Finally: Harper makes a mistake

The Globe and Mail reports today that Stephen Harper "almost dared" the opposition parties to continue their calls for a public inquiry on Brian Mulroney's alleged tax evasion. From the CBC:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed calls by opposition parties for a public inquiry into reports about cash payments made to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, saying allowing the government to launch probes against former political adversaries was "extremely dangerous."

"Do they really want to say that I, as prime minister, should have a free hand to launch inquiries against my predecessors?" Harper asked reporters Friday in Halifax following a speech to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The answer to this is easy: Yes. Launch inquiries against any member of government, former or current, who is suspected to have committed a crime.

This, in my view, is a rare political mistake for Harper. His statement implies two things: 1) that Mulroney is guilty of something, but that Harper wants to cover it up, and 2) that former Liberal leaders are guilty of something, and that Harper has known about it but done nothing.

If I were Dion, I would illustrate those two implications loudly. "If Harper has evidence that any former Liberal leaders committed a crime, he should do his duty and bring them before an inquiry!" I'd shout. "Anyone who betrays their public office, from any political stripe or on either side of the aisle, should have to answer for it. But the Prime Minister is obstructing an inquiry into a suspected crime against the Canadian public. Why? Doesn't the Prime Minister believe in public oversight? Who is he protecting? And what does he know about former Liberal leaders that he hasn't acted on? If he has information, disclose it. I have absolutely nothing to hide."

I think those criticisms would stick, and make Dion look ethical and decisive. Harper has given the Liberals so few openings. Capitalize on this one.

And for my two cents on this: if any Liberal leaders are indeed guilty of tax evasion, or any other crime, show them no mercy. Public office is a sacred privilege. No protection for anyone who betrays that, regardless of what party they're from.

Stormy thoughts, hectic schedule

Loyal readers:

My mind is a stormcloud of cynical thoughts. My Liberal party, it seems, cannot find unity in its opposition status. At every turn, they have allowed themselves to be outfoxed by Stephen Harper, and have, in the face of adversity, allowed petty rivalries, grudges, and outright selfishness to erode their unity and besmirch their public image.

How else can you explain the fact that Jamie Carroll's misguided Quebec/China comment was leaked to the press by members of his own party? Or that John Manley agreed to chair a high-profile panel on Afghanistan, exonerating the Conservatives on one of their only areas of electoral weakness in the process? Or that Jean Chretien, one of our supposed elder-statesman, chose, on what could have been the eve of a federal election, to tear open the recently-stitched wounds of the Chretien/Martin feud , just to suit his book-signing schedule?

My party is in disarray. And my thoughts on this are many.

But, loyal readers, the schedule of my Master's program is keeping me from chronicling my ideas. I find myself with little time to do this blog justice. So for the time being, at least over the month of November, my political commentary will be sparse.

I will of course pick up my blogging responsibilities come December. But for now, postings will only be made when inspiration and leisure time coincide.

Harpers hilarious non-ultimatum

Well, it's official. For those of you who have been sitting on the fence for the past few years, the results are finally in:

Stephen Harper has a sense of humour.

How else could you explain the ridiculous ultimatum he posed to the opposition parties yesterday? From today's Globe and Mail:

While insisting he doesn't want an election, the prime minister said that if opposition parties vote in favour of his throne speech he will consider all future votes on priorities listed in it to be confidence votes as well.

“We're going to ask Parliament for a mandate. Once we have that mandate, we're going to consider that basically gives us the right to consider those matters confidence going forward and to get results and get things done,” Mr. Harper said.

Yep, you read that right. If the throne speech passes, Harper will take this to mean that his government can pass any legislation it likes, and that any dissenting voices will be illegitimate and grounds for an election. The opposition members can just sit quietly and draw while his government unveils proposal after proposal; after all, that's what they were elected for, right? And think how nice it will be to take the pesky "opposition" out of "opposition parties."

And everything will be a no-confidence motion! What fun! The opposition doesn't like the government's legislation on fishing boundaries? Down comes the government! The opposition thinks emissions targets should be higher? We go to the polls! Yessir, this will be a government of tremendous suspense and drama: no nuance, no negotiation, just brinksmanship all the way!

Yep, Harper officially has a sense of humour.

This has got to be unprecedented in Canadian politics. But what it really means is that the Conservatives are dying for an election right now. Who can blame them? The Liberals seem more concerned about petty infighting and who-said-what than they do about preparing for a national campaign.

So Harper is trying to embarass the opposition into voting against his throne speech, and has also signalled that "he wouldn't be satisfying all their demands to change his political agenda."

So that's it. I don't see how we can avoid an election anymore.

The sad truth about verbal gaffes

From today's Globe and Mail:

A major rift has opened in the Liberal Party between its senior Quebec ranks and the entourage of Leader Stéphane Dion.

Two senior Quebeckers on the party's national executive called yesterday for the resignation of Liberal Party national director Jamie Carroll, one of Mr. Dion's handpicked loyalists, over remarks he is reported to have made when pressed to hire more Quebeckers.

***

The furor was caused by a news report about Mr. Carroll's response when members of the party's management committee called for more Quebeckers to be hired in Mr. Dion's office and at the party's headquarters.

“If I hire more Quebeckers, will I also have to hire more Chinese?” the Journal de Montréal quoted him as replying.

There's something fishy about this whole story. Some people present at the meeting claim Carroll has been quoted accurately. Others claim to have never heard him make the alleged statement, or that he phrased it differently than cited. More suspicious still is why the quote, which was made at a closed-door meeting, was leaked to Le Journal De Montreal. Who made the leak? And why do they want to hurt Liberal fortunes in Quebec?

Is the situation suspicious? Yes. Was Carroll misquoted? Maybe. Was his comment taken out of context? Almost certainly. Should he be fired?

Yes, he should. It's a sad truth about electoral politics: sometimes saying the right thing the wrong way is enough to get you fired. There's just no room for verbal gaffes this close to an election, particularly a gaffe that fuels anti-Liberal sentiment in Quebec. As I've said again and again, the Liberals have to reclaim the hearts and minds of Quebeckers if they want to reclaim their status as Canada's most successful political party. Carroll's quote, real or alleged, is damaging to the party in a serious way.

It would be nice if Dion could give Carroll a stern talking to and send him on his way. But he shouldn't. His ability to suppress internal dissent, not to mention his party's political future in Quebec, will be damaged if he doesn't.

But Dion's a nice guy. A nice, stubborn guy. From the CBC:

Stéphane Dion has rejected calls by some senior Liberals that the party's national director be fired over comments he allegedly made regarding hiring more francophone Quebecers.

***

...others at the meeting have said Carroll was taken out of context.

Speaking in Halifax on Friday, Dion agreed, saying he believed Carroll's comments have been misinterpreted and that he has full confidence in him.

Sigh. This is a political mistake.

In other news, Stephen Harper announced a tax cut today. In Toronto.

Would anyone like some beer and popcorn?

Throne Speech showdown (part 2)

As promised in part one of this two-part post, I will here finish my analysis of the fall Throne Speech showdown, and attempt to answer this fall's big political questions: will the opposition parties bring down the government? And will the Harper Conservatives be looking to compromise, or go to the voters?

Part 2 examines the Liberal and Conservative perspectives on the issue. On to the showdown!

The Liberals

The Liberals, of course, have enough seats to save the government from collapse. But whether they will do so is far from obvious. The Liberals have a lot to consider here: the perceived weakness of their leader; their apparent weakness in Quebec; whether or not they can afford to let Harper build up a green image; whether or not they can afford, financially, to conduct an election; and on and on and on. There is a storm cloud of political considerations swirling around the Liberal party right now, and a mis-assessment of the current political climate could at worst lead to a Harper majority or, worse still, a long, cold winter of Liberal shivering in Quebec.

As for where we stand right now, a lot has changed since I published part 1 of this analysis just two days ago. At that time, Dion was declining to set any mandatory conditions on the Throne Speech, thus signaling to Harper that he was willing to make a deal. But I read today on the CBC that Dion has taken a harder line:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives must make major changes to the upcoming throne speech or the opposition Liberals will vote against it, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion warned Wednesday, adding fuel to speculation there could be a fall federal election.

"This hidden agenda will be stopped," Dion said after a meeting with Quebec caucus members in Montreal.

Dion is demanding two major items, discussed by me in a previous post:

The Liberals want the Tory government to make a firm commitment to withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan in early 2009 and to re-introduce clean air legislation, Bill C-30, that failed to make it into law during the last session.

Dion also said he wants more help for families and combating poverty, as well as a better plan for the Canadian economy as it faces the uncertainty of dollar parity and the unpredictable U.S. market.

If you read my previous post, you'll know that I think the Conservatives are unlikely to bend on these two items (Bill C-30 in particular). But more on the Tories in a second. First, I want to briefly list some of the pros and cons, from the Liberal perspective, of a fall election.

Pros of a fall election:

1) By voting against the Conservatives, Stéphane Dion will appear decisive.

2) The Conservatives will be denied the chance to build up a greener image, and will have to face Canadians with a poor environmental record.

3) The Liberals will be able to tap into growing public dissatisfaction with Canada's role in Afghanistan. If they support a Throne Speech that fails to set a solid 2009 withdrawal date, they will lose their ability to criticize the government on this issue.

4) A campaign will give Dion a great deal of public profile at a time when he desperately needs it. He'll be able to make the news virtually every day, and not have to pay for it (the Liberals can afford little, if any, television advertising).

5) If the current political situation persists, Dion is likely to face increasing dissent from his party ranks. A campaign could act as a rallying point for the leader, or at least cause other party members to sheathe their knives - especially if Dion eats his wheaties and campaigns effectively.

6) The Liberals can campaign like bastards in Quebec, and try to stem this tide of Quebecois dissatisfaction with the party. In the grand scheme of things, rebuilding the Quebec stronghold is far more important to the Liberals than winning the next election.

7) For the time being, the Liberals and the Conservatives are polling neck and neck, even though Harper is overwhelmingly more popular as a leader. That's something, and the Liberals might need to strike while the iron's hot.

8) Dion has lot of room to defy public expectations right now.

Cons of a fall election

1) Stéphane Dion has a weak public image and is unpopular, as shown by public opinion polls.

2) The Liberal war-chest is all but empty, and they will be overwhelmingly out-financed in a campaign.

3) The recent Outremont debacle reveals that the Liberals are facing a potentially historic moment of weakness in Quebec.

4) A majority outcome for the Conservatives could lead to Dion's resignation, and another leadership race would be tiresome and divisive for a party that desperately needs to be unified.

I have to admit, the Cons are powerful, and loom large. But Dion seems to have made up his mind: he simply can't afford to support the Conservatives if they slap him down on Afghanistan and Bill C30. He would appear too weak for words. So he's put the ball in Harper's court, and has signaled his willingness to roll the dice this fall.

I think that's probably the best move. If the Conservatives fail to include the 2009 troop withdrawal or the Clean Air Act in their Throne Speech, then the Liberals can raise holy hell and claim the moral high ground. If the government bends and meets Dion's demands, then he can claim victory and flex some political muscle.

A fall campaign for the Liberals could result in disaster, or it could turn the tide of Dion's leadership. One thing's for sure: it will be an upstream swim.

The Conservatives

Stephen Harper has the ball now. He has heard the demands of the Bloc, and almost certainly considers them flatly unacceptable (the elimination of all federal spending powers in the provinces? Ha! He'd sooner tax the oil sands). He knows the NDP wants an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and that they are expecting something concrete on that file. And he has heard Dion's recent demands. What now?

I don't think Harper is likely to bend. Why would he give Dion the opportunity to appear leader-like? He's certainly not afraid of an election, given his fundraising, his inroads into Quebec, his progress in the GTA, and his generally popular legislative record. And, as I've said before, allowing a vote on the Clean Air Act would be a major victory for the opposition. He already has a poor green image; refusing to allow that vote probably won't make him much worse off on that file. And besides, he can use an election campaign to roll out all kinds of environmental agenda items.

So I think that Harper will, true to form, read a Throne Speech of breathtaking ambition and fiscal generosity, while quietly ignoring the demands of the opposition parties. Let them vote against all his other goodies, or let them appear spineless. He won't care which; he's in a very strong position.

And of course, rather than swallow this insult, the opposition parties will have to take their chances with a campaign.

So get out your pencils, Canada. I think we're going to the polls.

MMP: The Commies aren't coming (probably)

Over numerous discussions on the Ontario referendum, I have noticed an interesting trend: many people are worried that the MMP system will hold the Parliamentary door open for Communist party members in the Commons. This is an interesting, and surprising, objection. I have two reactions I want to briefly outline:

1) Remember that a party is only eligible to win List Member representation in the House if it wins 3% of the Party vote or more. I did some poking around online, and have discovered that the Communist Party won exactly 2,187 votes in the last Provincial election, or 0.05% of the province-wide vote. So not even close. I agree that a Communist candidate is more likely to pick up a seat under MMP than under the current system. But let's not get nuts here: the Communist Party would have to do 60 times better in future elections to make the grade, which could fairly be called 'unlikely.' Unless global capitalism collapses. In which case the Communists might elect a guy.

2) And besides, if Ontarians vote for them, shouldn't the Communist Party get the representation it deserves? If we truly value democracy, we can't design our electoral process to exclude parties we find distasteful. Preserving FPP to prevent fringe parties from winning seats is the tyranny of the majority come to life.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not a communist, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, far, far from it. Just ask my portfolio manager. And indeed, I don't think any old party should be able to run for office. Neo-Nazis, for instance, should be restricted from the ballot, as should any party that promotes violence. But the Communist Party is a legal and registered political party in Ontario, meaning they have conformed to the rules of the game. And if people want to vote for them, well then dammit, they should be given every seat they're entitled to. And if our current system doesn't reflect the true will of the people, then it might be time for a change.

Of course, if you don't value democracy in the first place, that's a discussion we can have too. Far be it from Frökspoke to ever defend an argument on purely ideological grounds.

Commie.

***

Here's another item of interest that was brought to my attention on the comments section of this blog. Marilyn, a faithful reader (I assume) critiques MMP by asking:

Who loses the elected seats? If history is any indication, these seats would come from the less populated parts of Ontario. This would give even more power to the 905 area.

Wow, great comment Marilyn! Thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't even thought about this.

Indeed, under MMP, the number of riding seats will decrease from 107 to 90, meaning 17 Members will, theoretically, be out of work. And indeed, I don't know how the new, larger ridings will be drawn up. I can only assume that a Parliamentary committee will redefine the ridings according to a standard population target, and the parties will hold new candidate nominations for each. This means some current Members will get squeezed out, and yes, maybe from Northern or sparsely populated areas of Ontario. I imagine the parties will probably compensate squeezed-out Members by making them List Candidates, but I can't say for sure.

So something else to keep in mind for when you vote on the 10th. Thanks again Marilyn.

Throne Speech showdown (part 1)

As discussed in a previous post, the Harper Conservatives will read a throne speech this fall, in hopes of launching a new parliamentary session and breathing some life into their otherwise stale legislative agenda. But because throne speeches are considered “confidence” motions in the House, the opposition parties will have the opportunity to bring down the government and call an election.

The big question: will they do it? Will they pull down Harper’s temple?

Now, I argued previously that an election was likely, and that there was “a good chance we’ll be going to the polls this fall.” I based this view on the fact that I saw two issues (the revised Clean Air Act and the scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2009) as being intractable between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I thought it was likely that the Liberals would put forward a vote of no-confidence.

And indeed, this could still happen. But a lot has happened since that last posting: the Conservatives stole a seat from the Bloc in the Quebec by-elections; the Liberals likewise lost the bedrock riding of Outremont to an NDP candidate; NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe have signalled the withdrawal of their support for the government by making laughable demands for the Throne speech; and Dion’s camp has been careful not to make any non-negotiable demands whatsoever, thus signalling a Liberal willingness to negotiate a Throne Speech that they can support.

Whew! So in light of all this, my original analysis appears overly simplistic and in need of some… rethinking.

So rethink it I shall! Call me a flip-flopper. But as they say in South Park: “changing your mind is a Canadian custom that we hold quite dear,” and one that I feel compelled to exercise. And in fact, from this day forward, the freedom to change your mind will be cemented as a bedrock right of Frökspoke: unalterable, inalienable and unapologetically utilized!

So here we go: how are the parties likely to respond to the Throne speech? And are the Conservatives going to be gunning for an election? I want to briefly take the perspective of each party to determine how they are likely to vote. Let’s have a look!

The NDP

The NDP actually have enough members to form a government-saving coalition with the Conservatives. But I wouldn’t worry about it: Layton has demanded the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. And that dog just ain’t gonna hunt, as they say in, umm, Manitoba. Plus, the NDP is riding high after its Outremont pickup, and is likely gunning for an election to make inroads in Quebec and capitalize on Liberal weakness. So I think it’s highly likely that the NDP will vote against the Throne Speech.

The Bloc

The Bloc have more than enough seats to save the government. But from the sounds of things, they don’t intend to: Duceppe has “unveiled a list of five ‘non-negotiable’ conditions for the Bloc to support the Throne Speech, including eliminating all federal spending powers in provincial jurisdictions and complying with the Kyoto Protocol's tough greenhouse-gas-emission reduction targets.”

As tall orders go, this one could play college basketball. And Harper has already publicly criticized Duceppe for making “reckless” demands. So what we can garner from this is that the Bloc is interpreting their bi-election defeat as a message that they need to be tougher on Harper’s Conservatives. They might be right, but they might be taking a bit of a gamble here: Quebec appears pretty soft for the Conservatives these days. And even if Duceppe can stem the Conservative tide in Quebec, the Conservatives could win a majority overall. This would, of course, weaken the Bloc's bargaining position.

At any rate, Duceppe has chosen to take a hard line. I thus consider it highly likely that the Bloc will vote against the Throne Speech.

Oh boy, I know you're on the edge of your seat, and we haven’t even gotten to the juicy parties yet! But it’s late, and I have early-morning class tomorrow. So that analysis will have to wait for another day.

To be continued…

Dion: finally taking control of his image

Wow. After allowing the Conservatives to define his image for him, after months of floundering outside the public eye, after losing the key Liberal riding of Outremont and suffering the criticisms of pundits and party members, Stephan Dion is finally talking straight, taking ownership, and redefining his image.

And frankly, I love what I hear. Dion has taken total ownership over the by-election losses, which is not only the right thing to do, it's also good politics. The worst thing Dion could have done in the aftermath of this Outremont debacle would have been to try to pass the buck or duck from the spotlight. This would have served only to perpetuate the public's misguided perception of him as a limp-wristed waffler- a description that doesn't sit well with me, or with Dion himself. From the CBC:

"I'm taking the responsibility," Dion told the CBC's French-language television program Téléjournal Wednesday night.

"I've always focused on the stakes … but I've never put myself on the line and I understand now that a leader must do that.… A leader has to put himself out there and I didn't do it," he told Radio-Canada host Céline Galipeau during a candid interview in French.

***

He believes people don't understand him or his goals.

"I have to have that conversation with all Quebecers so that they understand what I can do if I become prime minister. Up until now I haven't been able to do that.… I'm not what I seem to be."

Now, I'm not a Dion cheerleader, per se. I think his hesitance to utilize the media and capture the public imagination is a real weakness, one that squandered a lot of Liberal momentum after a very healthy, exciting, and high-profile leadership race. But I also think Dion is a very thoughtful, principled, and determined leader. The Conservative characterization of him as a damp-eyed, stoop-shouldered pushover is just flatly inaccurate. Everyone who works with the man says that, if anything, he's too driven, too focused, and too self-assured to bring other people into the fold. His co-workers find him to be dogged and stubborn; a far cry indeed from his current public image. This, after all, is a man who diverged from friends and family to fly the flag of Confederation in an environment of overwhelming Separatist intellectualism. Limp-wristed he just ain't.

So maybe now, after an extremely weak showing out the gate, Dion is finally grabbing the reigns on his public personae. It's long overdue. But bear in mind that he possesses, now, one of the most important and elusive assets of electoral politics: the room to defy expectations.

Can the same be said of Harper?

Where the parties stand on MMP

I've received an impressive amount of feedback about the Ontario referendum issue, so I think I'll keep posting on this topic when new news items catch my eye.

Hey, here's one: where do the parties stand on this new system? The Globe and Mail reports:

NDP Leader Howard Hampton supports proportional representation, although he has warned that MMP would further enlarge Northern Ontario's already huge provincial ridings. The Liberals and Conservatives have yet to take an official position. But Conservative Leader John Tory has criticized it, saying MPPs should be directly accountable to the voters. He argues proportional representation undercuts the link between voters and legislators. Green Party Leader Frank De Jong supports the new system because it would "improve all politics."

This isn't too surprising: the NDP and Green parties would both benefit from a proportional system, as they consistently win fewer seats than they win in province-wide support. It will be interesting to see whether McGuinty and Tory make any official comments on the new system.

Warren #1- Obama's charismatic, reformist advantage

Ray,

It sounds like a good idea, though to be honest my support for Obama has less to do with his ultimate electability as his qualities and suitability as president. I think that Hilary, based solely on numbers, money, and establishment support may be slightly more 'electable' than Obama. That said, if both have the strong potential to beat out the Republican candidate (and I've been thoroughly unimpressed with that entire field), than ultimate issues of 'who is more electable' of the two democratic candidates may be moot. But I think it could turn out to be an interesting debate nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that Obama has some key electable qualities that Clinton ultimately lacks. The most obvious is his charisma. In speeches his effect on the crowd is palpable and he comes across, I think, as a true arbiter for change. This ability to create a strong current of optimistic support with the American public, at a time when many are coming to believe that Washington is irreparably broken, is critical. It may just give Obama the ability to overcome much the growing cynicism of the American electorate, and he will be able to cash in on that feeling come election day. This ability to galvanize people shows through in his fundraising numbers: unlike Clinton, he raised more money from a large number of donors - each in small amounts.

Obama's ability to emphasize and embody the change many Americans want is going to play a key role in his electability. A great example of his difference with Clinton on this front occurred at the Daily Kos convention a few weeks ago, where both Obama and Edwards promoted their policy of not refusing money from Washington lobbyists. Clinton's response to the question, meanwhile, was pretty awful: in obvious contradiction, she claimed that many of these lobbyists were legitimate interests which deserved a chance to influence policy, but that they're lobbying efforts in fact had no influence on her whatsoever.

An obvious objection here is that the DailyKos convention is not an accurate representation of the core American electorate. True enough. But I do think that Clinton has ultimately failed, at least so far, in her attempt, echoing the strategy of the last President Clinton, to cover the centre ground. Rather than being seen as a bridge builder between parties, she's more often loathed by both the right and the left. Obama, conversely, has been continually flexing his by-partisan credentials. In the wake of Bush's presidential implosion talk of the "red/blue state divide" is finally beginning to wane in the US, and Americans are looking for someone who talks like a "uniter." Clinton, for better or worse, is seen as the opposite: ultra partisan and political.

It seems likely at this point Giulani will end up as the Republican presidential candidate, so it could be useful to imagine how this race will shape up. The fact is that Clinton and Giulani are actually pretty similar: they inhabit only slightly different areas of the political spectrum, both have political experience related to New York, and both have a similar level of charismatic appeal. So it is worth considering exactly how Clinton would distinguish herself from Giulani. After all, it is unlikely that the "experience" card would work as well against "America's Mayor" as it has so far against Obama. But it will be vitally important for Clinton to create wedge issues because, all other things held constant it seems likely that the American people will prefer Giuliani, on a personal level, to Clinton.

The differences between Giulani and Obama, meanwhile, appear more clear. Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq, for example, could play a critical role here. (As an aside, this opposition also represents a degree of judgement that the Clinton camp, despite all its rhetoric about experience, failed to match back in 2003). He could also employ a consistent and similar strategy against Giulani as he has against Clinton: establishment vs. change.

I could say more, but this seems like enough to get started. Look forward to your response.

Cheers, Warren

Obama vs. Clinton - the great debate begins!

Loyal Frökspoke readers will have by now guessed that I am following the U.S. 2008 Presidential election as closely as I can. And, in the interests of full disclosure, I confess that at this (still very early) stage of the game, I think Hilary Clinton is the most apt to win the 2008 general election, and is also the best choice for the Oval Office. Politically, I think she is the most electable; normatively, I think she is the most Presidential.

My good friend Warren, a colleague of mine from Waterloo, disagrees with this analysis. On his excellent blog, A Deliberative Dialogue, Warren has promoted Barack Obama as his choice from the current Democratic field. And because Warren is almost as eloquent, thoughtful, and humble as myself, I thought this would be the perfect opportunity for he and I to engage in a deliberative dialogue of our own: who is the more electable candidate? Clinton or Obama?

Warren has agreed to the idea, so he and I will be making our cases via email, and publishing the correspondence on our respective blogs. Hopefully this will stimulate some reader commentary and a thoughtful analysis of the candidates, the electoral process, and contemporary American issues.

Let the discussion begin! Here is my initial letter to Warren, establishing the terms of the debate. Warren's initial arguments to follow.

I think the thing to do would be to have the debate via email, and then publish the correspondence on our respective blogs. Sound fair? The question: who would be more electable in the 2007 general (not primary!!): Clinton or Obama? Or in other words, what will be the more electable characteristic: having experience? Or being a "force for change"?

I tend to think Clinton is the more electable candidate. So if you disagree, I think we could have a fun debate. Very respectful, of course.

Let me know what you think. Take care, -Ray

Ontario referendum- update

OK, in the previous post I examined the electoral reform question that will be posed to Ontarians this October, and asked a couple questions about the Mixed Member Proportional system being proposed. Most importantly, I wanted to know how the List Candidates will be selected by their parties.

The answer? It's up to the parties.

From the Citizen Assembly's report:

The Assembly’s proposal for a Mixed Member Proportional system includes the recommendation that list candidates and the process parties use to nominate them should be well known to voters before they vote. The Assembly did not make a recommendation to change the process by which parties nominate their local candidates. However, the Assembly believes that the same type of transparency, with attention to achieving greater gender balance and reflecting Ontario’s diverse population, should apply to local candidate nominations. This would contribute to the legitimacy of the electoral system and citizens’ confidence in the political process. (emphasis mine)

So this would be left up to the parties themselves, which I guess makes sense; parties will probably choose to have some kind of nomination process for their List Candidates to make them seem legitimate, both to the electorate and to the party members themselves.

Caveat: if the List Candidate nomination follows in the footsteps of Canada's longstanding candidate nomination procedures, it will be as illegitimate, inaccessible and murky as our current process is. Count on a post on this topic in the future.

I think I'll lay it all on the line here: I'm planning on voting for the new Mixed Member Proportional system. I've been unhappy with the false majorities of the FPP system for a long time, and I think it's time Canada moved to a PR system. I like the looks of this plan: it's simple and fair, and deserves, I think, my support. I look forward to your resounding and unwavering agreement.

Ontario referendum- let's get proportional!

Hey Ontarians, did'ja hear the news? There's a provincial election taking place on October 10th! And not just an election; this cereal box of an election comes with a real dinosaur-prize-sized bonus: a referendum, that wonderful, woefully elusive electoral concept that hasn't graced the ballot sheets of Ontario voters since 1924! And no sir, not just any referendum, but a referendum on a very important, worthwhile, and potentially groundbreaking topic: election reform!

Yessir, after many years of flirting with the issue, Ontario is going to pick the brains of its citizens, and pit the First-Past-the-Post system against its nemesis and challenger, Proportional Representation. And because this issue has been a favourite of mine for several years, I feel compelled to use this blog to do my civic duty, and present the facts of electoral reform (as objectively as I possibly can).

On October 10th, in addition to voting for your local riding candidate, you will be asked to vote on a separate issue (a referendum). You will be asked to choose between two electoral systems: the First-Past-the-Post system (the system Ontario uses today) or the Mixed Member Proportional system (a new system designed by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, a group assembled by the provincial government to examine ways to improve, if possible, Ontario's electoral process).

So let's examine the pros and cons of each system, shall we?

In this corner...

First-Past-the-Post (FFP)

The FFP system is simple: Ontario is divided into 107 electoral ridings, and each citizen gets one vote to cast for the local candidate of their choice. Whichever candidate wins the most votes in his/her riding wins the seat, and the party that holds the most seats in the provincial legislature forms the government. Fair enough, right? This is the system we're used to.

Now, this system has come under criticism for being somewhat unrepresentative. How so? Imagine the following example: the results of an election are in for three ridings, and we are examining the results for two parties, Liberal and Conservative.

Riding 1
Liberal: 101 votes
Conservative: 99 votes
WINNER: Liberal

Riding 2
Liberal: 101 votes
Conservative: 99 votes
WINNER: Liberal

Riding 3
Liberal: 2 votes
Conservative: 198 votes
WINNER: Conservative

See why this is a problem? In total the Liberal Party won 204 votes, and the Conservative Party won 396 votes. And yet, even though more Canadians supported the Conservatives, the Liberals won two seats, and the Conservatives only won one. So in this simple little example, the Liberals would get to form the government even though the Conservatives had the support of a greater number of Ontarians. So many people have criticized the FPP system as being unfair to parties that have a lot of province-wide support, but don't have concentrated support (and thus can't win many ridings). The NDP, for instance, consistently wins a greater share of the province-wide vote than they actually win in seats. It irritates them to no end.

On the plus side, though, the FPP system is simple, and everyone votes for a candidate they know and understand (more on this below). Furthermore, the FPP system tends to produce stronger majority governments, since a party doesn't need to win an overwhelming majority of province-wide votes in order to win the majority of seats. So if you like decisive, strong majority governments, the FPP system might be OK with you.

And now, the challenger...

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

This system is a new idea for Canada, but is used in many other countries. Don't panic! It's not as complex as it sounds.

Basically, under MMP the Ontario legislature would grow from 107 to 129 seats, divided amongst two kinds of members: "Local Members" and "List Members." Ontario would be divided into 90 ridings, and each voter would get to vote twice- once for a "Local Member" and once for a political party.
Voting for your local member would work the way it always has; you pick your candidate and whoever wins the most votes wins the seat. There would be 90 of these in the legislature.

But you would also get to vote for a political party, or "List Member". There are 39 List Member seats to divide up in the legislature, and these seats would be awarded to parties that won more "political party" votes than they did "Local Member" seats. So if the NDP wins 15% of the "political party" votes across the whole province, but only 7% of the seats in the legislature, then they would be awarded enough of the 39 leftover seats to give them the 15% house-seats they deserve. So basically the 39 List Member seats are used to top-up parties that got shortchanged by the FPP system, and deserved more seats than they actually won.

But here's a good question: who gets to fill these "List Member" seats? Well, each party gets to produce a list of candidates that are waiting in the wings to fill these seats (this is where the "List Member" name comes from). The lists are made public well ahead of the election, so voters know who they might be getting if they vote for a particular party. Supposedly, the parties will have to be careful about who they put on these lists: if they select someone controversial, voters might be turned off and vote for other parties.

There are several pros to this system, it seems to me: it's more democratic in that it better reflects the wishes of Ontarians; it means you can vote for the party you like the best and the local candidate you like the best, even if that means voting for the Conservative party and a Liberal candidate; and it's relatively simple, meaning we wouldn't have to deal with runoff elections like many other proportional system candidates.

On the cons side, though, this system will likely tend to produce slimmer majority governments, or even minority governments, since there will no longer be any "false majorities." And people might not like the idea of voting for a party that then gets to select any candidate it wants to fill a seat in the legislature.

I have at least one major question: how will the parties select these List Candidates? Will party members get to vote for them in primary campaigns? I feel strongly that List Candidates should have to campaign for the privilege of being on that list, and win the confidence of their fellow party members. Another question: is the list ordered? If a party wins 5 List Candidate seats, will they have to select the top five candidates on the list?

If anyone knows the answer to these questions, please leave a comment. If I read anything myself, I'll be sure to blog my own response. And be sure to sound off on the comments section: which system will you be voting for, and why?

For more information, visit http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/faq.aspx

Happy voting, Ontario! Savour it: you may not get to see another referendum for another 83 years.

Thompson enters the fray - finally

Fred Thompson announced last night, finally, that he will be running for President. He did this from the sofa of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno while his fellow Republican candidates sparred in a televised debate. In my view he should have declared about a month ago, which would have given him the chance to win or place in the Ames Straw poll. But never mind, he's in the thick of things now, at long last. And he's going to be a contender. Mitt Romney, who has risen to the top of the field because of his strong debate showings and his appeal to values-voters needs to be particularly concerned, since Thompson will also be running on 'back-to-basics' conservative values. I don't think Giuliani needs to be as concerned; Fred's official candidacy could actually split social-conservative voters, which would actually help Giuliani.

Of course, the other Republican candidates sniped Fred for skipping the debate. Here are some of the shots fired against Thompson at the debate, as blogged by the Fix:

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: "I was scheduled to be on Jay Leno but I gave up my slot for somebody else because I'd rather be in New Hampshire with these fine people."

McCain: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime..."

Former Gov. Mitt Romney: "Why the hurry? Why not take some more time off?"

Giuliani: "I think he has done a pretty good job of playing my part on Law & Order. I prefer the real thing."
(Note: Giuliani was once a U.S. Attourney)

Harper back to the drawing board: a fall election?

From today's Globe and Mail:

PM set to reboot Parliament

Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved yesterday to give his government a new parliamentary start and a fresh legislative agenda, setting the stage for a vote on the Conservatives' survival.

MPs will return to Ottawa one month later than scheduled after Mr. Harper asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean yesterday to end the current session of Parliament and begin a new one Oct. 16. The government will then unveil a new Speech from the Throne to reinvigorate an agenda that critics say has run its course.

So the Conservative government has run out of gas and wants a new Throne Speech to breathe life into its Parliamentary agenda. But it may not get the chance: a new Throne Speech means the opposition parties will have a chance to bring down the government and force a fall election.

Is this likely? I think so. Here’s two reasons why:

1) The new Throne Speech will kill the (amended) Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act was the Conservative’s first crack at countering climate change. But it was more of a squish than a crack: the bill failed to appreciate the rising tide of public concern for environmental issues, was shamefully unambitious, and suffocated like a sparrow in the Ontario auto-belt. Harper scrambled, replaced the embattled Rona Ambrose with the more experienced John Baird as Environment Minister, and the bill went to committee where it was radically altered by the opposition parties. It has not yet been brought to the House for a vote, despite howling complaints from the opposition, and will die on the table if a new Throne Speech is given.

This would suit the Harper government just fine. To pass the Clean Air Act would be a major victory for the opposition parties: they would have taken a disastrously unpopular governmental bill, cooperated to make it a good bill, and then forced the government to accept their version. Quite a black eye for Harper, who is desperate to improve his environmental image. Harper would rather let this bill die, and use the Throne Speech to promise all kinds of new environmental goodies with the cameras rolling. I’m sure he’ll wear a bright green tie.

This won’t do for the opposition parties. Stephan Dion has already said that the Liberals will support the Throne Speech only if the government allows a vote on the amended Clean Air Act. Reasonable enough, in my view, considering that Parliament has been working on the bill for a year. But fat chance. I think the government will start from scratch on the environment and promise all sorts of new green policies, the opposition parties will criticize Harper for dragging his feet on climate change, and this will be an intractable issue that will likely lead to a fall election.

2) Harper isn’t going to promise to end the Afghan mission in 2009

Harper has said he will allow a vote in the House of Commons on Canada’s Afghanistan commitment in 2009. If the House votes to withdraw the troops, then withdraw they shall. But Dion and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe say that’s not good enough: both are demanding that the government pledge not to extend the mission past February 2009.

Harper won’t make this pledge, in my view. Why not? For several good reasons: a) allowing the issue to be voted on in the democratically elected House of Commons should be good enough; b) he’s already broadcast to our NATO allies that our continued involvement in Afghanistan will depend on the decision of the House in 2009, and he’s not going to alter that commitment; c) he’s a proud man, and feels that his promise to allow a vote in the House is concession enough.

So there won’t be any pledge, and that will likely trigger an election. And you know, I think Dion and Duceppe are wrong to make this demand. I mean, why isn’t a vote in the House of Commons good enough? The pledged withdrawal they’re demanding would take place a year and a half from now. A lot can happen in that amount of time; maybe our forces will have made significant strategic gains, or a new Pakistani President will show greater support for ISAF, or our NATO allies will show a greater willingness to get involved in the fighting. Wouldn’t it be wiser to revisit the issue in the House of Commons in 2009, thus allowing our elected representatives to make the call? How can Dion and Duceppe be sure that withdrawal will be the best idea in 2009? The truth is, they’re just trying to score points with an electorate that is becoming increasingly disdainful of the Afghanistan mission. It might be good politics, we'll have to wait and see.

At any rate, I see these two issues as being irresolvable, and I think there’s a good chance we’ll be going to the polls this fall.

My internet woes

Sorry I haven't posted in the last few days, I have a bad internet connection at my new apartment, and am surfing on borrowed time. Posts will come more frequently when I work the kinks out. Keep reading!

Has Fred missed his moment?

U.S. Senator Fred Thompson announced yesterday that he will kick off his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination on September 6th. This is not quite a declaration of his candidacy, but there has been no doubt for months that Thompson will run for the nomination. Even though Thompson is seen by many Republicans as a "Reagan-esque," strong-on-values candidate in a field of social liberals (Rudy Giuliani) Mormons (Mitt Romney) and wafflers (John McCain), and even though Thompson consistently places second or third in national and primary polls, he has not yet declared his candidacy for the nomination.

And you know, I can't explain why not. What is Thompson waiting for? In July there was real buzz about him: his celebrity, his appeal to bedrock values-voters, his polling numbers, etc. And yet, the only news we've been getting from his campaign has been tales of numerous staff departures. July came, and went, and still no declaration. He inexplicably decided to sit-out the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa earlier this month, where he would have been sure to take down a second-place showing or better. Instead, Mike Huckabee, a previously lifeless candidate, scooped up the second place spot behind Mitt Romney (due to a lack of participation from any other viable candidates), thus injecting the Huckabee campaign with buzz, media attention, and new life.

And apparently Fred's numbers have started to dwindle a bit. From the Fix:

...after a month of negative press centered around a number of staff departures, Thompson finds that momentum blunted somewhat. The inside-the-Beltway crowd -- in truth, never Thompson believers -- seem to be convinced that his moment has passed. Polling, both national and in key early states, shows Thompson in the game but falling slightly from his numbers in mid to late June and early July.

Has Fred missed his moment? No: he remains a powerful candidate, and one to watch closely. But I think he ranks third place now, behind Giuliani and Romney, whereas in July he might have tied Giuliani for second place. He's lost some momentum, and the Thompson campaign should be kicking itself for not striking when the iron was hot.

RIM and Microsoft - should Ottawa intervene?

RIM stocks were up today due to a rumour floating around Bay Street – Microsoft might be interested in buying RIM.

Oh God, not RIM. Could it be? Could the “darling” of Canadian tech companies really fall under foreign ownership? From the CBC:

"Microsoft has been mentioned as a possible buyer," Frederic Ruffy, an analyst at options education firm Optionetics, told Reuters. "According to speculation, the software giant might be interested in RIM in response to Google's recent announcement that it is interested in making its own mobile phone operating system, which would compete with Windows Mobile."

Of course, this likely won’t amount to much, and similar rumours have floated around in the past. One analyst said told reporters, "I can't even count the number of times we've heard that over the last three years.'' So it's probably nothing. The markets have been too responsive to speculation lately.

Still, it gives one pause. Last week, Stelco, the last remaining plant of the “independent Canadian steel industry” was sold to become a subsidiary of U.S. Steel. I seem to read quite often about Canadian companies being bought-out by larger U.S. or Chinese conglomerates, though I rarely read about ownership papers floating Northward. Should we be concerned about this?

Maybe. After all, the Canadian government loses important legislative authority over the corporation if its headquarters moves from Waterloo to New York City. We might reasonably suppose that a U.S.-owned RIM would be less likely to hold down roots in Waterloo, or even in Canada as a whole. Then there’s the whole question over whether Canada should retain sovereignty over its finite natural resources. And we certainly don’t want Canadian firms to make selling-off to foreign interests their ultimate business strategy.

But on the other hand, it’s not like Canada loses everything in a foreign takeover. The now-foreign-owned company will still employ our citizens and pay taxes on assets in our country. And as long as we strive to keep Canadian worker’s competitive in the global economy, that’s not likely to change. And in fact, previously Canadian-owned companies might do even better under foreign ownership, thus benefiting Canadian workers and industry.

But the more important consideration is this: do we really want the government to step in and forbid shareholders from selling their own companies? Business owners invest a lot in their companies. They own them. Shouldn’t they be able to sell their assets if they think the price is fair? Aren't our financial markets based on this concept? Think about what would happen to investor confidence if Ottawa suddenly began stepping in to deny majority shareholders their right to sell. Are we comfortable with this?

I’m bothered by foreign ownership of Canadian companies, but not to the point where I think the government should step in and forbid such activity. Loss of national control is one of the tradeoffs of the global economy – you surrender some control, but gain some efficiency. It might make us uneasy, but remember that foreign ownership does not imply the deterioration of the Canadian economy, or the exporting of Canadian jobs.

The gist, in my view: asking the Canadian government to step in, freeze assets, and forbid the sale of Canadian companies could seriously undermine our financial markets and our reputation as a world-class economy. We should think long and hard before going down this road. I’m not sure this type of intervention is good, or warranted, even though the prospect of losing a company like RIM to foreign ownership makes me uneasy.

The SPP: no cause for concern

From the Council Of Canadian's document Behind Closed Doors

Recently, Prime Minister Harper played host to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), an annual meeting of the North American leaders to discuss issues of cross-border trade, security, and other juicy elements of the trilateral relationship. The SPP is hated by some, valued by others, and ignored by most.

So what’s it all about? Is the SPP as secretive as its opponents suggest? Is it driven by business interests, pushing for deeper North American integration? What actually came out of this year’s meeting? And did Stephen Harper wear another embarrassing vest?

My blanket answer: opponents of the SPP should chill out. Citizen interest groups like the Council of Canadians deserve to be given a voice in the process, it’s true. But the SPP’s detractors aren’t going to be taken seriously if they keep touting this “grand corporate conspiracy” rhetoric. The SPP is useful in ironing out wrinkles in the North American partnership, healthy for continued continental growth, and an utterly un-sexy and un-scary institution. This conspiracy stuff just won’t wash, as I hope to show.

The Case of the Detractors: A Highway to Nowhere?

Several citizens groups, led primarily by Maude Barlow and the nationalistic Council of Canadians, have many complaints about the SPP and the way it does business. They accuse it of being anti-democratic, driven by corporate interests, and dragging Canada down a dangerous path of energy depletion and water diversion. I read through their publication Behind Closed Doors: What they're not telling us about the Security and Prosperity Partnership to check out their talking points, and while they do make some good arguments (particularly that the door is closed to citizen groups and lobbies), it seems to me that most of their fears are unwarranted, premature, or lacking in substance. Here are their main complaints, with my comments:

1.) The SPP is un-democratic

“The SPP is the political manifestation of a corporate plan for economic and security integration that was never voted on in any country… Meanwhile, the public and most of our publicly elected officials have been left out of the picture completely.”

Part of this complaint is fair, and part of it is overstated. To suggest that the SPP is a “corporate plan” is taking things too far. Yes, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives plays an advisory role in the process, but that doesn’t imply that it is driving the debate. At the end of the day, the leader’s get to decide what to talk about and implement, and guess what? They were elected.

And besides, I think it’s good to get the business community involved in the process. For instance, if Canada is going to keep plugging away at its “smart border” ideas to provide border security and easy trade, we need the business community in our corner, telling Washington that they’re prepared to make the adjustments, that they value ease-of-access borders, etc. I think the talks likely benefit from private-sector involvement.

However, it’s only fair that if the business sector is involved, the citizens groups should get their say, too. Would it have been too much for the leaders to meet with Maude Barlow and other interest-group leaders to involve them in the process? And Harper’s refusal to accept the petition submitted by the protestors in Montebello was arrogant, disrespectful and low. Real low. No wonder they feel marginalized. Let’s allow for some civic participation, huh?

2.) The SPP is an “Energy Grab” (Maude's words)

“Canada and Mexico have agreed to give U.S. oil companies an even tighter grip of both countries’ resources in return for vague assurances that the U.S. won’t shut the border to our goods. In Canada, that means guaranteeing a fivefold increase in tar sands production, no matter what the consequences for the environment and public health – and even if it makes greenhouse gas reductions impossible.”

Now hold on a second. I’ve read the 2007 SPP meeting declaration, and I don’t remember reading anything about a 5-fold increase in tar sands production. I’ve also poked around some of the past summit declarations and agendas, and even though the Council of Canadians asserts that “a fivefold increase in tar sands production is actually built right into the SPP,” I can’t find reference to this anywhere. It seems weird that an increase in energy production would be “built right into” the SPP – especially since the SPP isn’t a document or agreement; it’s just a meeting. And besides, isn't the decision to increase oil production in the hands of the companies pumping the oil? The Prime Minister doesn't force companies to increase their oil production. How could this have been an agreement? And where was it agreed to? Does anyone know what they’re talking about here?

And anyway, if you’re against the development of the oilsands for environmental reasons, why bother attacking the SPP? Why not lobby for stronger environmental regulations? It seems strange to attack the SPP (which actually aspires to promote environmental cooperation between its members) because of the oil sands development. After all, the oilsands would be tapped with-or-without the SPP’s existence.

And besides, the oil sands are extremely valuable to the Canadian economy. Is it wrong to sell energy to the United States? Certainly not. We need environmental protection, to be sure, but can’t we have the SPP also? Calling the SPP an “energy grab” just doesn’t wash.

3) The SPP is destroying Canadian sovereignty over fresh water

“There is very little mention of water in publicly available Security and Prosperity Partnership documents ... But we know from several leaked documents from U.S. groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies that bulk water exports and other contentious issues related to water management have been discussed in trilateral talks linked to the SPP.”

Uh-huh. Does this sound like something you want to get worked up about? Some unnamed people, “linked” in some way to the SPP, talked about bulk water exports. What they talked about is not mentioned. Meanwhile, Harper has said to the Canadian public that “Canada’s water is not for sale.” Cause for concern? I don't think so.

4) The SPP “extends Bush’s War on Terror”

Now this one really takes the rhetoric too far. From a speech by Maude Barlow:

“The SPP extends George Bush’s War on Terror, with its fixation on bombs, mortars and bibles, to Canada and Mexico.”

Strong words. Her evidence? Canada has merged its no-fly list with that of the United States. Yep. That’s it. But no, that's not an overstatement. The day these lists were merged, I can tell you that I felt a strange affinity for bombs, mortars, and bibles. And now I know why. It’s because the SPP extended the War on Terror right to my doorstep. We may as well be in Iraq.

Like, is this lame or what? It’s this kind of laughable overstatement that makes the citizens groups sound goofy, and keeps them from occupying a reasonable, legitimate place at the SPP’s table.

And oh yeah, you’ve probably read about this NAFTA Superhighway, a “road to nowhere” that’s supposedly “four football fields wide” and spans all three countries. Totally untrue of course, but even the Council of Canadians makes mention of something similar.

This year’s outcome? Boooooring

Now, it seems to me that if you want to judge whether or not the SPP is silently and steadily destroying the Canadian nation-state, you should look at what it has actually achieved to that end. So let's briefly look at this year's achievements toward "deep integration." I checked out the 2007 SPP Joint Declaration, and found that this year the good people of North America got:

- a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza
- a Regulatory Cooperation Framework
- an Intellectual Property Action Strategy
- a Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology

Wow, is anyone else shaking in their boots? Looking at those wildly ambitious achievements, I can't help but feel compelled to sing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. Now that we have a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, I'm convinced the Canadian state is not long for this world.

Hardly. So here’s my view on the SPP: it’s bland, it’s bureaucratic, it’s pragmatic, it’s valuable, and it’s very un-scary. I’ve read through the nationalistic talking points. I’m not concerned. And while I sympathize with the fact that these groups should be listened to (which is precisely why I have tried to treat their arguments seriously here), I think they shoot themselves in the foot when they treat the SPP like some mysterious corporate conspiracy. Moderate yourselves, guys, and I promise you’ll be taken more seriously.