilograms of emissions are thrown up because of that? I also unplugged my extra phones. I only have one wireless and one landline phone now.

The most inconvenient part of ratcheting down our carbon emissions will be convincing my wife to also make sacrifices. I can tell you with some degree of certainty that a carbon trading system within our own household will be in order because there is no way I'm going to convince her to stop using a hair dryer, or jacking up the household temp when the kids go in the bath, or making single cups of tea. No siree, my computer and TV time will definitely take a hit over that one!

But amid all this doom and gloom of changing our lives, there is a tremendous opportunity to create wealth, especially among entrepreneurs. You've heard the saying that when life gives you lemons, make lemonade? Well, I can see a host of individuals running from house to house getting paid to show homeowners how to make serious carbon reductions without killing your lifestyle, or your bank! Remember, carbon reductions will come with cost reductions in some areas, thereby creating financial room to hire professionals to assist you in living under your carbon cap. And for those people that can live below their cap, there is also an opportunity to sell your carbon room if a system like that is ever implemented.

Yes, the challenge before us is great. But what is greater, is the pride we will feel when we overcome it. I believe we can do it. I believe we must do it. If not for our own sake, then for our children's.

We need the planet, and now the planet needs us!

Newmarket-Aurora Debates Dion's Leadership

2007-01-31T08:51:00.000-05:00

A Letter to the Editor published in our local paper shortly after Stephane Dion's leadership win had opined that Dion offered no Liberal rebirth. An position I agree with wholeheartedly.

But local celebrity Dorian Baxter wrote a fawning retort that was so thick with cheese, I had no choice but to respond.

Cheers.

Where's Belinda?

2007-01-30T16:09:00.000-05:00

I was reading our local newspaper and came across this letter to the editor (The Era Banner, Jan 20):

Where's Belinda?

"My kids always loved to play Where's Waldo? For the kid in us all, in Newmarket we can play Where's Belinda?
A group of my women friends and I have been trying for months to get an appointment with Ms Stronach and I want to let you in on a secret, she does not have time to meet with her constituents. She does not even have the time to let you know she has received your request for a meeting. I want an MP who is in touch with the grassroots.
I find it hard to believe my MP helped produce the Liberal Party's Pink Book but she has no time to meet with the women she represents. I had an easier time in 2002 getting an audience with the Pope.
Where's Belinda? Is it possible to meet with her? Does she really care?

Dianne Wood, Newmarket

I see I'm not the only one having this problem.

Dion Still getting a Free Ride!

2007-01-29T15:46:00.000-05:00

The Conservative Party ads that are about to be aired are very effective at showing that Stephane Dion isn't leadership material, and therefore, not up to the job of being Prime Minister. In one of them, he sounds like a child whining! The ads are brilliant, made more so by the fact that Ignatieff himself is reinforcing the Conservative position which is: Liberals had 13 years of majority government to make any number of changes, and they did nothing!

If Dion isn't careful, the Liberal Party will be saddled with a "one-issue" stigma.

The media considers these attack ads, Yes, they are attack ads, but how will we highlight Conservative successes without first putting into context the Liberal failures?

Dion has had a free ride since December. Commentators on the CBC, CTV, and Global networks have been very gentle. In fact, just this weekend on CBC Newsworld, Dion was being interviewed by Evan Solomon and asked the following two questions:

1. Why weren't the liberals able to do anything on Kyoto targets while they were in power?
2. Why, as environment minister, were you unable to do anything?

His responses were as follows:

1. Dion blamed Canada's lack of action on George Bush. Yes, George Bush! He said that because Bush did not ratify Kyoto, Canada's hands were tied. Is this the answer a so-called leader would come back with? He refuses to take any responsibility whatsoever. I can only pray he makes that statement during national debates.

2. Dion blamed his inability to move on the file himself when he was environment minister because Harper killed his plan! He explained how he had a comprehensive environmental plan ready to go when he worked under Paul Martin. Unfortunately, thought, Harper killed it when he forced an election. Yes, how convenient. None of the other parties had anything to do with the election, now did they?

But Solomon failed to ask two important follow up questions: First: When did Bush become the Prime Minister of Canada? Second: What were the details of that environmental plan, and were there any targets for greenhouse gas emissions?

UPDATE: Click here to see all the ads.