It’s amazing what two and a half years in Ottawa can do to decent people. For starters, they lose of all sense of humour and creativity (National Post columnist Don Martin is a textbook example of that). Then, common sense is thrown overboard in giant-sized buckets – again, this is true of Martin but even more so of the Prime Minister, it seems:

Harper said Friday during an election campaign stop in Calgary that his government would ban the export of the heavy black oil from Alberta to countries with lax environmental laws, specifically countries with more lenient greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies than Canada.

Harper claims that this would be constitutional, as the federal government controls exports, but he may be seriously wrong on that point, as columnist Don Braid explains:

The worst they’ve ever done on that front, as part of the old National Energy Program, was to tax petroleum sales into the U.S. Alberta took Ottawa to court on that matter and won in March 1981. Back then, the provincial Tories treated the NEP like the invasion of the body snatchers.

Natural resources belong to the provinces; Ottawa has no legal say or control in such provincial assets. This is also why a federal carbon tax, as opposed to a provincial one, is unconstitutional (unfortunately, Stéphane Dion has not advanced in his legal studies far enough to understand that).

Whether it is taxes slapped on exports or an outright ban, the established case law from 1981 certainly applies in both cases. However, Ottawa has never allowed itself to be slowed down by “mere technicalities”. So, it must be assumed that this ban will go forward.

This will wreak havoc on the oil industry. One of the fundamental principles in doing business is stability and certainty. Do business in Venezuela, a country run by a lunatic who should be in a straitjacket around the clock, and you never know what to expect – such as your company being stolen (”nationalized”) right from under your nose by that very lunatic.

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach has done his own share in creating uncertainty in the oil business after announcing that he would increase oil royalties last year, but without being too specific on exact amounts and the timeframe. This has resulted in a high degree of uncertainty among the oil barons, many of whom have therefore shifted their focus to Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

If businesspeople are caught hanging in midair and never know what to expect from one day to the next, they will take their business to more stable environments.

Harper’s announcement will add to this insecurity, particularly so as this ban will most certainly be taken to the courts by the Alberta government, with Edmonton and Ottawa wrangling over the issue for who-knows-how-long up and down the various instances of the legal system. It is probably not overly pessimistic to predict a more accelerated pullout of oil companies.

As Don Braid writes, this could be much worse than the NEP (or Dion’s Green Shift) itself:

But as Liberal support begins to collapse, Harper can now claim he’s even gone them one better on the environment, with his own province carrying most of the burden.

Expect voter turnout in Alberta to drop even further after this. Albertans are already sufficiently cynical about politics and sick and tired of being pushed around. Harper’s latest move only reinforces one view that Albertans have held for a long time: It doesn’t matter who is in charge in Ottawa; eventually they will find a way to screw Alberta over (which is why I am an Anything-But-Liberal, Post-Partisan Sovereigntist).

Harper’s bitumen ban will not immediately enliven a separatist movement in Alberta, but it will be jotted down as yet another federal wrong visited upon Alberta. Wait for one or two more shoes to drop like this in the near future, and Alberta will have a sovereigntist movement and party that will show the Bloc Québécois how it is done properly.

Yours truly will be among those leading the charge.

Bloggers everywhere are writing about strategic voting.

Some argue that progressives should vote strategically. Others argue against, making the compelling case that it is never right to vote for the lesser of evils rather than for a party which best accords with one’s values.

This will be my last post on this topic.

As I responded in a comment on another blog, I think people of good conscience can take different sides on strategic voting and both be right.

I’ve weighed back and forth whether voting strategically is the ethical thing to do – for me – and I don’t pretend to know what’s right for anyone else.

But after thinking hard about it, having for a moment thought that, for the first time in all my voting years, it was right that I vote against one party and not for the party whose values most reflect mine, I just can’t do it.

For me, a vote for a party I don’t support goes against everything I believe in, and the principles and values which have guided me throughout my life. But I do understand someone arguing that to uphold their own values – which could be very similar to mine -, they must do exactly opposite to what I’ve decided.

It may be that the tension between the two positions is really that captured between two levels of thought or discourse, between the philosophically ethical and the specifically moral. Which is why each position can be both right and wrong.

From this point on in this election and for several months beyond to the May 2009 BC election, I’ll be spending my time working toward democratic reform. That must start with a change to our voting system, to proportional representation.

Had PR been in place for this election, no voter would be confronted with the dilemma of choosing to vote other than what’s in their heart.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace]

 

Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, stopped in Brockville as part of her whistle-stop tour across Canada. Because of this, the Greens have scored their third straight front page article in the Saturday edition of the Recorder and Times.

 Two articles: ‘May touts tax cuts as part of carbon plan‘ and ‘He’s the campaign manager, but he won’t be casting ballot‘ were in the paper today.

 The Leeds-Grenville Liberals opened their campaign office today with former deputy prime minister John Manley.

 The NDP and the Conservatives remain relatively quiet during the campaign. Gord is playing it safe during the debates and Steve is up to the same old stuff replacing Jokes with substance (which works).

Going to challenge the recent prediction made by DemocraticSPACE in Leeds-Grenville. The NDP will not hold on to their previous 15% and will likely finish around 11-13%. Although Marjory and the local Liberals are running a weak campaign, they DO have a base and will likely capture around 20% of the vote. The Conservatives are running a very ‘conservative’ campaign. Are not paying much attention to the sign war (no more then the liberals and Greens), not responding to critisism at the debates, and have not sent out a mass mailout yet (unlike last go round). Look for them to get about 55-56%. The Greens are running a much stronger campaign, and traditionally poll ahead of the party. I suspect the Greens will keep their previous third place finish in 2007, and the Green Party leader will be the only party leader to visit the riding this time around. look to the Greens to capture 11 to 14%.

Au début de la campagne, j’ai envoyé un courriel aux cinq principaux partis afin de connaître leurs intentions à propos du pont Champlain. En leur indiquant que je comptais en parler ici.

Un seul a répondu. Le candidat néo-démocrate, Hoang Mai, m’a transmis ceci. Comme il reprend en gros la position de l’Agence métropolitaine de transport, je me permets de copier sa réponse tout en la modifiant afin d’en permettre une lecture plus aisée (j’ai inséré les liens hypertexte au lieu de laisser les adresses URL intégrales). Le sens de ses propos a été respecté.

Bonjour M. Fortin,

Pour l’instant, je ne peux pas vous donner la position officielle du NPD concernant le sujet.  Notre caucus de la Montérégie se rencontre sous peu afin de déterminer une position officielle, je vous en ferai part par la suite, d’où la raison de mon retard à vous répondre, désolé.

De mon côté, je m’oppose à l’idée de construire un nouveau pont ou tunnel et il semblerait que c’est la position des autres candidats de la région, mais comme je vous l’ai mentionné, nous ne l’avons pas encore “officialisée”.

Dans son mémoire présenté à la Commission de consultation sur l’amélioration de la mobilité entre Montréal et la Rive-Sud en avril 2002, l’Agence Métropolitaine de Transport (AMT) recommandait à la commission de ne pas retenir le projet de tunnel ou pont/auto entre la Rive-Sud et Montréal, à la page 6 du rapport: “Un nouveau pont ou tunnel augmenterait l’utilisation de l’automobile au dépens du transport collectif, ce qui détériorerait la qualité de vie au coeur de l’agglomération, aggraverait les nuisances environnementales de l’automobile, et pénaliserait le transport des marchandises.”

Le transport en commun sous la forme d’un sytème léger sur rail (SLR) était plutôt recommandé.  Par la suite, les ÉTUDES D’AVANT-PROJET POUR UN SLR DANS L’AXE DE L’AUTOROUTE 10 / CENTRE-VLLE DE MONTRÉAL
“En 2001, le gouvernement fédéral, par le biais de Développement économique
Canada et de la Société des ponts fédéraux limitée (SPFL), ainsi que le gouvernement du Québec, par le biais du ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ), ont accepté de financer, à parts égales, des études d’avant-projet pour l’implantation d’un SLR dans l’axe de l’autoroute 10 qui utiliserait l’infrastructure de l’Estacade du pont Champlain. L’AMT fut mandatée comme maître d’oeuvre et un comité directeur, présidé par un représentant de Transports Canada et un représentant du MTQ, a assuré la direction des études. Un montant de 14 millions de dollars a été prévu pour défrayer le coût de ces études.”

Cette étude analyse différents scénarios et tenant compte de multiples facteurs et fait les recommandations suivantes, en ordre (avec leur note):

1. Système léger sur rail via l’Estacade 86%
2. Voie réservée pour les autobus sur l’Estacade 73%
3. Nouvelle ligne de métro 65%
4. Voie réservée pour les autobus sur le pont Clément 56%
5. Voie réservée pour les autobus sur le pont Champlain dans le sens de la circulation 52%
6. Scénario de base à l’horizon 2006 (statu quo) 47%
7. Nouveau pont routier entre la Rive-Sud et Montréal 46%

A la lumière des études déjà faites, je m’oppose personnellement à la construction d’un tunnel étagé pour le prolongement du métro et surtout, à l’ajout de voies pour les véhicules.

In any election there are usually hard cores of supporters that will show up to do the grunt work of campaigns – the door knocking, the phoning, the sign placing and so many other tasks.   When a campaign is going well, more peripherally engaged people begin to show up at the campaign office.  It’s not easy to knock on someone’s door or phone a stranger.  If people believe they will not get a bad reception, they are more likely to volunteer.  Conversely, while a core suporter can withstand negative responses, more marginally engaged people are likely to find it difficult to do so.

Terence Young’s campaign is having good days.  Volunteers are plentiful but yet all feel needed as this race is still tight. 

Over at Bonnie Brown’s campaign, they may feel they are reliving the nightmare last days of ‘Asphalt Annie’ Mullvales’s doomed PC campaign in 1993.  Volunteers are becoming fewer as the the SS Dion takes on water dragging down Liberal candidares in the process.  Bonnie Brown is unlikely to survive the SS Dion shipwreck.

The anti Harper sentiment, although shrinking, is likely to find expression in NDP and Green support according to what non CPC supporters are saying. 

The Blue wave had swept into Oakville in 2006 but some last minute Liberal scare tactics caused it to retreat somewhat from the Mississauga border.  There will likely not be a repeat of the same phenomenon this time. 

Barring a knockout blow of Harper by Dion in the English language debate, the deal is done.  Terence Young will be elected MP for Oakville on October 14, 2008.  How many want to bet on such an event?  Not too many, I think.

Up in Halton, the CPC candidate is gaining thanks to blunders by Liberal Garth Turner caught on CPAC.  The Dion Train Wreck is also threatening to include Garth in the mangled wreckage soon to result from Dion’s leadership.  Initial resentment against Lisa Raitt’s appointment as CPC candidate is fading among previously upset CPC supporters as the prospect of getting rid of Turner grows stronger.

Cet homme s’appelle Gabriel Arsenault. Il est candidat libéral dans le comté de Chambly-Borduas. Âgé de 20 ans, il est actuellement en seconde année universitaire en vue d’obtenir une baccalauréat multidisciplinaire.

Cet homme est également membre d’un groupe, sur Facebook, qui milite pour une cause aussi noble que l’environnement ou la cruauté dans la chasse aux phoques : la protection des mannequins de sous-vêtements suédoises!

Soyez prévenus!

Si vous cherchiez encore des preuves de l’inutilité de Facebook…

In my typically even-handed way, I now turn to the Conservative candidate for Thornhill, Peter Kent, who happens to be a senior member of an outfit called the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

What is the CCD?

It’s a group that appears to enjoy fomenting anti-Muslim hysteria. The organization even sucked in that indefatigable anti-Muslim campaigner and promoter of campus snitch lines, Daniel Pipes. Pipes was forced to retract comments he made about Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, which had been based upon misinformation received from CCD. (Pipes refers in his screed to Ezra Levant’s further smears of Alghabra, which I dealt with some time ago, and makes additional defamatory remarks that need not concern us here.)

CCD’s legal counsel has been none other than David Harris, whose inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary is notorious in its own right, and who has recently been fussing out loud about “out-of-control immigration.” Harris was in the news last year making some credulous public comments about a hilariously silly “bugged money” story emanating from the US Defence Security Service.

Here is part of CCD’s statement of purpose:

“At CCD, we believe that our foreign policy should reflect our respect for life and liberty. If we want peace, we must support beleaguered allies who share our Canadian values. Instead, many in our past governments have made it their career to condemn and criticize the United States and Israel, while being apologists for terrorists who celebrate the killing and maiming of men, women, and children. [emphasis mine --DD]”

CCD does not name those “many” in previous Canadian governments who have “been apologists for terrorists.” But this kind of shrill, defamatory, McCarthyite rhetoric is par for the course. Check out these CCD media topics for yourselves, and take particular note of the often hateful rhetoric in which they are couched.

Does Peter Kent’s association with this extremist group merit some attention from bloggers and the media–and from Muslims in the Thornhill riding?

[Thx to Firebrand for the suggestion.]

UPDATE: Reader Buckets reminds us that CCD was one of the infamous “42 organizations” demanding the firing of Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for chairing the committee that awarded the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Read all about that bogus complaint here.

UPPERDATE: A reader pointed me to this press release from CCD (David Harris), urging political and diplomatic relations with the Indian state of Gujurat. Why Gujurat? Could it have anything to do with the militant anti-Islamism of the government there–documented by Human Rights Watch?

Canadians are inching towards the big election day on October 14, although most voters in this country are glued to their TV sets watching the terrible financial debacle in the United States unfold. One newspaper columnist has suggested that the Canadian election should be suspended until it can generate as much momentum and interest as the race south of the border. This is missing the point entirely, because the Canadian landscape is about to be altered in a very big way for a long time to come.

The U.S. race for the White House is of interest to Canadians, no doubt, if nothing else than for the historic first-time African-American candidate who seems to be winning the race, thus making the 2008 U.S. election a truly historic event to remember. Other than that, though, the campaign in the U.S. is driven by a crisis that no one would wish on their worst enemy. This is hardly the kind of momentum or interest that we in Canada should be wishing for.

The election in Canada is much more interesting for one single fact: it will change Canadian politics in a way as it never has before. The former Big Red Machine, the Liberal Party a.k.a. “Canada’s natural governing party” and now just a shadow of its former self, is at risk of being decimated on election day and could end up in third place behind the social-democratic NDP. Based on one of the most recent polls, the NDP has pulled to within four points of the Liberals, well within the margin of error. While having formed a number of provincial governments, the NDP has never managed to get anywhere close to real power in federal politics. With NDP leader Jack Layton’s popularity rising, way ahead of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, this election could produce an unprecedented result for Canada’s social democrats.
(more…)

In a way if you look at this election you can see how things come full circle. I often like to talk about the issue with the Liberal from the point of view of their previous Leadership race being a microcosm of what is wrong with the party.

In the leadership race The Liberal party largely made it known that this was going to be the Leadership convention in which the Liberal Party changed. They would elect a new Leadership which was not a product of the old crony isms and patronages.
With this in mind the top candidates were Michael Ignatieff – an outsider to Canadian Politics, Bob Rae – an outsider to Federal politics by many reckonings, and in a distant third Stephen Dion – someone who has held high positions in the Liberal government and Party.

The time comes around and the the various run-ons are done,

-Martha Hall Findlay endorses Stéphan Dion after being Last on the First Ballot
-Ken Dryden Endorses Stéphane Dion after being elimanted on the second ballot
-Gerrard Kennedy endorses Stephen Dion after being eliminated on the 3rd Ballot.

So basically the Liberal Party claims that they are going to change the way things done, and then instead elects Stéphan Dion in a series of back room deals. You know why Dion is such a poor leader? Because he wasn’t chosen based on his merit, he was chosen because of the friends he had.

It proves two things about the Liberal party, which has been proven by their refusal to take down the government, because the polls did not suit them. First the Liberal party is very good at spinning things, but in the end it is all spin and they will continue to previous ways of doing things. Secondly, the Liberal Party stands for absolutely zero principles, other than gaining power.

Someone might ask me, why do I chose to identify myself as a Liberal? Well because I dislike the conservative stance against the rule of law, minority rights, and social responsibility. On the other side I dislike that the NDP really just stands for a number of special interest groups, questionable economics, and basic elitism. Also I like to vote for a party that has a chance of winning.
I used to think the Liberals stood for a balance, for someone like me who often likes moderate views of things. Some call it Blue Liberalism others Red Tory, call it what you want I don’t feel that any party really represents me.

So why even vote?

A poll published by the Toronto Star says Liberals et NDP are tied at 21 %, the Conservatives in front at 40%.

Well, well.  It seems the NDP campaign is paying off, they’re taking advantage of the liberal weakness.  This might be also related to the lack of confidence Canadians have over the liberal plan towards economy. It seems the ultraliberal free market strategy has gone wrong in the USA and only the NDP has a different strategy towards the economy.

And maybe more and more Canadians realize that aside from the moral social issues, Conservatives et Liberals both stand on the right when it comes to many issues thus the Liberals won’t make much of an opposition in parliament.

Meanwhile, Liberals try to reach the ndp and green voters to go with them to oppose Harper but its too late and too far right for most NDP and green voters.  Layton will cancel corporate tax cuts done by Harper and endorsed by Dion.  Only this type of strategy will help the middle class ordinary people who are always squished by the wealthy minority.

Watch Layton on the debate next week.  I hope he talks about the Afghan War and reminds us of the Liberals endorsing several times the conservatives agenda in the last two years.

Malgré les efforts répétés que les médias locaux et DemocraticSpace font pour trouver la candidate conservatrice dans St-Bruno-St-Hubert, Mme Nicole Charbonneau Barron, il n’y a rien à faire. Silence radio aux journalistes qui veulent couvrir les élections fédérales.

En fait non, car il y a des développements. L’attachée de presse de la candidate, Julie Gaudreau, a contacté les rédactions du Journal de St-Bruno et du Versant, deux hebdomadaires couvrant une partie du comté de St-Bruno-St-Hubert, afin de leur offrir l’exclusivité d’une lettre ouverte à publier intégralement.

Les rédactions ont refusé.

La candidate conservatrice a fait ce qu’elle avait à faire : elle a acheté un espace publicitaire. Où elle ne semble avoir tiré aucune leçon des dernières semaines.

Qu’elle le veuille ou non, Mme Charbonneau Barron est absente. Une campagne fédérale demande un minimum de présence dans les débats publics et les enjeux locaux. Elle n’a pas le prestige d’un André Arthur, capable de gagner des élections avec comme seule arme son nom. Elle doit clarifier son passé (car oui, il peut soulever des questions pour une quantité non-négligeable d’électeurs potentiels) et faire face à la musique.

Régurgiter les lignes envoyées par la permanence du parti (les trois derniers paragraphes de sa publicité se retrouvent, à des virgules près, dans le discours de tous les conservateurs au Québec) ne changent rien. Personne ne reproche la foi catholique de Mme Charbonneau Barron. Avoir été porte-parole de l’Opus Dei (et, on le suppose car impossible de vérifier, membre) exige cependant certains éclaircissements et nier cet état de fait est probablement la pire insulte qu’on puisse faire à ses électeurs.

À moins que ce soit les instances fédérales du Parti conservateur qui tiennent fermement les guides du carrosse… ça expliquerait peut-être ce gênant silence.

In a Kingston This Week interview Rick Downes said that he has heard at the doorstep that people were worried that Harper would do to Canada what Harris did to Ontario and that the local Conservative candidate Brian Abrams was not a “Red Tory” but a Harris-Harper conservative. Downes claimed he was picking up support from Red Tories. He also said he had detected disaffected Liberals–those who think that it is time for a change in local representation. In a campaign news release Brian Abrams has challenged Peter Milliken to come to the North End of Kingston to explain why his party would add a tax on everything from groceries to home heating and to admit that the carbon tax will cost countless jobs. Meanwhile, there seems to be a dearth of all candidates meetings in the city. Candidates are talking to the press and to small groups of voters but not face to face with each other.

I’ve very little info about this All Candidates Meeting except to report that:

• it was hosted by the BC Nurses Union;
• took place at the Coast Bastion in Nanaimo;
• was attended by Christina Knighton (Green),  Brian Scott (Liberal) and NDP incumbent Jean Crowder; and
• Conservative Reed Elley was a no-show.

A report in the Cowichan NewsLeader on Wednesday indicated a fifth candidate running: Jack East, for the Marxist-Leninist Party. 

Barring some major development, it is almost certain now that the Conservatives will win the election on October 14 and form the next government. Whether it is a minority or majority is largely irrelevant, as the Liberals will likely be so preoccupied with getting their own house in order following a second and most certainly more severe defeat that they will have little interest in blocking Conservative intentions in Parliament for the next year at least and thus forcing another election (should it be another minority Conservative government). What the almost certain Conservative victory means is that the dynamic of this campaign has shifted quickly since it began, from one of the Conservatives and the Liberals competing for who forms government to one where the Liberals, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Quebecois are all competing for what the composition of the opposition benches will look like. Such a scenario presents a mortal danger to the Liberals and a golden opportunity to the other opposition parties, especially the NDP.

As long as it looked like the Conservatives could be defeated, the Liberals had a simple yet effective card to play: that they were the only force that could stop another Harper government. Voters who may have been more inclined towards the NDP or Greens yet fearful of more years of Conservative rule could mitigate their decision to opt for the Liberals with the knowledge that their strategic vote was blocking the Conservatives. For NDP or Green voters to go Liberal now in order to stop the Conservatives makes little sense when every poll puts the party at 25% or so and well behind the Tories. The question for anti-Harper voters increasingly becomes not who do you vote for to actually stop Harper but who do you want to oppose Harper in a new Parliament where the Conservatives have won re-election. If the ballot question for anti-Harper voters remains the latter of the two on October 14, the Liberals will possess two major disadvantages. The first is that the Liberal Party’s habit of abstaining on numerous votes during the last year has weakened the party’s credibility as a force that stands up to the Conservatives. The second is that Dion’s tenure as Liberal leader will likely not extend much farther beyond election day, meaning that the Liberals will be ineffective as an opposition to Harper for at least the period in which they search for a new leader. The likelihood that the Liberals will have a new leader by this time next year also throws a wrench in Liberal appeals to staunchly left-wing anti-Harper voters, as such voters can’t be certain that the new Liberal leader will have the same progressive credentials as Dion. Would overtly left-wing voters want to vote for a Dion-led opposition only to end up with an Ignatieff-led opposition in a year’s time?

(more…)

This is the last in a series of four posts about each of the four major parties in the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, which are posted in the order of the 2006 vote totals. This post deals with the Greens.

2006 results

The Greens did quite well across Alberta in the 2006 election, increasing their vote totals almost across the board, often drastically. Edmonton-Strathcona, on the other hand, was the only riding in the province where the Green vote went down last election, both in terms of percentage and in terms of actual votes. This seems to be traceable back to the presence of local environmental lawyer and international environmental law consultant Linda Duncan as the NDP candidate, who came a strong second.

The winter of 2007 was nomination season in Edmonton-Strathcona, and the Greens were no exception. In mid-February Don Hill, former broadcaster for the popular Wild Rose Forum on Edmonton CBC radio, was nominated as the candidate. This was confirmed a few weeks later in the See Magazine article “The Return of Don Hill: Broadcaster carries Green flag in Strathcona” (which can now only be read in cache), and in a letter from Elizabeth May about issues concerning the nomination procedures in the riding, reposted in a blog.

I won’t be delving into the details of rumours I don’t have print sources for, but just generally we can talk about the period that followed as the rumour period. First, there were rumours that, for various reasons, Hill wasn’t actually going to run. Then there were rumours that David Parker, who actually ended up running in Edmonton Centre, was going to replace him. Then there were rumours that the local Greens were thinking about not running a candidate in Edmonton-Strathcona at all, so as not to dig into the potential vote for NDP candidate Linda Duncan. Finally, current candidate Jane Thrall was nominated earlier this month.

(more…)

The Brian Murphy MP Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe website is temporarily off-line during the 2008 Federal election.

?!?

He’s still the MP though isn’t he?

Crossposted – Spink About It