Justin Time!

Well that didn't take long. Of course, Justin Trudeau has long been the hands down winner of this past weekend's Liberal Leadership Race, so the Tories had a long lead time to get attack ads prepped, but to come out less than 24 hours after the man himself takes office - that's blitzpolitik.

But having said that, this is the best they could do?

The Shifted Ground

It's funny how an election that started with a whimper, ended up shaking the Canadian political landscape in a way not seen in nearly 20 years. In one foul swoop, the Harper Conservatives secured their first majority, the Liberals were near fatally wounded, the Green Party finally landed on the board while the Bloc Quebecois was nearly swept off it, and the NDP had their single greatest election victory ever, not only hitting triple digit seats but became the Official Opposition for the first time too. If you look at the CBC's election map, you'd swear Canada were the new Edmonton Oilers logo (and perhaps given the winner of last night's election, the allegory is apropos).

Now the question is, what will these results mean for the next four years to Canada, and will the political map keep this new order or is it a one-time glitch. Let's break it down:

Conservatives - 167 seats - 39.62 per cent of the popular vote

The third time's the charm. Stephen Harper has secured his majority, but a lot of the problems that plagued him and his party remain. There's the small matter that despite winning a majority of seats, the Conservatives only gained two points in popularity. It makes a case for some serious voting splitting on the left from one end of this nation to the next to the next, as the combined NDP-Liberal vote won nearly 50 per cent of the popular vote. Three out of five people voted for someone that doesn't make up the government. (Incidentally, I think every election now makes a stronger case for electoral reform, but that's another discussion entirely.)

While basking in victory, the morning after analysis might offer some strong sobriety. There were licks taken in this election about the party's secretiveness and limited availability, the fact that they are just a little less of a non-entity in Quebec than the Bloc, and the little change in popular support despite a majority. Given these conditions, can the frequently cited "radical right" agenda people fear about Harper be enacted to its fullest? And the problem remains that Harper still has no obvious successor as the Conservatives are as much a cult of personality as they are a political party.

The fact of the matter is that the people voted for an end to elections every two years. Come what may, we know that the next election is four years away now, and for some people, that's all the piece of mind they need in Harper's Canada. (Or at least for 40 per cent of the 61.4 per cent of eligible votes that rolled out to the polls yesterday.)

NDP - 102 seats - 30.62 per cent of the popular vote

It was a wild night for Jack Layton. Thanks to big, huge gains in Quebec the NDP leader finally broke through and became the voice of Canada's left, and the official Opposition Party. A good question is, what happens now? A better question is, how did it happen in the first place?

While no one can doubt that there was a sudden and complete shift to the NDP in Quebec, I have yet to hear a complete analysis of the reason or reasons. Layton's debate performance? Well, it was a delayed reaction if that's the case. Some talk show appearance? Well then, this must have been the most politically important talk show since David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon. The real picture, again, I think comes down to fatigue. The average Quebecer, seeing no progress in the representation of French issues by voting Bloc, and being reticent about supporting the Liberals again - or heaven forbid, the Conservatives - were looking for a new direction, and by process of elimination, that choice was the NDP.

From here on, one of two things can happen. The next four years could see an NDP building strength and support, gaining the confidence of more and more Canadians and poised for a breakthrough to, at the very least, a minority government situation of their own. But Quebec is the X factor. Will French Canadians be satisfied by NDP representation? Do the NDP know what to do/have what it takes to keep French Canadians in the supporters column? It should be interesting to see what the new Quebecois influence will have on the New Democrats.

Liberals - 34 seats - 18.91 per cent of the popular vote

Ouch. There are no words. This is easily the most crushing defeat of a major Canadian political party since the PC's in 1993 (with one exception discussed next). Michael Ignatieff, once the promise of a new generation of Liberal power, is defeated on almost every level, including personal, losing his own riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore by nearly 3,000 votes to Tory Bernard Trottier. The case of Ignatieff is that once again the candidate that looked good on paper did not translate into ballots checked. The Liberals were too soft in response to Conservative attack ads and just couldn't get past the assault. A prime minister and party censured for the first time ever by Parliament, accusations of secret keeping and other shadowy activities, and an economy still in a relative shambles, and the Liberals still weren't able to capitalize. Where was the disconnect?

The answer to that is, in part, because of Ignatieff's charisma gap, but it's not all on him. The NDP surge was too strong, and the momentum was with Jack Layton. The Liberals couldn't make the point to vote strategically, and if they could, people were already starting to think of the NDP as the strategic option. Where does the Liberal Party go from here? Well, not gently into that good night. There may be an opportunity for rebound, if only because the party still has nearly three dozen MPs in the House, and a storied history that goes back to Confederation. The gap may still be too wide for official merger talks with the NDP, and Layton may not think he needs the help, but there is the possibility, and likely probability, for more collusion. As for leader replacements, that's going to be tough; tough to see who might step in, tough to see how anyone can turn the boat around. But if the Liberals could say one thing this morning, it's that they aren't the...

Bloc Quebecois - 4 seats - 6.05 per cent of the popular vote 

Considering the enormous personal popularity of Gilles Duceppe, it seems that Quebecers left the party like rats fleeing a sinking ship. I don't think anyone called this reversal of fortune for the Bloc, even me. As I pointed out the day before the election, the Bloc surges and then it ebbs. But in this case, it's like the tide went out completely, and the question is will it ever return? Can the Bloc come back from this defeat? It depends on how you answer this question: Is separation still important to a significant percentage of French Canadians? If the answer is yes, then the Bloc will be back in some form in 2015; if not, then this might be the last we've seen of the Separatist Party. 

Green Party - 1 seat - 3.9 per cent of the popular vote

Elizabeth May finally won her seat in the House of Commons, but the cost seems to be a loss of about half of the Green Party's popular support over the 2008 election (in '08, that was 6.8 per cent). Really, the Greens were as much a victim of the NDP's surge as the Liberals, but that didn't stop May from making history by becoming the Green MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands. (And not only that, but she defeated Conservative incumbent Gary Lunn by over 7,000 votes.) The question is what happens now? Can May be effectual in the House as a party of one? Where do the Green Party's fortunes go from here? One thing's for sure, no one will be able to block May from a leaders' debate again.

But no matter what happens next, this is what Canada looks like today. Who would have guessed that 40 days ago...?

...And Now For My Final Thought

It's been a weird, wacky ride this election. Despite initial guffaws over the pointlessness of this poll, cynacism gave way to one of the most vibrant and surprising campaigns in recent memory. A cocksure Conservative Party was expecting to strut to an easy majority, only to find their odds upset by a surging opposition. What's more surprising is that opposition party turned out to be the NDP. 

Meanwhile, the Liberal Party primed for a comeback, seemed stuck in neutral, as Michael Ignatieff's first campaign as Liberal Party leader was unable to capitalize on the Conservatives vulnerabilities in the same way that the NDP's Jack Layton has. Suddenly, the golden boy, world-traveling professor that was going to return the Grits to their former glory looks more like a golden goose. Ignatieff says he wants to stay on as Liberal leader, but if the party can't even maintain its current status as the Official Opposition, will he even have that option?

But there maybe more immediate concerns off the top. If the NDP gets enough seats to become the Official Opposition, will an NDP-Liberal coalition come about? It seems unlikely that should the Conservatives return to Parliament with a minority that anyone on the opposition bench is going to be satisfied with the status quo. And despite refusing to answer questions about it yesterday, Stephen Harper and his inner circle have got to be sweating the possibilities.

Since we're talking about it, what happens to Harper if he returns to Parliament with his third consecutive minority? What happens to him if a coalition NDP-Liberal government takes power instead? I think that either way, tomorrow might be Stephen Harper's last election as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

As for the Bloc Quebecois, they're being hurt the most by the NDP surge, but the Green Party must be smarting too for that matter. The Bloc has taken hits before and always come back when Quebecers tire of the shenanigans of the main parties. The Greens, however, are in a much more precarious position. Moving ever closer to the breakthrough they need to get a Green in Parliament, the last thing they needed was one of the main parties to get the wind, and the press, at their backs. I find it unlikely that the Greens will win a seat in this election, but I thought for sure they would win one last time. So maybe I'll be wrong. 

No matter what your opinion is, please make sure that you get out their and vote tomorrow. Remember your voter card AND a piece of I.D. with your name, address and photo on it, or two pieces of I.D. with a combination of those three. I'll be working at the polling station at St. Francis of Assisi as an Information Officer so if you're coming to vote there, say hi. Afterward, I'm scheduled to do a bit of punditry on the CFRU Guelph Election Radio show.

Hopefully, tomorrow's polls will run smoothly and civilly, and we can avoid any Kent Brockman-like overreaction or hyperbole. I'll be back Tuesday with post-game analysis.
 

Mail from Marty

I do this because it's quite possibly the closest I'll ever get to actually interviewing Marty Burke. Like the headline says, it's text from a letter sent to my house by the Burke campaign. My mom was home when the mail was delivered and when she saw it she was thoroughly unimpressed. (You know my mom, she's the one all over Facebook talking about how the Conservatives will destroy Canada. By the way, she challenges Burke and Jim Flaherty to visit our house while they're campaigning tomorrow.)

Anyway, here is the content of the letter with only some (slight) editorializing.

What is this election about? Here in Guelph, everyone is telling me they want strong leadership and lower taxes.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has proven itself to be committed to lower taxes. Since forming government in 2006 we have:

• Reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%;
• Lower taxes on job creating businesses;
• Cut taxes more than 120 times, saving the average Canadian family over $3,000 a year

Our latest budget included further tax cuts like $2,000 Family Caregiver Tax Credit and the $3,000 Volunteer Firefighter Tax Credit.

Unfortunately, Michael Ignatieff, with his NDP and Bloc partners, voted against this budget and its tax-cutting measures and forced this unnecessary and costly election. In fact, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition would like to raise taxes! [Yes, this section was bolded.] As a result, this “Tax and Spend” coalition is threatening to kill almost 400,000 jobs and costs Canadians $7 billion.

You and I cannot afford such reckless policies. A vote for the Conservative Party of Canada is a vote for a strong commitment to low taxes and responsible economic policies.

On May 2nd vote Conservative, and put an end to the threat of a reckless coalition! [That again? Really? That phrase is so the first week of this election.}

Sincerely,

Marty Burke

PS: For further information on defeating the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition please visit my website at www.martyburke.ca

Coalition of the Willing

Someone on my Facebook - someone of the Conservative persuasion - posited that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff should be asked in tomorrow night's English-language Leaders Debate about why he wants to ruin Canada by having a political threesome with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. The rhetorical flourish of that question is mine, but the intent is the same: A vote for the opposition parties is a vote for some kind of Voltron government that's both unlawful and unwanted.

Except that it isn't. Not only is a coalition government perfectly legal and constitutional, but I think it's what Canadians have been asking for the last seven years. If you just scoffed, I don't blame you. A Globe and Mail/CTV poll from last week showed that 49 per cent of respondents had a negative or somewhat negative reaction to the idea of a coalition government; 40 per cent had the opposite reaction and the rest was made up people who were uncertain.

While a poll can certainly be scientific, I have a much more scientific polling option: the results from the last election. I have put to a couple of the candidates, namely Bobbi Stewart and Frank Valeriote, their point of view about a coalition. My thesis is that the way Canadians have been voting in the last three elections (and seemingly for the fourth) it seems that what they're looking for is a coalition. If you think about it, the parties are more or less breaking down regionally. Tories cover the Prairies and the West, as well as southwestern Ontario; Liberals take urban and suburban areas in southern Ontario, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg and the Maritimes; the NDP in denser urban areas, coastal B.C., urban Manitoba, northern Ontario and parts of the Maritimes; and the Bloc takes most of Quebec outside Montreal and Quebec City.

So what's wrong with this picture? Well, you'll notice that aside from the Bloc Quebecois, there's not a regional area in this country where the parties don't have influence (and some would argue, especially in the coalition debate, that the Bloc's influence does extend beyond the Quebec border). Even the northern territories are evenly split with one riding each for the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP.

To me, this suggests that the country is rather schizophrenic about where it wants to be. They like the idea of economy-centric priorities and tax cuts, but there still remains that concern of an un-Canadian social policy that many think lingers immediately behind a Conservative majority in the House. People like the Liberals fine, but without a strong voice and constitution they come across as U.S. Democrats: a party of big ideas incapable of executing. Everyone loves the NDP, but the fiscally-conservative half of our collective brains remember how NDP governments provincially have chased a road of good intentions down a financial rabbit hole.

Still, what if we took the qualities we liked from all the major parties, and combined them into some kind of super-government. On the campaign trail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper paints a picture of disorganization and instability. On the stump, he's been equating the need to give his party a majority as a matter of national security. “These series of minority Parliaments, in my judgment, is becoming a dangerous game for this country," Harper said in Guelph last week. "This election needs to put an end to that political uncertainty and focus on Canada’s security.”

Harper can make an argument for that, although I think its fundamentally wrong. A majority government unchecked could just as well be a force for instability, and the truth of the matter is that the current election began with the government's refusal to be completely open and honest with the Opposition - even in a minority situation. The more troubling aspect, to my mind, is the inference that a coalition is illegal or that somehow it constiutes a conspiracy to usurp the will of the Canadian electorate.

In Guelph, Harper asked: why Ignatieff was forcing an election. “We all know why," he told the crowd, "because Mr Ignatieff doesn’t think he needs to win this election. He thinks he needs to just hold us to another minority government and after the election, he can make a deal with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois even if he lost the election.”

Leaving aside Ignatieff's election day proclamation that he had no intention of forming a coalition government, he didn't have to go to an election to get it. A vote of non-confidence doesn't mean an automatic election, it means that the party that forms the government no longer has the confidence of the majority of Parliament. The Governor-General can turn to the opposition parties and ask them if they can see clear to form a government of their own before dropping the writ.

As for Ignatieff and his coalition promises, I can say that from my point of view it's short-sighted. In 2008, the Conservatives formed the Government of Canada in spite of the fact that 62.4 per cent of those that voted, voted for any party or candidate besides Conservatives. Many of those coveted victories by the Conservatives in southern Ontario were won by razor thin margins, and not because the Conservatives were so successful in converting voters, but because a lot of Liberal voters stood at home. I understand that from Ignatieff's point of view, he can't kick off his campaign from the position of "here's something I can do if I don't win," essentially a defeatist position, but by discounting it completely, he opens himself up to the very charges Conservatives are levying against him if he ends up going through with it after Election Day.

To discount a coalition for any reason is simplistic. It fosters a zero sum approach to politics I find distasteful, and it further fosters partisanship and general extra-party negativity. An election victory does not mean universal acceptance of your agenda, especially in a minority situation. But compromise is seen by some politicians as weakness, and if you're weak you can't lead. This is the spirit of Harper's march against the coalition; a campaign against compromise, participation, and engagement.

“You are here for one thing," he told the gathered Guelphites last week. "You are here for Canada. And your fellow citizens here in Guelph and throughout southwestern Ontario believe deeply in this country, and they are not going to choose members of Parliament who are going to sign on to Mr. Ignatieff’s reckless idea that he can lose the election and then run the country with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.” 

Well, if the polls show anything right now it's that they are, and they might. "Reckless" though it may be, if the election were held tomorrow, it'd be another minority Parliament that sits. And maybe that's how Canadians want it. Ultimately though, it seems silly to base your campaign on hypotheticals when there are much more tangible issues on your agenda, like accusations that all that money on the G8 was misspent, or that political staffers in Ottawa may come off financially better secure if their party loses than if they win.

Harper Rallies the Troops in Guelph

If there's one thing you can get a couple of hundred University students riled up for, it's free beer. But if there's two things, the other is Prime Minister Stephen Harper showing up at a political rally at the hotel across the road from your campus.

Somewhere between 200 and 500 students demonstrated in the misty/rainy weather of an April evening outside the Delta Hotel and Conference Centre. Meanwhile inside, a couple of hundred other people had somewhat different political ideas and they were there to help the Prime Minister fill the Guelph-shaped hole in his caucus. In the very humid, tightly packed ballroom of the Delta, Harper hit his talking points and said the right things to get his crowd excited.

“I know this is not what you wanted to be doing right now," said Harper. "We should be doing what Conservatives were already doing: working on the economic.”

Harper explained that the budget announced March 22nd was the next phase of the Economic Action Plan and featured a low tax plan of critical importance to jobs, growth and the financial security of Canadian families. “But as you know, the Ignatieff, NDP and Bloc Quebecois coalition had a different priority," he explained. "An election you didn’t want, an election that the economy doesn’t need, our fourth election in seven years.” Chants of "Shame," then came from the audience.

“So friends, we come to you, the Canadian people, to get our mandate, pass that budget and get on with completing the recovery.”

Harper went on to say that Canadians had said yes to the Conservative budget and that Canadians will say yes to their platform in this election. More than that, Harper continued his message of the day and said that Canadians will also get behind scrapping the long gun registry.

“You know where we Conservatives stand,” he said. “We stand with farmers and hunters while Mr. Ignatieff, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois actually believe that you can tackle gun crime in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver by having a registry of the property of farmers and duck hunters in rural areas.”

He also re-announced from the day before his party's intention to extend the children’s fitness tax credit, double it and expanded to adults.

For Guelph, Harper said, the assistance of his government was meant that investments like the Old City Hall (New Provincial Courthouse), the New Civic Museum at the Loretto Convent and the Hanlon Creek Business Park were amongst the 26,000 projects across the country his government invested in.

Of his opponent, Harper inferred that an Ignatieff government will mean more taxes. Harper said that the Liberal Leader promises in one hand and takes away with the other with increased taxes and fees. Which is why “Canada needs a strong stable national majority.”

“These series of minority Parliaments, in my judgment, is becoming a dangerous game for this country. This election needs to put an end to that political uncertainty and focus on Canada’s security.”

Harper brought the rally to close by saying that he feels the confidence (but not a boastful confidence) of people across Canada, and talked about how Laurier called the 20th century “Canada’s Century” and how this century can be ours again.

“You are here for one thing, you are here for Canada," he said. "And your fellow citizens here in Guelph and throughout southwestern Ontario believe deeply in this country, and they are not going to choose members of Parliament who are going to sign on to Mr. Ignatieff’s reckless idea that he can lose the election and then run the country with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.”

You can listen to the Prime Ministers remarks yourself on these two audio files below. (It's in two parts because I accidentally shut off my recorder at one point, but I don't think I missed much before between the time it stopped recording and I noticed.)

Some random thoughts from the rally:

-Marty Burke didn't say much, which is too bad because this was the first time I heard he speak publicly. But mostly, he just seemed to be there to handle the intros. Noted MPs in attendance were: Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills), Gary Goodyear (Cambridge), Harold Albrecht (Kitchener-Conestoga), Peter Braid (Kitchener-Waterloo), and Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener-Centre)

-Burke also said that “Under his leadership we’ve brought forward Canada’s economic action plan, and as a result our country’s weathering the recession better than any of our competitors. And from that position we’ve emerged stronger than ever.” - I'm a little unsure about Burke's use of the word "competitors." Are we really competing with other countries in that sense? It may have been a slip of the tongue, but it was something I made a note of.

-Of the long gun registry Harper said, “We need to make the common sense of rural Canada, more common in Ottawa.” And he was saying this to a group of urnbanites and suburbanites in Guelph

-If you listen to the full remarks. you'll hear the phrase “Job killing tax hikes.” Which is more or less borrowed from Republican talking points south of the border.

For images from the rally, check this photo slideshow:

Really? Again? Elizabeth May and the Debate

I can't believe I have to write this again. The consortium of Canadian broadcasters that set the ground rules for the Federal debate have decided once again, in their nowhere near infinite wisdom, that Green Party leader Elizabeth May will not be part of the National Leaders' debate. Really? We've got to do this again? Here's how it will go: the people will complain, the other party leaders will say that they want to have May in the debate, the broadcasters will relent, and May will debate. Why? Because she was in the debate last time!!! What's changed? She can debate last election, but not in this one. They tried her out one time, and decided that May wasn't appealing to the TV audience? That's right, Elizabeth May is the Cousin Oliver of Federal politics, I guess.

Well, in more interesting debate news, Stephen Harper said yesterday that he was willing to include Elizabeth May in the leaders debate, the are other possibilities. “We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself since, after all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support,” Harper said.

Michael Ignatieff accepted the challenge (exact Tweet: “A one-on-one debate? Any time, any place.”), but what happened after that in terms of trying to set this up is a "He Said-He Said" of epic proportions. “Mr. Ignatieff insisted that his first preference was to have his coalition partners there at the debate, so that’s the format that was proposed and we’ve accepted it,” Harper told journalists in Halifax today. “If Mr. Ignatieff wanted that debate, he could have chosen that debate, but he didn’t.”

First of all, is anyone else sick of the coalition drum banging? It's like Stephen Harper is Swan from The Warriors, leading his rag-tag crew through the menacing streets of Manhattan under attack from all sides by a "coalition" of other gangs - The Turnbull AC's, The Baseball Furies, The Lizzies and The Gramercy Riffs - as they try to get back to Staten Island. The Conservatives have been the government for five years, they lead the polls, they've got momentum and funding, yet somehow, they're the underdogs. 

I can understand why Harper would like to face Ignatieff one-on-one, Layton, Duceppe and May can be scary when their Irish is up, but you can't paint them with the same brush as if they've all fallen under the spell of Cyrus in the middle of Van Cortlandt Park asking them if they dig it. After all, we all know Michael Ignatieff charisma level is more on par with Billy Ray Cyrus, than ambitious, and fictional, New York gangsters.

Day One: Lies and the Lying Liars That Accuse Each Other of Telling Them

At least it didn't take long for this campaign to go negative. The Federal Election is barely 24 hours old and the accusations and tongue-lashings have been flying so fast and furious that the decision as to who the next government should be will probably come down to a "Yo Mama" contest. "Yo Mama's so dumb, she thinks 'Parliamentary Censure' is a disco band from the 70s." "Yo Mama's so fat, she counts as her own riding." And so on.

The wedge, in lieu of any actual issues this election, seems to be about the possibility of a coalition government. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff hit the stump running by issuing a declaration that if the Harper Government is again elected with a minority, he will not seek out a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. Bone-headed a decision that may be to rule it out completely, Stephen Harper saw a chance to attack. “Imagine a coalition of arch-centralists and Quebec sovereigntists trying to work together. The only thing they'll be able to agree on is to spend more money and to raise taxes to pay for it,” he told supporters at a campaign stop.

Still, Ignatieff called a coalition "a legitimate constitutional option,"and said of Harper that he's "fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?”

Meanwhile Gilles Duceppe, never one to let attack politics happen without him, said that Harper "did everything to provoke an election,''and that "The Conservative leader wants to impose his ideology without bounds." Then he showed his ace-in-the-hole: a 2004 letter signed by Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and himself, addressed to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson, discussing the possibility of the three opposition leaders proposed a coalition government if Paul Martin's Liberal minority government lost a confidence vote.

I remember the coalition showdown in 2008, and the arguments against came down to a "You can't do that mentality" with arguments about the undemocraticness of it trumping the fact that it is perfectly lawful according to our constitution and the traditions of a parliamentary democracy. In my mind, after three consecutive minority governments and the strong possibility of a fourth, a lot of Canadians are voting for a coalition government to begin with. If only our politicians could act like grown ups and see it that way.

As for locally, I had cause for concern about the rancor of the electorate this morning. As I walked downtown. on the corner of Edinburgh and Paisley I saw a smashed Marty Burke sign on the Northeast corner. Is this is the tone being set just one day into the election? Then again, perhaps this was just a drunken statement in favour of smashing things. On second thought, maybe its both one and the same. 

This is going to be a long election season.

spring election. (Note My Lack of Enthusiasm)

I missed the budget last night as Synn Studios was hosting Business After 5 for the Guelph Chamber of Commerce. It wasn't until Chamber President Lloyd Longfield said that his Blackberry was ringing off the hook with interview requests from media, local and not-local, that I remembered the straw that was supposedly going to break the government's back was going to come down yesterday.

The Globe and Mail did a pretty good job of breaking down the highlights, but overall the budget aired on the side of conservative. The assumption that there would be enough so-called red meat for the NDP to endorse the budget, and save us all from an election, was ruined when Jack Layton told reporters that the budget missed on his party's four conditions for endorsement: elimination of the federal sales tax on home-heating fuel; measures to greatly increase the number of doctors; a big boost in pensions for poor seniors; and restoration of the home eco-energy retrofit program.

The thing of it is, what is an election going to get us? The national polls show cross-country support per party is largely unchanged. The only real news is in the west where Conservative support is down seven points, while NDP support is up nine points. Despite the scandals, the censures, the rapidly inflating price for fighter planes and the ongoing crumminess of the economy, Stephen Harper's support seems pretty solid, while ambivalence about the Liberals and the NDP continues.

As for the numbers themselves, and article from Monday's Globe breaks it down as 39 per cent for the Conservatives, 28 per cent for the Liberals, and 20 per cent for the NDP. Polls before the 2008 election, put the Conservatives at between 34 and 37 per cent support, while the Liberals were as low as 23 and as high as 30. The result was a second minority, and if the election were held today, then chances are that the result would be minority government number three. 

The situation looks grim for all party leaders; Michael Ignatieff is still fighting the charisma gap, Jack Layton tends to take one step forward then two steps back in terms of seats every election, Giles Duceppe has no power ambitions, and Stephen Harper has to deliver a majority government this time out, or his party's going to have to make some managerial changes in order to ensure that they get one next time. Except... is there a clear sucessor to the man that wants the Government of Canada to go by the more official name "The Harper Government?"

So what's going to happen? Election this May. Everyone wants it, except anyone you ask.

A Sliding Scale of Standards

Happy Fifth Anniversary to Stephen Harper and this Conservative Minority Government. Honestly, who knew we'd make it this far?

Certainly not me. The fact that the Opposition has been met with resounding indifference despite Harper's numerous guffaws (proroguing, economic recession, climate change), is not a testament to Harper's skill as a politician as much as it is a sign of fatigue, with Canadians, about their political leaders. A skilled political campaign machine with resources and a streak of opportunism is what Paul Martin faced during his brief tenure as a minority PM; Stephen Harper hasn't had that problem.

As it stands now, in the next election Harper will only have to win 12 seats to secure a majority. Given the numbers from the last election, gaining that majority is perhaps a small matter of Harper staying the course, doing what's worked for him in past elections, and keeping fingers crossed that the opposition remains too scattered to pose as an effective alternative.

Still, there's a matter of concern for me and other progressives that the shiny Harper government-for-all will quickly disappear in the face of that majority. Let's look at an article in today's paper, about how the federal government took a pass on giving Toronto Pride Week federal stimulus money under the Marquee Tourism Events Program. It got about $400,000 in money for the 2009 festivities, but the request for 2010 funds was denied in spite of the fact that organizers were told that their petition "looked good" and that it met "eligibility requirements." So naturally, last year's Pride Week got no money. 

The argument from Industry Minister Tony Clement was that there are other events in Toronto and it was up to him to spread the wealth, as it were. Luminato and the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair got $2.6 million and $1.9 million respectively. As everyone that's ever applied for an arts grant knows, you never get the full amount that you ask for, so what does it say that those two events got seven-figure cheques, while Toronto Pride was only asking for $630,000? 

Toronto Pride isn't just one of the biggest festival of its kind in the country, but easily one of the most well-known celebrations of Gay Pride the world over. Despite what Carl Paladino said, one simply doesn't "stumble upon" Toronto's Gay Pride Parade, it's all-encompassing cultural affair that can only be eclipsed by Caribana, or a Maple Leafs Stanley Cup victory, and one of those things is science fiction.  

The truth is that gays make some conservatives feel funny, again I quote Carl Paladino: "[T]here were men in Speedos grinding and doing things, okay, to each other on this tractor-trailer. And I just said that's not right." Was it a coincidence that after junior minister Diane Ablonczy gave Toronto Pride money that first year that the decision was taken out of her hands and given to her boss Clement for that second year? Maybe, but then again, it might a coincidence that I break my knuckles when I punch a brick wall. 

There's a constituency in Canada that expects the Conservatives to push the social agenda that they want, an agenda that the majority of Canadians would bulk at and make them think twice about putting their vote to the kinder, gentler Harper of the last five years. How do I know? Look at Saskatchewan, where all but one of the provinces 14 seats were won by Conservatives in the last election. 

Earlier this month, an Appeals Court in Saskatchewan said that marriage commissioners couldn't refuse to perform same sex marriages on religious grounds. These are government employees mind you, not religious figures, who refused to officiate marrigae ceremonies between same sex couples on the grounds of their personal religious objections. This is the kind of thing you usually hear about in the U.S. Bible belt where pharmacists refuse to sell contraception like birth control pills or "Plan B" based on personal religious bias.

 But in Canada, you say. Refusing to marry gay people because your religion says that's wrong? Sorry, that don't jive. And the high courts of Saskatchewan agreed. You took an oath to uphold the law and the law says that a couple made up of two adult men (or two adult woman if you like) can marry each other. You don't go deer hunting if you're a vegetarian, and you don't work as a hedge fund manager if you've taken a vow of poverty. 

There's been a lot of talk about elections lately, and though it flies in the face of everything that a modern political campaign is about, in the next parliamentary election, I want all the parties to be true to themselves. If it's the intention of the Conservatives to pursue a more "traditional" social policy, then say so. If you think that farm animals deserve more money that scantily-dressed, well chiseled gay men with water guns that's fine, but being sneaky about it is going to build more resentment than trust when it's all said and done.  

It's September 1st, and you know what that means...

...Fall election talk, partner! Yee-Haw!

I think that this headline from an article on the Globe and Mail's website says it all: "Ignatieff to Harper: ‘Your time is up'"

So it seems that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has it in his mind to topple the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. “After four years of drifting, of denial, of divisiveness and discord ... Stephen Harper’s time is up,” Ignatieff said Tuesday to party members and national media during a campaign-style rally in Sudbury.

Party on, Iggy! Surely you will find support to bring down Harper in the other opposition parties. All they ever want to do is end the Conservative reign and get another election going, and good thing because you're going to need all three to bring this House of Cards down.

“If the government wants to start acting in the interests of Canadians, then perhaps we can avoid [Ottawa] foisting an election” on voters, NDP finance critic Tom Mulcair said.

Snap! Where's the NDP that will vote against anything Harper puts on the table? Even before they know what it is. But what of Giles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois? From Reuters, "Gilles Duceppe, leader of the federal party that advocates separation for the French-speaking province of Quebec, will speak at 4 p.m. (2000 GMT) in Laval, Quebec, on Wednesday, a Bloc spokesman said."

And Mr. Harper, what do you have to say? “The one thing that could screw this all up is political instability. We have a couple of parties in Parliament, the Bloc Québécois in particular, the NDP as well, they vote for an election every day of the week every time, they've got nothing to do other than fight election campaigns. There is a risk that at some point in the future, as we saw last year, that one of the major parties will try to appease those parties and do bad things to this country as a way of trying to get into office.”

Well, he's on the money about the NDP and the Bloc. I've always said that they have that luxury of opposing every confidence motion because they know their votes alone won't get the job done, and the Liberals are always gun shy about going to the polls prematurely. Plus it always gives the NDP and the Bloc the high ground by saying that there's no difference between a vote for the Liberals or the Conservatives since the one props up the other.

Is Ignatieff baiting the other parties, by preemptively issuing an ultimatum to the Conservatives? Is he daring them to call his bluff, or is he deadly serious about moving full speed ahead with a Fall election? Whatever it is, it's smart politics. Ignatieff has put both the Conservatives and the NDP on the defensive and forced them to maybe look at each other in order to save them both. Jack Layton has to choose whether he's going to follow Ignatieff's lead or risk looking the hypocrite by propping up Harper. The Bloc, meanwhile, face a similar conundrum as the NDP, but that's by no means the same kind of compromise required of the Conservatives should they decide to movie forward and try to and pursuade the Bloc to give them the assist.

Could the Bloc and the Conservatives reach an argeement? Probably not becuase the Conservatives would risk losing a lot of face with their western base. And as for the NDP, their requested concessions - usually more money for healthcare, education and other social programs - is sure not to go over very well with the Conservative caucus, especially in a recession economy. So it begs the question: has Ignatieff put his opponents in checkmate? Well, the first chance they'll get to bring the government down doesn't come until the end of September. An eternity in political life.

The Final Countdown

So the most surprising part of the budget was that there were no surprises in the budget. Shoot, even the CBC didn't show it live and instead unleashed the talking heads as Jim Flaherty laid it down for the House.

On the plus side. there's lots of stimulus: $40 billion in the next two years, but on the down side we're looking at $85 billion in deficits over the next five. Then there's $20 billion in personal income tax cuts this fiscal year and business taxes too are also cut by $2 billion, with up to $200 billion to be made available to businesses in liquidity and financing to ensure Canadian consumers and businesses have access to credit. The unemployed get five extra weeks of E/I, but nothing will be done to accelerate the time in which applicants can start receiving those funds.

Quebec? Hosed, changes to the equalization formula will go forward. Cities? Sure, they're going to get some of that infrastructure cash, but they'll have to navigate the usual governmental obstacle course of red tape to get the money. Conservative street cred in being the stewards of sound and balanced budgets? Gone, Flaherty was all about taking a chance because "These are extraordinary times," he said in a news conference.

And that's not to mention the seriously, sudden turn to a more conciliatory tone coming from the Finance Minister and, by proxy, the Prime Minister's Office. "In the past quarter, the world economy has deteriorated substantially. We consulted broadly with Canadians (and) what we heard from Canadians is that we need to do certain things right away to stimulate the economy."

Well not according to the NDP and Bloc. Giles Duceppe said that there was "nothing in [the budget] to obtain our support." And Jack Layton said it fails to "protect the vulnerable, doesn't create jobs for today and doesn't create jobs for tomorrow." So the fate of the Harper government is now up to Michael Ignatieff in his first real test as Liberal leader. But Layton warned Red leader today, through reporters, that it's "absolutely" Ignatieff's responsibility to defeat the budget because it fails to meet the tests "at a minimum" that he set out for his support.

Oh. what to do, what to do? I'm sure it's going to be a sleepless night for Iggy, but we'll know by 11 am tomorrow what way he's going to swing. Smart money says he'll support the budget with conditions. But it appears in the meantime that things are back to normal on Parliament Hill: the NDP and the Bloc hate everything, the Conservatives get stabby and the Liberals are forced to decide how deep they want the shiv to go.

Look! A press release:

Frank Valeriote reviewing budget with caucus

Frank Valeriote, Member of Parliament, is joining his Liberal colleagues for a careful review of the federal budget.

"The Liberal party has been clear and concise on what we wanted to see in the budget—protection for the most vulnerable Canadians, protection of Canadian jobs and creation of the jobs of tomorrow," said Valeriote. "This government is long-overdue for action to address the economic crisis. This budget must be considered carefully to determine if it will provide the action necessary to get our economy back on track. Above all else, the Liberal Party will act in the best interests of the country."

The economic challenges facing Canada were evident long before the government tabled its autumn economic statement and Parliament was prorogued. It is discouraging that this Conservative government has taken so long to signal a willingness to act.

In September, the Prime Minister said if we were going to have a recession, we would have had it by now. In October, he told us there was no recession, but there were ―a lot of great buying opportunities emerging as a consequence of all the panic.‖ In November, Mr. Flaherty presented an economic update setting out a surplus, when now we know that this Conservative government was aware we were headed into a recession and nevertheless mislead us about it.

"Over 100,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the past two months. It is absolutely unacceptable that this government has wasted time playing political games instead of focusing on the economic crisis," said Valeriote. "It makes one wonder whether we can believe anything that comes out of this Conservative government."

"In these tough economic times Liberals will do our best to make Parliament work for the sake of Canadians," said Valeriote. "However, making Parliament work does not mean that the Prime Minister gets a free ride – he remains accountable to all Canadians and Parliament."

Here we go again... (Again)

As Peter Mansbridge so deftly pointed out, we're back where we were 68 days ago with a Speech from the Throne and a new parliamentary session. However, the nearly eight and a half minute speech delivered by Governor General Michaelle Jean was definitely different in tone from the one last fall. Don Newman just said that the government is scrambling from suffering a "near death experience."

There were not a lot of details in the speech, and honestly what details could it unveil that haven't been leaked by Conservative MPs cross-country in the last couple of days. The promise in the speech was that tomorrow's budget will be, at least partially, focused on helping people at risk; meaning low income earners, seniors and Aboriginal Canadians. And further they will provide "stimulus" while avoiding "long term high deficits."

Well on the surface, the speech seemed to say the right things. All I know is that Harper sat there looking like a kid who was just told that wrestling is fake. Michael Ignatieff says that while he liked the tone of this throne speech better, there's a problem with trust, and the question about what language Canadians can believe when hearing from the Prime Minister. "Canadians face a difficult year, perhaps several difficult years," read Jean. "Our government will do what is necessary to stimulate the economy and invest when necessary for our long term prosperity."

So what's going to happen? Well, Jack Layton said that he has no intention of supporting the Conservatives, on anything, ever. It seems that things have not changed much, NDP members are already saying that they haven't heard anything that will change their minds. And Giles Duceppe, who was first at the microphones, went off crazier than usual. So probably no support there either. So the onus is going to be on Ignatieff, whose shoes I think being in, is not nearly an enviable decision.

The speech ended with these words: "May divine providence be your guide and inspiration." Lord help us if we're leaving this to the gods of fate. Or maybe this is the best move that Harper could have made.

See you at 4 pm tomorrow.

The Barack Show

Tomorrow's the big day for some several million Americans, along with millions of more people worldwide, that are looking forward to some life-changing alterations in their political lives. When Barack Obama takes the Oath of Office tomorrow at around noonish eastern time, he's taking up not just the hopes and dreams of all those people, but is inheriting a whole sackful of crap from his predecessor.

He's not in an enviable position, our President Obama, and he's spent much of the last weekend "as a free man" to downplay expectations, but he's going to have to do more than talk in order to convince people that there are still rough waters ahead. But no matter the practical realities, one can't not smell the sweet scent of change in the air. Obama, a diametric opposite from George W. Bush, in oh, so many way, offers a complete sea change in (hopefully) the way America will do business.

Michael Terry wrote an interesting, and occasionally hilarious, piece on the outgoing President in this week's Echo. I have to say that I agree with a lot of what he said, but I hope to disagree on one thing, and that's that the U.S. has learned a lesson from the last eight years and that they're now on to an idea of singular importance: it DOES matter who's President. Obscure, I know, but true nonetheless. I hope to look back in four years at a promise kept, as opposed to being disappointed that nothing really changed, or rather changed at a snail's pace. As we all know, now's not the time for glacial pacing.

Speaking of progress, it's about a week now until our leaders attempt to get back down to business without metaphorically throwing feces at each other like proverbial monkeys. A week from tomorrow, the budget is going down on Parliament Hill, and it could get ugly... well, uglier. Prime Minister Harper is talking spending in order to jump-start the economy, and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff articulated his willingness to accept a small deficit if it means helping Canadians, at a caucus meeting in Ottawa yesterday. It's nice when we all agree, but the question is: will agreement last the length of the process to pass a budget, or is a confidence motion next week inevitable?

Apparently, the coalition rebellion is still in the cards, and Harper's been lately in a more conciliatory mood, clearly unwilling to go down in history as the PM with the shortest term in office. What interesting times we live in, not that anyone really seems to be noticing right now. But I suspect once Obamamania chills out after tomorrow, it's going to be show time up in here.

Dion Done; Rae Railed; Ignatieff is the Man! Uh?

So, last week was what a week for the Liberal Party of Canada. Stéphane Dion resigned last Monday after the final straw in his leadership was the lack of production value on his rebuttal video to Prime Minister Harper's speech. With Dion back to the back benches, the Liberals acted swiftly to coronate Michael Ignatieff as the new leader, but only one thing stood in their way: The Man Named Rae. But even Bob Rae heard the call, "Get Out Da' Way," and "got out the way" he did. So Iggy ascended to the top of the bottom, and now he's got a whole month to plot the next move.

Dion - I feel sorry for Dion. Having met him a couple of times, I have to say I liked him. I also liked the boldness of the Green Shift Plan. Say what you want about it, but it thought in big terms. The problem was communication, and when it comes to getting the message out, it starts at the top. And since English is far from Dion's first language the substance of the Green Shift was lost in translation, and infighting in the Liberal ranks about its validity didn't help either. Much like John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, I think Dion became a victim of the times. In the New Media Age, the full substance of his policies, as well as his person, didn't fit compact in to sound bites. In the town hall format though, I think he shined. I guess its too bad he couldn't have pulled an Obama and do an half-hour infomercial.

Rae - Come on, Dude! Really? Victory was that close?? Anyway, it was nice of Bob Rae to take the day and act tough as if there was going to be a serious groundswell of support demanding a proper vote because he was a serious leadership contender. Maybe he was, I don't know. It's weird, but given the givens, I was sure Rae didn't have a lot of support considering he's the former NDP Premier of Ontario, and not a fondly thought of one at that. But Ontario is strangely forgiving politically. After the drastic ouster of the Mike Harris Tories, I never would have thought that Ontario would though support behind a Federal Conservative caucus filled with many former Harris Ministers. Rae's a name, you can't deny it. But to me, he's never going to get the top chair after a history of playing political party ping pong.

Ignatieff - So I've never been a huge Michael Ignatieff fan. It's just always seemed to me that the only reason he came back to Canada and ran for government was so that he could quickly ascend to the Prime Minister's Office. Maybe he has altruistic motives, I have no reason to suspect ulterior ones, but if you know the story it just sometimes seems like he had to be dragged back to Canada with the promise of potential power. As for his policies, well, he's already in trouble because he's one of the guys not for the coalition. So maybe, I guess, it's not about power after all. But the thing of it is, the recent Liberal Party hasn't had a lot of success when it comes to Leaders coronated, but then again, things haven't gone as well through the convention route either. And if Dion looked too professorial, then here comes Ignatieff who somehow makes John Kerry look like Jim Carrey. I'll reserve final judgment until I see Iggy in action, but the first he's got to do on the quick is lay out exactly where he is on the subject of coalitions and make it clear in no uncertain terms, especially when Jack Layton is double-dog daring Stephen Harper.

Post-Election New Rules

After every election, I like to take stock and outline briefly some of my thoughts and opinions about the spectacle we all just witnessed. To facilitate the organization of thought, and to inject a little humour, I take a page from the book of Bill Maher, literally...

...and come up with some New Rules of my own.

New Rule: Danny Williams has to be the new leader of the Liberal Party. - Granted he's currently the Progressive Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, but the idea of prominent party leaders crossing the floor is not unheard of - ask Jean Charet. Williams, mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, effectively cock-blocked Harper from getting a seat in NFLD. First he denounced Harper for backing out of the Atlantic Accords, then he started the "Anyone But Conservative" campaign and then he told the fundraisers in his province that if they wanted to keep doing business with him, they won't do business with Harper. The only thing left for Williams to do is take this thing 'cross Canada.

New Rule: If you say you're going to co-operate in Parliament, you have to mean it. - This is the third minority government we've sent to Ottawa, and for the third time, all the party leaders came out afterward saying, "We are going to work together to make Parliament work." But instead of a collegial atmosphere of dialogue and hard work, we've gotten this:






New Rule: Alberta has to get over it. - Remember: "The West wants in." Well, the west is in now. The party they back is the party in power. The oil sands of Alberta power our economy. So why, oh why, is that province still all coloured blue. I know that Canadians have an inferiority complex, but come on!

New Rule: Ignatieff supporters can't say I told you so to Stéphane Dion. - I know a lot of you out there are saying that this wouldn't have happened if Iggy was running the boat. But the fact of the matter is he's just as professorial as Dion, and he has the notable demerit of having only returned to Canada 2 years ago after some 30 years abroad and only came back after practically being begged by Ian Davey and Daniel Brock. Harper may have called Canada a "northern European welfare state," but at least he was here when he said it.

New Rule: Don't break you're own fixed election rule. - $300 million is a lot of money to spend in order to realize that most of the people in this country, still don't really like you that much.

New Rule: John Turmel has to keep running. - With the long list of candidates, the rules at many of the debates were kind of stringent. But Turmel's off the cuff and brutally honest debate responses kept things lively, no matter where you sat on the issue of LETS or professional gambling.

New Rule: Dalton McGuinty should get off the pot. - He didn't endorse his own party, saying that he was just looking out for the best interest of Ontarians because he was going to have to work with the person that formed the government, whoever they may be. I recognize the political tact of hedging your bets, but does the Premier really think that his relationship with the Conservative government can get any worse?

New Rule: Manuel Couto has to reveal himself so that we know he's real. - To my knowledge, the Marxist-Leninist candidate didn't give one interview, make a single public appearance or participate in any all-candidate forum or debate. You've gotta play to win and for me the biggest surprise of the evening was that 29 people knew enough about Couto to want to vote for him.

New Rule: Jack Layton has to stop comparing himself to Barack Obama. - Okay, he never said it out right, but we all saw the little wink when he said, "Vote for the New Democrats." Because we all know who else is a Democrat...

New Rule: We need to have a serious conversation about reforming our democracy. - Now, I've never been a fan of proportional representation. And the form of mixed-member proportional representation proposed by the Ontario government last year never explained where the proportional members would come from, which is one of many reasons why it failed.

But when a party nearly gets majority status with less than 40 per cent of the vote, it's time to look at how and why we elect our government. The fact that the Bloc Quebecois got 50 seats with 10 per cent of the vote, while the Greens got zero with 7 per cent really says a lot about why people might think their vote doesn't count.

Beyond simple numbers though, look at the geography. If NDP or Green voters in Guelph really think their voices aren't heard hear in Ontario, imagine what's like for your colleagues out in Alberta.

In Quebec, it looked like the fortunes of the Bloc were going down until the Conservatives imploded in the fallout of the arts cuts, and went on to win two-thirds of the seats in Quebec. This despite the fact that in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois has become the third ranked party, suggesting that separation isn't the hot topic it once was. But now Quebecers find their fortunes represented by what is essentially a special interest party, and you've got to figure that there a lot of voters displeased. Look at the numbers in Quebec and it's practically a reflection of those nationwide with the Bloc getting only 38 per cent support.

So what to do? Well, Harper's such a big supporter of Senate reform, why not let the Upper House be elected, and elected through proportionality, along with the other proposed changes. Let the Senate have greater influence on policy, by making it more reflective of proper party support, and their policies there in, while the House members remain chosen as the representatives of their riding in the Parliament by being elected by majority.

Now I admit, I haven't thoroughly thought out the details of this plan, and it might not work, but let's at least start the discussion. Otherwise, I fear we're going to do this again and again till either a majority like Harper or the Liberals get smarter. In other words: forever.

Special Guests are coming to town!

Greetings all! I'm caught between shows in Stratford, so I need to be brief.

This the latest edition of the Special Guest pageant. Today's contestants are from all the parties as they host fellow politicians with varying degrees of star-wattage over the next couple of days.

Starting today with the NDP, Tom King held a press conference at City Hall with Windsor MPs, Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh) and Brian Masse (Windsor-West), along with his fellow federal candidates, Malcolm Allen (Welland) and Ryan Dolby (Elgin-Middlesex-London). The topic was Green-Collar job strategy in Ontario and the NDP's plans to address massive job losses in the manufacturing and auto sectors. (More on this tomorrow.)

Next up: the Liberals. And in a weird act of cosmic alignment, the Ontario Young Liberals are having their Summer Fling this weekend at the University of Guelph. (Now I'm not suggesting that it was purposeful since I presume these events are planned far in advance. But still, odd coincidence.) Amongst the speakers at Summer Fling are Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Karen Redman and Liz Sandals. Oh yeah, Frank Valeriote will be there too.

Not to be out done by bringing out party youth, the Green Party is having their own young people coming into town this weekend. And of course where the youth go, party leader Elizabeth May can't be far behind. She'll be here Monday for what I'm told is going to be the first of three visits during the campaign.

Finally, Gloria Kovach is calling out he who is probably the second biggest gun (so to speak) in her party: the Defence Minister, Peter MacKay. MacKay will be canvasing with Kovach tomorrow, so keep an eye out for them in your neighbourhood.

In Echo tomorrow, look for my profile of Tom King, followed up next week with Mike Nagy.