Belinda leaves the Liberal Party

Belinda Stronach, former Minister of Complex Files, has decided to pursue a different avenue of public service. She has recently been spotted driving vehicles for the Toronto Transit Commission under the pseudonym "Lisa". Her managers at the TTC speak highly of her, but worry she might defect to GO Transit if offered the right incentives.

(Click on the image to enlarge.)

Lifting the Deep Malaise

So the Liberals may survive the sponsorship scandal. But the affair points to a deeper malaise in Canada's politics. It is worrying that the Conservatives are considered unable to win even when the Liberals are laid low by scandal. Long periods of domination by a single party are not good for the health of any democracy, let alone one in which power at the national level is highly centralised.
-The Economist, December 1st, 2005

Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now -- if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government -- then when? When is change acceptable if not now?
-The Globe and Mail, January 14th, 2006

Despite expectations at the beginning of this campaign, we are now one step closer to restoring competitive democracy in Canada - one step closer to curing the deep malaise in Canadian politics. 12 years of Liberal rule came to an end yesterday with the election of a Conservative minority government (Seat count: CON - 124, LIB - 103, BQ - 51, NDP - 29, IND - 1). Voter turnout was relatively high, 65%, reversing a trend of steady decline since 1988. The message to politicians was loud and clear: corruption will not be tolerated by the electorate.

The election result was not only good news for Canadian democracy, but for Canadian federalism as well. Despite being shut out entirely from the province of Quebec in the 2004 election, the Conservatives were able to pick up 10 seats with 24.6% of the popular vote. Indeed, the surge in Conservative support in Quebec was one of the biggest surprises of the campaign. Had the Conservatives formed government without electing a single MP from la belle province, federalism would have been in a precarious position. The same precariousness would have held true had the Liberals again formed the government, further imprinting in the minds of Quebecers that federalism and corrupt government are concepts one and the same. But yesterday's results turned out to be a blow to the sovereigntist movement. Paul Martin's huge blunder in declaring the election to be a "referendum election" thankfully did not backfire as Giles Dusceppe failed to win his long-desired aim of 50% plus one of the popular vote. The BQ's support dropped to 42.1% and they managed to win only 51 seats, less than the 54 they won last time, despite wide expectations (mine included) that their seat count would increase. Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, where increased political representation has not followed from growing economic clout, a newly elected Prime Minister from Calgary was able to say, "The West has wanted in. The West is in now."

Yet another welcome development in yesterday's frantic politicking came from the outgoing Prime Minister, Paul Martin. As Finance Minister in Jean Chretien's government, Martin was able to slay the deficit, but his short reign as Prime Minister has been an incoherent and unscrupulous disaster. Somehow, the Liberals managed to avoid complete decimation at the polls, escaping with 103 seats, even after running one of the most horrendous campaigns in Canadian history. It was difficult for me to watch Paul Martin spew his invective on the campaign trail over the last few weeks. It made me feel both nausea (from the vile rhetoric) and pity (from watching a once-proud man's self-immolation). But yesterday Paul Martin did the right and honourable thing. He recognized that the time has come for the Liberal Party to build itself anew. In his concession speech, he announced that he will continue to serve the constituents of Lasalle-Emard, but will be stepping aside as leader of the Liberal Party.

For the Liberal Party, the road ahead will require a lot of hard work. The situation they face now is similar to (though arguably less dire than) the one faced by the divided right-of-center parties who spent more than a decade wandering the political wilderness before the "unite the right" movement's culmination in yesterday's Conservative win. The warring factions of the Liberal Party will have to find a way to unite and regain the public's trust. To that end, there are several challenges ahead.

The most immediate problem facing the Liberal Party is that they are broke. According the Elections Canada, the last annual filing of the Liberal Party showed that they had accumulated $34,818,257.32 in debt. The next challenge will be to find a new leader. A swift anointment of Frank McKenna, currently serving as Canadian ambassador to the United States, will probably not do the trick. The Liberals need to hold a leadership race that will involve a serious debate about the direction of party. Finally, they will need to hold a policy convention with grassroots involvement in order to flesh out a Liberal vision for the country.

The Conservatives, for their part, now have a tremendous opportunity. The minority won by the Conservatives -- to judge by the numbers -- is a very delicate one, and appears to be even less stable than the last parliament. But there are several key differences that suggest that this parliament will be able to last at least 18 or 24 months. First of all, in the last parliament, both the Conservatives and the Bloc were itching to get to the polls to take advantage of the Gomery commission. This time, the Liberals will be busy getting their party's house in order and raising cash, and the Bloc will be wary of the Conservative beachhead in Quebec while there is no huge scandal to stem the tide. Second, if there is anyone who has a good chance of taming the three-ringed circus that will emerge in the next parliament, it is Stephen Harper. In his career, he managed to unite a squabbling Canadian Alliance party, he brokered a merger between the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, and, in this election campaign, he managed to steer a newly reunited party of ragtag misfits into the political center. I was not convinced of this before the campaign began, but Harper has shown that he can be a pragmatic and competent leader. It is now up to him to prove that this is the case if he hopes to earn a stronger mandate in the next election.

Harper's first order of business will be to dismantle the Liberal patronage machine that has been in operation for much of the last century. For reasons that I cannot understand, when Harper commented that regardless of who won on the 23rd, the senate, the judiciary, and the senior civil service will all still be decisively Liberal, the media played it up as a big gaffe. Yet the Liberals are guaranteed an absolute majority in the appointed senate until at least late August, 2009 and Liberal cronies in senior civil servant positions, like David Dingwall and Chuck Guité, have been central in several scandals. Harper's first piece of legislation, the Federal Accountability Act, will make government far more transparent and accountable. More importantly, in my opinion, Harper has promised to set up a process for democratically electing senators. If Stephen Harper accomplishes nothing else other than these reforms, he can consider his term in office a success.

Other items on the to-do list:
• Go on a diet
According to a CPAC documentary series on former Prime Ministers, R.B. Bennett thought a plump figure would make him look more respectable in a suit. Perhaps Stephen Harper, now somewhat removed from more slender days in opposition, shares that same prime ministerial outlook. Perhaps not. (See picture above.) I think it must have been the barbecue tour he did in the summer. The long periods of sitting during well-catered road trips for the last two months probably didn't help either. Thankfully, he has now earned a tentative respite from the bus tours.
• Repair our relationship with the United States
The United States is our largest trading partner and most important ally. Instead of trying to outdo Hugo Chavez with our anti-American slurs, we need to work cooperatively where there is common interest and engage constructively when there is a dispute.
• Fix the "fiscal imbalance"
I am pretty sure that "fiscal imbalance" is just a vague term used to describe provincial governments whining for more money when they can't control their budgets. If this is indeed the case, the "fiscal imbalance" is probably an even deeper-rooted malaise than the malaise that is the subject of this article. Nevertheless, Harper's promise to "fix" the imbalance was the motivation for a great number of Quebecers to vote Tory, so he better fix it. My hope is that his solution will involve a meaningful devolution of tax powers -- to provide a more stable provincial income -- and not a massive cash giveaway. The latter would surely result in Canadian premiers crowing even louder by the year's end.

I argued before that this election had little to do with policy; it was just a referendum on the incumbent Liberals. With any luck, the Conservatives will make the most of their opportunity and provide some good governance. With a little more luck, the Liberals do enough soul-searching to be inspired by a motive other than power for power's sake. Hopefully the next election will be a truly competitive battle of ideas instead of a mud-slinging competition. Canadian politics may yet emerge from the deep malaise.

Today, Vote for Change

Just in case you need more proof that Paul Martin is going insane - proof beyond his shrill ramblings about abortion, his defense of indefensible attack ads, beyond his impromptu constitutional tinkering - then check out Paul Martin at a campaign rally yesterday playing air guitar.

Beyond the reasons I cited in my endorsement, the sheer nastiness, incoherence, and dishonesty of the Liberal campaign provide more than enough of a reason to vote for a change in government. The polls are open today. It's up to you. Go cast your vote.

The Globe and Mail weighs in

Read the Globe and Mail's endorsement. (You have to be an "Insider Edition" member, but can sign up for a free 14-day trial.) I have quoted a sample below.


Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now -- if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government -- then when? When is change acceptable if not now?

Ed Broadbent weighs in

Former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent, who would make a great ethics commisioner, had this to say at a press conference on the weekend.

[The Liberals have] run a campaign that at best is incoherent, and at worst is deeply offensive. To women. To members of our armed forces. And to people who long for intellectual honesty in politics once more.

It is clear the Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to deserve people’s votes. It is, simply, not the party it used to be or the party it portrays.

Mr. Martin’s team is running a campaign based on intellectual dishonesty. Cynical manipulation. And recklessly using significant issues for the sole purpose of continuing Liberal entitlement – which we know is used to benefit Liberal insiders, not working people.

The Contrarian weighs in

My fellow blogger, Jack, posted the following in the comments section of the previous post.

Danny, "Blogger" won't let me post for some reason... and I had a last minute appeal for all these people who read this site (and therefore probably already agree with me).

In short form: Ever since the second debate, the Liberals have not said a single true thing about the Conservatives. If you are still considering voting Liberal, I will recount several events of this campaign for you:

1)The RCMP announced that the Liberal finance minister may have commited a felony and started an investigation.

2)The Liberals' biggest union ally urged Quebecers to vote for the Bloc.

3)The Liberals proposed to stop the use of illegal guns by outlawing guns. (Is that as illogical as it seems, or is it so logical that it transcends our knowledge of logic theory to a point where only the great Paul Martin understands it?)

4)The Liberals claimed that the army is just waiting for a chance to impose martial law (for which Martin did not apologize).

5)The Liberals implicitly insulted Americans in their negative ads thereby further hurting our relationship with a neighbour that, like it or not, we rely on.

6)And just today, the Liberals implied that Conservative candidates are going around spraying swastikas on Liberal signs. (http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to_signs20060120.html)

This is all off the top of my head and written in five minutes. In the past few weeks, the Liberals have done more damage and said more stupid things than most parties do in four years. In the name of all that's sacred, vote for somebody else!

The "Referendum Election"

Paul Martin told Quebecers that this election would be a "referendum election". In a sense, he is right. This election is and always has been a referendum, but not on Quebec's sovereignty. This election is a referendum on the incumbent Liberal Party.

Witness the strategies of the other two federal parties. Their primary goal has been to present themselves to voters as credible alternatives to the ruling party. For the most part, there has been no grand intellectual debate about policy. Stephen Harper spent the entire campaign positioning his party in the political center with a steady flow of populist policies. He has introduced a hodge-podge of targeted tax breaks and credits for everyone from developers of afforable housing units to parents who send their kids to participate in sports. He even said (to my chagrin) that he will maintain the budget of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an agency which provides government subsidies for business. The NDP, for its part, has tried to appear more responsible. Its recruitment of former Bay Street economist, Paul Summerville, was intended to demonstrate that the NDP's brand of socialism is now fiscally conservative. In addition, Jack Layton tried to assure voters of the NDP's ability to maintain order by adopting a new tough-on-crime stance.

In essence, there is very little difference between many of the policies of the three federalist parties. All promise to protect the public single-payer healthcare system, with minor differences between the parties over the role of the private sector in the delivery of public services. All agree on the need for tougher sentencing and the importance of dealing with at-risk youth. All want to reduce or eliminate the landing fee for immigrants. Perhaps the only significant policy difference in this campaign concerns childcare, with the Liberals and NDP pledging to create an national institutional daycare program, and the Conservatives offering direct support to parents as well as tax-incentives for employers who create childcare spaces. But other than that, policy disagreements are often just a case of who has the highest bid for the support of a given demographic. The overall effect has been that the Liberals, who have traditionally staked out the political center, are being flanked from both sides.

In 2004, the election was the same as this one in the sense that it was also a referendum on the Liberal Party of Canada. But the circumstances were different. At that time, the newly-formed Conservative Party had yet to hold a policy convention and had yet to define itself in any meaningful way. Leaving their policy positions mostly open to interpretation, the Conservatives were out to prove to the electorate that the Liberals did not deserve another mandate. Halfway through, it appeared that the electorate agreed, but a concerted effort by Liberals and a series of Conservative gaffes managed to convince the public that the Conservative alternative had a scary "hidden agenda" and would be bad for the country. As a result, the Liberals were able to rebound in the polls. The Conservative support dropped and NDP supporters turned to the Liberals in an attempt to stop Stephen Harper and the "hidden agenda". At the last minute, the Liberals eked out a minority government.

In contrast, in this election, the Conservatives have inoculated themselves against the "hidden agenda" attack by actively defining their policy positions. The Liberal game plan in this election has been exactly the same as in 2004. But now, Canadians have become falimiar and increasingly comfortable with the alternative. Since a non-Liberal government no longer implies an apocalypse, this election has become a referendum - in the true sense of the word - on the incumbent. We are now seeing what may otherwise have happened in 2004: the Liberals are in a free-fall. On this referendum question, the 'Oui' side is in trouble.

Unapologetic

Martin finally apologized for the stillborn attack ad that suggested that the Canadian military would be complicit in a scheme to impose martial law in our cities. Canadian cities. In Canada.

No, it wasn't Prime Minister Paul Martin, it was Liberal MP Keith Martin. Keith, who has already broken step with his party over private healthcare, apologized for the ad which he described as "appaling".
"Some idiot inadvertently sent out an ad that was not approved and not supported by the party with the 11 [ads] that were supported."

Are Keith Martin's sentiments shared by other Liberals? I had the opportunity today to speak to Liberal Defence Minister Bill Graham at the end of a town hall meeting with the federal candidates in the riding of Toronto Centre. I asked him what he thought of the ad. He called it "stupid" and echoed the view that it was the independent and unauthorized work of some fool. He added, "Thankfully, it never made it on the air." I suppose it's good to know that the Defence Minister doesn't support slandering the military.

I wonder then, who was the idiot that let the ad get as far as it did? Ujjal Dosanjh, the famously ethical Health Minister, had already said that the Prime Minister personally approved of all of the ads. On CTV's Canada AM this morning and then again at a campaign rally in Markham, Paul Martin confirmed Dosanjh's earlier statement, and clarified that the military ad was one of those that he approved. On why he decided to pull the ad in the end, "The ad was pulled because the ad was pulled and because we felt there were better ads." Apparently, he didn't find it to be offensive, and certainly found no need to issue an apology for it.

I think I may have uncovered the identity of the idiot that Keith Martin and Bill Graham were referring to.

How to Piss Off Mike Duffy

After the French debate, CTV's normally jolly and jovial Mike Duffy took Liberal strategist John Duffy (best known for backing up Scott Reid on the Beer & Popcorn gaffe) to task for dismissing questions about the Liberal ad that was pulled yesterday. I don't think I've ever seen Mike Duffy annoyed before, let alone angry. WATCH THE VIDEO HERE!

H/T

Harper eats babies? [Part III]

I was originally planning to write something about tax policy, but I feel obliged to round out the baby-eating trilogy with this doozy of an attack ad. (Click on the screen shots in the picture above to enlarge.) The ad was posted this morning on the Liberals' website, but was quickly removed later in the day. Supposedly, it had been posted in "error", but it can still be seen on CTV's website.

Paul Martin had this to say in yesterday's English debate:
Well, of course personal attacks are not constructive... Now, I do not believe there should be personal attacks. I think what we should be able to do here is discuss, in fact, the fundamental issues facing Canadians, whether it be the economy, the protection of our social programs, and that's I think what people want to have happen today.

Clearly, he was just referring to the remainder of the evening (if even that). This morning officially marked the end of any pretense of intelligent discussion. (Martial law? In our cities? In Canada???) Perhaps I'll talk taxes another time...

Harper eats babies? [Part II]

The Liberal camp must not be too pleased with the results from yesterday's debate. In a sign of increasing desperation today, they released a flurry of new attack ads. One of the new ones repeats the claim that Stephen Harper would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq in 2003. This is true. But Martin probably would have done the same. One NDP candidate has compiled a list on his website of quotes by Paul Martin on his position on Iraq before he became Prime Minister. For example, several months before the invasion began in March 2003, Martin said "I think Canada should be there." (Halifax Daily News, January 15th, 2003).

Both men have since changed their tune. Now they have the same position: namely, they will not send Canadian troops to Iraq. If past support for the war bothers you that much, vote NDP or Bloc.

Constitutional Shadowboxing

Amid sinking poll numbers and RCMP investigations into his government's conduct, Paul Martin decided to use the debate to announce an impromptu constitutional amendment. He is now proposing to amend the constitution so as to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not one who thinks that constitutional amendments should be taken lightly, let alone that they should be concocted in desperation in the late stages of an election campaign. Besides, what grand principle is Paul Martin purporting to uphold here? He accuses Stephen Harper of harbouring a secret plan to use the notwithstanding clause to overturn gay marriage, despite the fact that Harper already unequovically ruled this out in the first English debate in December. The fact that both leaders agree that the notwithstanding clause should not be used in this instance is not enough of a reason to keep Paul Martin from picking a fight.

Needless to say, the proposal is completely nonsensical, as is often the case with improvised policy decisions made by over-caffeinated politicians in late-night strategy sessions. One of the biggest problems with Canadian democracy today is that too much power is centralized in the Prime Minister's Office. In between elections, the Prime Ministers can rule almost like an autocrat. The Prime Minister has the personal power to appoint the Governor General, members of the Senate, and Supreme Court justices. Moreover, his power is not constrained by the will of the House of Commons, the only elected branch of government. One would think that in order to modernize our democracy, now would be the time to start electing senators and submitting nominees for Governor General or Supreme Court justices to the approval of Parliament. Instead, Paul Martin's proposal would diminish the Canadian electorate's control over its government.

The notwithstanding clause allows a government to override a ruling by the Supreme Court to strike down a law that it had previously passed. But the Prime Minister does not have free reign to invoke the clause by himself; he requires the support of the majority of Parliament. Compare this to the Prime Minister's judicial appointments, which requires no such scrutiny. The notwithstanding clause is therefore important because it gives Parliament, the elected voice of the Canadian people, some oversight over the unelected judiciary.

It is starting to look like "Mr. Dithers" is becoming an outdated nickname for Paul Martin. How about "Mr. Seat-of-the-Pants" instead?

Addendum, January 10th
The notwithstanding clause would perhaps outgrow its usefulness if the judicial process was updated so that judicial nominees required the support of a large majority (e.g. 66%) of Parliament. Requiring a broad consensus for any nomination would help ensure that court nominees are not politicized and would thus limit the need for any further Parliamentary oversight of the judiciary in the form of a notwithstanding clause. Barring that reform, my criticism stands.

Harper eats babies?

In the 2004 federal election, the Liberals' attack ad (top photo) seemingly implied that if Stephen Harper was elected, you might be shot in the face. This time, the Liberals have moderated their stance. The implication in the new Liberal attack ad (bottome photo) is that your life will be spared in the event of a Harper election victory, but you may still have to watch in horror as the poor shlub to your left takes a bullet.
(For BEWILDERBEEST INC.'s viewpoint on the proposed Liberal handgun ban, see Jack's post.)