Monday, July 31, 2006

Journal: Dion the compromise candidate

Nice column in the Edmonton Journal today that makes a lot of good points about why Stephane Dion is the right person to take the helm of the good ship Liberal.

I think the alternating leaders between Quebec and the rest of Canada thing isn't the factor it's often made out to be, but otherwise the author makes a lot of sense.


There's a number of choice quotes in the piece, but I'll choose to highlight this one:


In two of their last three leadership conventions, the Liberals opted to anoint a "winner" who could walk right into the Prime Minister's Office. John Turner and Paul Martin both proved a disappointment and led their party to defeat. In the other contest the Liberals opted for the less flashy, more solid Jean Chretien, who could lead them in Opposition and provide an alternative for Canadians when the Mulroney Conservatives collapsed.


While I think Stephane has plenty of star quality, I see what he's saying, and I think he has a good point. It's also a good piece of advice for those who are determined to find the next Trudeau. If we're looking for substance over style (and I really think we should be) Stephane has it in spades.

And as I think anyone who has seen him on the campaign trail will attest, he's working on the style too.


Stephane Dion has qualities to take Liberals far
Cabinet experience, Quebec link among strengths
David Watts, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Monday, July 31, 2006

Stephane Dion is the compromise candidate who may just succeed in holding the other Stephen, Prime Minister Harper, to a minority in the next election, and replacing him in the election after that.

Third of three front-runners, he may emerge by default after the other two have been examined and found wanting.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Iggy’s on his way

(Scroll down for update) Where’s Iggy? seems to have replaced Where's Waldo? as one of the more popular past times in the Liberal blogsphere over the past week or two. Rumours abound, but I can report Michael Ignatieff should now be back in the country.

Those watching the candidate’s online calendar will know he was scheduled to be in Comox, British Columbia today for a get together with local Liberals in Vancouver Island North. That’s my old stomping grounds, so I was interested to hear how the event went, and hoped some of the soap opera rumours swirling around might be put to rest.


Turns out Ignatieff wasn’t there, but I think with good reason. David Hurford, his Western co-chair, explained to the 30 Liberals (good Fed Lib crowd for the Comox Valley) that had gathered to meet Ignatieff that he and his wife Zsusannah have been in Budapest visiting her very ill mother and father. Their original flight back to Canada was cancelled, leaving them scrambling to book another. The next flight they could get didn’t get them into Toronto until Sunday night, so they should be in the country by now, but alas, couldn’t make the Comox gathering.


A make-up visit has been scheduled for August 20th, just before the Liberal caucus meeting in Vancouver, and the people that had turned out were very understanding of the situation and appreciative that Hurford had come to keep the date.


I think the communications around Ignatieff’s time away could have been handled better by his campaign but I firmly believe, as I think those who had hoped to meet him Sunday did too, that family must always trump politics. He has been where he has needed to be, and I won’t fault him for that. In fact, it’s a bit refreshing for a politician to say I’m taking care of family right now, no press releases, no conference calls, family comes first.


I hope that those who dislike Ignatieff will confine their criticisms to the policy arena. Going after a man for putting family first won’t get you very far in my books, and I don’t think I’m the only one that feels that way.

UPDATE: I'm told Michael has phoned the hosts to apologize for his absence from the event yesterday. So, we learn that a) He is now somewhere with phone access, and b) He's a classy guy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, July 30, 2006

George Bush singing "Sunday Bloody Sunday"

It being Sunday, I thought it would be a good day to share this video. It's rather well done, enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Yuan nominated in Kingsway

(Scroll down for the update) The Canadian Press is reporting local businessperson Wendy Yuan was nominated todayas the Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, the riding that David Emerson won as a Liberal before crossing the floor to negoiate a softwood lumber sellout no one seems to like, except for his old friends at Canfor.

No word on numbers, except that it was close. The other candidate for the nomination was local lawyer Mason Loh. The CP story didn't have his reaction to the result. Earlier in the week, he had complained about the timing of the meeting.

Whether Emerson runs again or not (if i was a betting man, I'd bet no) Yuan is right when she said the NDP will be the real competition in that riding. Should be an interesting race, and it begins today.


Liberals nominate new federal election candidate
TIFFANY CRAWFORD
Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — The Liberals nominated a new federal election candidate on Saturday in the Vancouver riding currently held by Liberal defector and Conservative Trade Minister David Emerson.

Wendy Yuan, the president of a B.C.-based export company, won the nomination against lawyer Mason Loh in what a Liberal spokesman called a close race.
(more)

UPDATE: Vancouver radio station CKNW is reporting the results of the nomination race as Yuan 324, Loh 296, and quotes Loh's campaign manager, Greg Wilson, as saying Loh is considering an appeal.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We’re picking a leader, not a Canadian Idol

The Toronto Star seems to feel the current Liberal leadership race is boring, lamenting there is no Pierre Trudeau amongst the field. Frankly, what I find boring is this old, tired media line. We’re not trying to entertain the media, we’re trying to pick a leader that can lead the country.

The author laments the lack of a Trudeau and calls the field boring. Just whom, I wonder, does she think would have set things on fire? Would we have seen McKenna mania had Frank entered the race? Manley mania? Rock-mania? I very highly doubt it.


I liked Pierre Trudeau, but frankly in death he has obtained a mythic status he didn’t have in life, or at least certainly not in office, at least after 1968. It’s time we as Liberals stopped focusing on the past, and instead looked to the future.


But back to the past for one moment, the last leadership candidate to evoke some shades of PET was Paul Martin. We all know that story. I liked Paul. But even without the baggage, the warning signs were there. People saw in Paul what they wanted to see, even if it wasn’t really there. He helped that along by making so many promises he became all things to all people. Visions of Martin-mania danced through our heads, along with dreams of 308 seats. When it came time to deliver on all these promises, real or imagined, he couldn’t. They were often diametrically opposed. The result? Not much got done, and the opposition began its dithering routine.


It’s time we stopped looking for the next Trudeau/Moses to lead us from the wilderness and into the promised land. There hasn’t been a Trudeau since Trudeau. Have the Cons ever had a Trudeau? If they have, it’s not Steve. Ed Broadbent might be the NDP’s Trudeau, but I don’t think Jack is.


We have 11 candidates for the Liberal leadership, and I like most of them. There’s a number here that I think would make excellent Prime Ministers. So why have they failed to generate excitement?


Well, I don’t necessarily grant the premise, but here’s a few things to consider. We’re tired. We’ve been through two elections and now a second leadership race in just a few years. We’re also now on the opposition benches, bone weary after the events of these past few years. It’s hard to get too excited right now. Also, it’s the summer, it’s a ways until Super Weekend.


But the way you recover from an election defeat isn’t to do lots of splashy stuff that will get lots of national media play (such as jet skiing up to a dock in a wet suit). As Steve Harper learned, in this exercise the national media is really irrelevant. Rebuilding, which is our task now, is a ground game. It’s going into every riding in the country, to church basements and bake sales and clam bakes and bbqs, meeting with groups of 10 and 20 Canadians and talking about the country and our vision for it.


It may not be exciting, but that’s how you win leadership races, that’s how you win elections, and that’s how you rebuild a political party. That’s where our focus needs to be. If it fails to excite the media, frankly, I could care less.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More opposition to softwood sellout

Looks like all this talk of softwood brinksmanship may turn out to be unnecessary. The CEOs of two of B.C.’s largest forestry companies, with enough combined clout (by virtue of their outstanding lawsuits against the U.S.) to kill the deal have spoken out against the proposed agreement for the first time.

They indicated the deal is unacceptable in its current form and in need of change. They haven’t said they’ll kill the deal yet, but with PM Stephen "accountability" Harper steadfastly refusing to even think about any changes, it’s not looking good.


There is one big forest company in the province supportive of the sellout though. Interestingly it’s the company that has its former CEO in the Harper cabinet, and still collecting a company pension. He’s also the guy that negotiated the billion dollar sellout. Who is he? Why he’s David Emerson, of course.


Small world indeed.


Unhappy B.C. forest CEOs could kill softwood deal
SOFTWOOD LUMBER : West Fraser Timber and Interfor say they want Ottawa's deal changed
Gordon Hamilton, Vancouver Sun

Published: Saturday, July 29, 2006


Two of British Columbia's leading forest industry CEOs with enough clout to kill the proposed softwood lumber deal said Friday they don't like the agreement Prime Minister Stephen Harper intends to introduce in the House of Commons in September.


Hank Ketcham, CEO of West Fraser Timber, and Duncan Davies, CEO of Interfor, both said the agreement before Parliament is lacking and they are attempting to have it changed. They refused to say whether they would go as far as exercising the veto they have.


The statements mark the first time industry leaders with enough exporting clout to end the deal have spoken out. Both CEOs made the comments in separate conference calls with investors.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Blogging and work

Do you blog while at work? I’ll admit I do from time to time, but I always confine it to downtime or lunchbreaks, and make the time up elsewhere as needed. I also avoid blogging about work and topics I’d cover at work.

It’s a fine line though that all bloggers need to carefully tread. According to a story in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, one blogger in Paris went too far and was fired by her employers for “loss of trust” and damaging her employer’s reputation. She’s suing her former employers for US$110,000 in damages.


In this case, it looks to me like she might have gone too far. For example, two days she took off work to allegedly care for her children she acknowledged in her blog she was playing hooky. It's still a sad story though, and a cautionary tale.


There have also been cases closer to home, notably Penny Cholmondeley, who was fired from her job as a marketing officer for Nunavut Tourism in 2004 because they objected to her blog writings.

Interestingly, it seems there is a term for bloggers bring fired for their blogging: getting “dooced.” It refers to the case of a Heather B. Armstrong, who was fired for blogging about her colleagues. Her site is www.dooce.com, hence “dooced.”

H/T for the Paris story to The Mediasphere & The Blogsphere. It’s the blog of Dr. Abby Goodrum, a professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism. On a semi-related sidenote, she’s currently working on a study of blogging and journalism that should make for an interesting read.


Back to blogging and work, there’s also an interesting conversation on the topic happening at Carmi Levy’s Written Inc. blog.


Given the increasing frequency of cases like this and the libel chill story the other day, I know I’m going to be more careful in the future about when, what, and how I blog. Initially I blogged anonymously, concerned about the work/personal life divide. But a few months later I decided that as long as I avoided work topics it shouldn’t be an issue, and I felt blogging under my name lent more weight to my writings than blogging anonymously.


Whether your're anonymous or not though, as these examples show the risks are still the same. I’d be interested in hearing from you. How do you handle the work/blog divide? How did you make your decision on anonymity/non-anonymity, and why?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Con Mid-East fundraising flap media round-up

It looks like this story has broken from the blogsphere into the MSM in a big way, with both TV news coverage and coverage by daily newspapers across the country today.

Interestingly, the Blogging Tories have been silent on the issue. I’ve only seen one of them post on the topic, of course dismissing it as no big deal, taking much the same line as Con commenters have taken here and elsewhere.


Again, I have no problem with issue-based fundraising. I think the Liberals need to do a better job of it. But it is absolutely classless to attempt to raise money on Harper’s handling of the Middle East crisis with the crisis is far from over, when thousands of Canadians are still waiting to be evacuated from Lebanon, and people are still being killed and wounded every day. Nine Canadians have died so far, and he’s fundraising?


The bombs are still falling and Harper is shaking-up Canadians for cash. I still fail to see how people can defend that. I think most Canadians, whether they support Harper’s foreign policy position or not, are just as disgusted as I am.


Globe and Mail: Tories ask for special donations, By Bill Curry

Toronto Sun: Tories milk war for cash, By Alan Findlay

Toronto Star: Tories draw on Mideast crisis to raise money, by Linda Diebel

And of course a CP story yesterday evening by Joan Bryden is getting wide play.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, July 28, 2006

MSM picking-up Harper’s Middle East fundraising

The Canadian Press now has a story on the wire about the Conservative Party of Canada fundraising e-mail sent out yesterday soliciting soliciting funds based on Harper’s handling of the still ongoing crisis in the Middle East, which has seen at least eight Canadians killed so far, and bombs still falling.

I’ll let you read it but I will point out that while the author of the letter, CPC executive director Michael Donison, couldn’t be reached for comment, an unnamed “senior Conservative source” (why not go on the record Sandra?) not only refused to apologize for the letter, but actually defended it:


But a senior Conservative source made no apologies for the executive director's pitch.


"The point of the letter is to remind Canadians that they have a prime minister that's able to make decisions and at times those decisions may be tough," the source said.


I’d like to know why this Prime Minister made the decision to send out this letter, and use an ongoing war as a fundraising pitch. That wasn’t a tough decision Stephen, that was an easy one. It's wrong.


Tories use Harper's stand on Middle East conflict to pitch for donations
July 28, 2006 - 18:30
By: JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservatives are trying to turn Prime Minister Stephen Harper's principled stand on the Middle East conflict into a money-maker for the party.

Using the Lebanese turmoil - in which hundreds of civilians, including at least nine Canadians, have been killed - to make a fundraising pitch has drawn the ire of at least one Liberal leadership hopeful.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons fundraising on the Mid-East conflict

Well, just when you think you've seen it all, you're proven wrong. But it seems the Conservative Party of Canada is using the current conflict in the Middle East as a fundraising pitch to solicit donations from Canadians. All while the bombs are still falling, and Canadians are still being evacuated.

Sean Holman has the scoop over at Public Eye Online, with the text of a fundraising pitch sent to the party faithful via e-mail yesterday by CPC executive director Michael Donison.


I debated doing a para by para 'Fisking' of the e-mail, and I could go on a rant about the shamelessness of this. But really, I think why this is disgusting is obvious and the e-mail speaks for itself.


I don't know what else to say, except I don’t know how this could be defended.


Here's the e-mail:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Finally - A Leader who's willing to stand up and take a tough stand
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:20:16 -0700
From: Conservative Fund Canada

Reply-To: donate@conservative.ca

En Francais | In English


During the last federal election, Stephen Harper promised to give Canada a principled foreign policy that advances and defends the Canadian values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. As Prime Minister, he is delivering.

Dear,

Our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper was amongst the first of the world's leaders to take a principled stand on the new turmoil in the Mid-East. Since then, leaders the world over have risen to stand with Stephen Harper. Our nation has every reason to be proud.


Admit it: Moral clarity feels a lot better than the endless equivocation we found with our previous government.


But not everyone is grateful for the strong, clear direction of Canada's new government and this includes in particular the opposition parties who are only interested in maneuvering for party advantage.


And so, I must turn to you to ask you for your support. The fact is: the opposition is not thrilled with the growing strength of the Harper government and the resurgence of national pride Canadians are showing in their country. You need only look at their ceaseless machinations to see that they are doing everything in their power to bring this government down..


We must be ready for an election now because the opposition is blindly determined to drag the country to the polls, on any pretext they can contrive.


As a matter of public record, everyone knows the Conservative Party of Canada managed the last election without adding a dime to the Party's debt. You made that possible, it's just that simple. And if we intend to win the next election and win a majority - we need to continue moving heaven and Earth to be ready.


When an election comes, we will have just days to mount a campaign and ensure the continuance of the most dynamic and forward-looking Canadian government in recent memory. The time to lay the foundation is right now and we continue to need your help if this effort is to succeed.


It is a wonderful thing to be reminded of the power of ideals, principles in which we believe and on which we will act. We have had far too many years of vacillation on ideals and fundamental values about which the majority of Canadians are clear and certain.


Unsurprisingly, Don Martin got it just right in his July 20th National Post column, speaking of Prime Minister Harper, he wrote: " He's proven himself bold, imaginative and unpredictable. This is something refreshing on the Canadian political landscape - a leader willing to take risks to do what's right in the face of certain criticism. It stands him in stark and favourable contrast to the hesitant poll-driven Martin reign."


What did surprise me, though, were the private comments of a Liberal acquaintance, among them the following: " I have never been so proud to be Canadian. I'm thrilled that we're investing in our military. I'm thrilled that we're staying to finish a job in Afghanistan, and I'm ecstatic that we are finally taking a position on issues of global importance like what is happening in the Middle East. Please let Stephen Harper know that I've never been more proud of being a Canadian."


Ultimately, not everything is about party politics. Canadians know what's right and wrong and it is a great satisfaction even if one may not politically admit it - to have a government that has the courage to tell the plain truth.


This government is worth the fight; help us make sure we win the next election whenever it comes. We can expect an avalanche of Liberal fury to get back into power and a flood of media support for their effort. Help us keep the focus on principle and character and Canada's return to its place in the world.


I ask you to make a special contribution now of $150 or $75 to the Party today and help us be prepared to defend the decisive leadership of Stephen Harper and our New Conservative government.


With my sincere thanks,


Michael D. Donison
Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada


P.S. - Your contribution is tax deductible. To find out the specific tax advantage of your contribution, we've provided a simple tax calculator. For more specific information on the rules governing personal contributions to political parties, click here.


If you prefer that I not contact you again by email, please click here.


Authorized by Conservative Fund Canada, Chief Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Handle nominations delicately

I try to be fair and even-handed and call them as I see them, so I'd be remiss if I didn't point out this story in the Vancouver Sun today about the process around the selection of a Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, Dave Emerson's stomping grounds.

The column raises the possibility that the nomination process has been rushed (the meeting is Saturday and was announced last Monday) with the possible intention of ensuring the selection of a favoured candidate, Wendy Yuan. The implication is she got a head start, and with her campaign manager also being an LPC VP for BC, also has the establishment backing.

At least one competitor has emerged, Mason Loh, who apparently is scrambling to catch up.

This isn't news to regular readers of Public Eye Online where Sean Holman has been reporting on the situation for a few weeks, most recently here, here, here and here.

Now, I should say at this point this is all just unsubstantiated innuendo, and I don't have any inside information or insight here. I know nothing about any of the potential candidates. This does, however, potentially look a little fishy.

As I wrote previously I'm in favour of getting a candidate place in this riding sooner rather than later, because of the unique situation with Emerson having crossed the floor. Getting a candidate nominated as a Liberal spokesperson to keep that issue alive and act as an MP in exile alive is great political strategy.

However, if the nomination process is seemed as tainted or rigged, that's doubly bad. Usually the trigger isn't pulled on a nomination meeting until at least a few quality candidates have been recruited; it's unclear in this case if there was more than one. Also, why only 12 days notice? Yes, there is a constitutional bare minimum but this isn't an emergency meeting, we've got a little time. Why wasn't it scheduled for a month away, to give potential candidates a more equal footing to sign-up members and organize? When notice of the meeting was given, the backdated membership deadline was three days earlier.

For a race in a riding where ethics is going to be a huge issue, this doesn't seem to be an encouraging start.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Libel chill in the Canadian blogsphere?

This press release from a Toronto law firm crossed my virtual desk this morning, and as a blogger it certainly made me pause. It certainly has me rethinking the wisdom of continuing to allow unmoderated comments.

For those of you in the T-Dot, I'd also like to draw your attention to these two events. I'm going to try to attend the first. (UPDATE: Scratch that, I can't, same day as the Progressive Bloggers BBQ. Too bad.)


*To raise awareness, Pilling and Newton will be participating in a public roundtable on freedom of expression in Toronto on August 5th at the Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 120, from 3-5PM.


*A benefit concert will be held at Toronto landmark, The Rivoli, at 334 Queen Street West. Doors open at 9PM. Cover is $10.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 26, 2006


Lawsuits threaten to chill online freedom of expression


TORONTO, ONTARIO and LAKE COWICHAN, BRITISH COLUMBIA - In May, one of the Internet's most notorious companies, and one of its most controversial personalities, sued a blogger from this tiny community on Vancouver Island.


Sharman Networks, the Australia-based owner of the KaZaA file-sharing application, and Sharman CEO Nikki Hemming, launched a suit against Canadian Jon Newton, alleging that an article he posted to his Web site p2pnet.net, and readers' comments in response to it, were libelous. The plaintiffs also demanded the identity of the anonymous posters.


Canadian defamation law does not require a plaintiff to show that she has suffered damages to sue. It also presumes that if speech appears libelous, it is until proven otherwise. The onus is on the defendant to prove that the speech is either not defamatory or that it should be allowed in the public interest.


"Canadian libel law in effect says 'Guilty until proven innocent' and if the plaintiff wins, in my view, Canadian bloggers might as well pack up and close their Net accounts," says Newton.


Newton is not alone in his feeling that Canadian defamation law is antiquated and in need of an Internet-age refit.


Michael Pilling, the Toronto-based founder of the political discussion site OpenPolitics.ca, also found himself on the receiving end of a libel suit after a contributor posted an article on his site about Green Party financier, Wayne Crookes. When Crookes claimed parts of the posting disparaged him and were untrue, Pilling edited it, only to have the reader repost the content shortly afterwards. When Crookes objected again, Pilling explained how Crookes could use the site to contribute his own point of view.


"Democracy requires open debate. The purpose of my site is to give everyone an opportunity to express their position, and hope people start listening to each other," explained Pilling. "Instead, I was served with a lawsuit."


Newton and Pilling have decided to defend their respective actions because they feel that the rights of Canadian bloggers to freedom of expression are in serious danger. They have agreed to work together to raise awareness of the issue.


"Of course freedom of expression has to be balanced against other rights, but the law is pernicious. Anyone who runs a blog, a wiki site or an online discussion forum in Canada is in jeopardy of what someone else might say,"
says Pilling. "A mere allegation of unproved libel will cost thousands to defend against, regardless of whether the speech is true, you wrote it or were even necessarily aware of it."

"The Internet enables expression as never before, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to guarantee freedom of expression,"
adds Newton, "Defamation laws should not be available as weapons. Our laws need to reflect a greater sensibility."

To raise awareness, Pilling and Newton will be participating in a public roundtable on freedom of expression in Toronto on August 5th at the Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 120, from 3-5PM.


A benefit concert will be held at Toronto landmark, The Rivoli, at 334 Queen Street West. Doors open at 9PM. Cover is $10.


-- 30 --


Press Contacts: Concert and Roundtable Information:

Jon Newton Neil Leyton

jon@p2pnet.net nleyton@gmail.com

Michael Pilling Tina Siegel

mlpilling@gmail.com tina.siegel@gmail.com

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New to the blogsphere

Two of my work colleagues have thrown their keyboards into the blogsphere.

A recently minted Canadian citizen and fellow tech reporter, Mari-Len DeGuzman is blogging on current events from a Filipino-Canadian perspective at Mightier than sword.


Also, our consumer electronics expert Jim Ducharme has set-out his digital shingle at Huge Head. I shall decline comment on whether or not that is an apt moniker for him.


Welcome to the blogsphere guys!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Snakes…in the mail!

The BBC reports a woman in Germany caused a panic when she tried to mail a 5ft python in a box marked "glass" and it broke free inside the post office.

It's just a good thing this happened in Germany and not in Canada. With our vast distances mail is often moved by air, and that would have meant….Snakes On A Plane!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Education redux, Where's the beef?

As a follow-up to my post yesterday on post secondary education policy I decided to visit the candidate Web sites to see if they had anything on the topic. The results, as you'll see below, were less then stellar, to say the least.

As a result, I've decided to e-mail a few questions on the topic to each of the campaigns. I'll let them know I plan to publish whatever responses I've received by August. 2. While I'm no Warren Kinsella, I'm hopeful I'll hear something back.


In other news, the Globe's John Ibbitson writes on post secondary education in his column today. While I'm glad he's raising the topic, I disagree with part of his take. John, we should require strings for any additional post secondary funding. The federal government's role is to set national standards, and that is the mechanism it has for doing so.


Lastly, I came across this section in a student newspaper story on The Rae Report (scroll down to Bob's name in the candidates section for more) and I thought it might be interesting to the pull up your bootstraps, in my day we walked to school uphill both ways (in blizzards) crowd:


Universities have gone through major changes in the last few decades. In the '70s, there were about 240,000 university students in Canada.

By 1985, there were more than 472,000 students.

And the numbers have continued to rise as university degrees become necessary for work that once required only high school diplomas.

During this time of growth, government funding decreased from $20,000 per student in the '70s to $13,000 by 1985.

By the end of the '90s, per student government funding was just under $11,000. Because of these reductions, university fees increased 137 per cent throughout the '90s.

The Candidates on Education

Carolyn Bennett: In her reading room there are policy papers and additional resources on a number of areas, from health care, the environment and women issues to the Middle East, affordable housing and terrorism. Nothing, however, on education.

Maurizo Bevilacqua: On his "Maurizo Views" page the candidate tells us why he's running, but no detailed policy or issue statements I can see, and nothing on education.

Scott Brison: On his "Scott's views" page, in a section on 'A Progressive Society" the candidate at least mentions post-secondary education, although in passing:

He wants to protect the existing role of a strong federal government that respects the jurisdiction of strong provinces. He would respect the Canada Health Act and provide stable and adequate funding to provinces for quality health care and improved access to post-secondary education.

He gets points for mentioning it, even in a wishy washy kind of a way. I'd like details though on how he would improve access, and what he considers adequate funding.

Stephane Dion: A search of the "On The Issues" page fails to find a mention of the word education, and clicking on the various linked speeches and documents only found a few mentions of the last election platform, nothing on new ideas or current positions. All I could find on point was this section from the "Investing in a stronger Canada" section:

…we have to invest now in the education of Canadians, especially at the post-secondary level, so that we have the most highly educated workforce in the world that has the capacity to invent the best new technologies, and bring to the global marketplace products that will sustain the new economy.

I agree, but how? Where's the meat? I'd hoped for better from my candidate.

Ken Dryden: I was excited when I saw a section on learning in his "The Issues" section. Ironically though, I learned nothing from its boilerplate, except that he's in favour of learning.

Martha Hall Findlay: On her "The issues" page, only one mention of the word education and it's brief at that. Under her vision for Canada:

A Canada with opportunities for all Canadians to work toward a brighter future for themselves, their children and generations to come, through good education;…

Hedy Fry: Followed her policy link, found links to four policy areas, one of which was titled "Education Policy." Much excited, I was. Clicked the link:

Stay tuned... Detailed policy coming soon!

Michael Ignatieff: Speaking of learning, my top personal accomplishment from the leadership campaign so far is learning to spell Ignatieff without looking it up. Still working on Bevilacqua though. Anyway, looking around the candidate's Web site I was unable to find a specific policy page. There's a policy discussion forum, but I didn't see anything with policy statements from the candidate.

Gerard Kennedy: I didn't see a policy statements page, the closest was a "policy dialogue" page. It includes discussion papers on Energy and the Environment and Eliminating the Immigrant Success gap (I assume this is the one TDH wrote before he left the campaign) but nothing on education that I could find.

Bob Rae: In Bob's (he said I could call him that) "On the Issues" pages there's a number of mentions of education, but few in detail from a post secondary perspective. The most meat was this section here:

An Education, Training and Research Strategy: education, training, commercialization and ready access to the Internet are foundational elements of an innovation agenda for Canada, and must re-emerge as priorities of the national government. Mr. Rae proposes among other things revamping the Canada Student loans program to provide more direct aid to students for living expenses, direct federal support for university research, promotion of apprenticeships, and greater recognition of foreign credentials.

While it's brief, there's more details here than I've seen from other candidates. Sounds nice, although I wonder some of the how on these things. I'm concerned about Bob on this issue though, because of a study he wrote on post secondary education for the Ontario government. While there were some good recommendations there, including more funding for universities and more grants for low income students, more troubling was his advocacy of substantially higher and possibly deregulated tuition rates and an income contingent loan repayment scheme.

Briefly, why is income contingent loan repayment bad? Well, because while you make smaller payments the interest keeps accruing, so in reality you're paying much more for the same education with a fortune in interest charges. It just increases the debt burden on the poorest people. It's like the scam of rent to own furniture that targets the poor.

Joe Volpe: While he's dead to me (sorry Toronto Liberal and Davenport Liberal) I did check out his "Joe's Views" page. In a long page with lots of bolded action-words, this was the closest to something like education policy I could find:

We must invest in skills training and post graduate research and become a nation that is capable of exporting talent, innovation and technology; more importantly, a nation capable of attracting foreign direct investment, because the labour pool and talent is here to return on that investment.

My Questions for the Candidates

Dear Liberal leadership candidates,

I've been an active Liberal member since I was a high school student, and while I'm now in the workforce post secondary education issues remain very important to me. I've been disappointed with the lack of debate on the issue during the current campaign, so I've decided to send a few questions to each of the campaigns.


I'd appreciate it if your campaign could provide me with brief responses to these questions, which I hope will spark a debate we need to have on post secondary education, and the role the federal government has to play. I plan to publish any responses received by August 2 on my Blog, A BCer in Toronto.


Thank-you,


Jeff Jedras


1. Do you support the creation of a dedicated transfer to the provinces to post secondary education, and would you attach strings to the funding to ensure federal goals are met around issues like tuition levels, access for low income students, and ensuring provinces don't cut their own funding to negate the impact of any federal increase?


2 What would you do to reform the Canada student loan system?


3. The Canada Millennium Scholarship program is due to end in 2009. What would you do to replace it, and to improve accessibility for low income students?


4. The last Liberal government exempted student loans from the bankruptcy act. Would you reverse that decision? If not, why not?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, July 24, 2006

Post secondary education: The forgotten issue

While I'm no longer a Young Liberal I'm still youngish at heart, and student issues remain one of my top issues of interest. My monthly student loan payments probably help keep it top of mind.

That's why I'm a bit disappointed student issues haven't been getting much play of late, either in Parliament or in the leadership race. If I was a YLC executive member I'd be demanding the candidates release detailed policy statements on issues like


a)
Reforming the student loan system and student aid

b) Once again having student loans fall under the bankruptcy act

c)
Increasing base funding to post secondary education through a dedicated provincial transfer

d) Paul Wells' favourite issue, research funding, and, as importantly, facilitating the commercialization thereof

I was reminded of the forgotten student issue when reading this story today on a research report from a think tank that argues by focusing extending student aid and financial assistance to the middle class all parties have been engaging in a vote buying exercise that is costing the government more money without actually helping those that need it.

I think the study makes some interesting points. One that I would make is that it is unfair to judge the situation solely on parental income, as some parents may be unable or unwilling to pay, so cutting off those students from financial assistance and student loans cuts them off from post secondary education.


That said, the system is a mess. Student loan horror stories abound. Tax credits are great, but most students don't have income so the credits are transferred to their parents, who may or may not be helping the student out.


During the election, I examined the three main parties' educaiton platforms here.


What to do?


I think the first thing to do is negotiate with the provinces to create a direct transfer for post secondary funding (this was a Conservative campaign promise), and increase its size. As part of the deal, provinces should agree not to decrease their own funding. In exchange for the increased funding, universities should be required to cap tuition at inflation, with a channel for increases if they can show a specific need. Also, a portion of that funding should go to fund scholarships and bursaries for low income students at the university level.


The student loan program is in such need of reform it's hard to know where to start. But one place would be to take its administration away from the for-profit banks and back within the government (the righties will love that one). Also, allow students in dire straits to be able to bankrupt their student loans once more. It's a last resort, but it's unfair that a failed businessman can take that route and not a former student fallen on tough times.


The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is scheduled to die in 2009 with no sign of replacement, killing $350 million in annual grants to low income students. It wasn't a perfect program, but we need something like it to continue. Whatever it is, it must be targeted.


Beyond that, maybe it's time we started thinking outside of the box. Some European countries offer free tuition. Maybe we should look at tiered tuition rates based on parental income. Or maybe interest free loans, as long as the required payments are being made.


I don't know, but I do know that it's time student issues took on a larger issue on the national stage and in the Liberal leadership campaign. If youth delegates are so important to this process why aren't candidates talking about these issues and, more importantly, why aren't the youth demanding that they do so?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Toronto the not so bad

It was a year ago this week that I arrived in the heat and humidity of Toronto from British Columbia to find an apartment and start a new job on the East side of Younge, er, Yonge Street. (It’s not my blogaversery though, that’s in November) And, all in all, it’s been a pretty good year and I think I may finally be getting over my anti-Torontoness.

Which is sad in a way, because my Toronto hatred had been nurtured so carefully over the years. Particularly during five years in Ottawa (watching Sens/Leafs playoff disasters), and growing-up in oh so alienated Western Canada. I think the combination of the cool mountain air and the salty breeze off the ocean creates some kind of hallucinogenic anti-Toronto feeling.

After spending a year in the Centre of the Universe though, I have to say it’s really not all that bad. It was a tough start. My arrival seemed to coincide with Toronto’s “summer of the gun.” Freaked me out a bit, but I’ve never really felt unsafe here. I was just glad my Mom doesn’t watch the national news too much.

While I can’t say much for the humid summers and the cold, snowy winters, I have come to like it here. Particularly in the warm weather months. I like the multicultural feel of the city and how there’s always some festival or celebration happening somewhere every weekend. I like the hustle and bustle, although I don’t have to drive in it. If I did, maybe not so much.

I like hating the Maple Leafs, particularly when they’re loosing. But I also love the Blue Jays. I’ve caught 12 or so games this year so far, including three in the current series against the Yankees. I know people here love to hate the Skydome, but on a sunny Saturday afternoon with the roof open, hot dog and coke in hand and the Jays on the field, there’s nowhere I’d rather be.

So now, one year later, when the jumbotron directs the fans to “get loud because We Are Toronto!” I no longer feel queasy. And when I am driving around the city I no longer avert my eyes from the CN Tower in an attempt to make myself forget where I am. Denial is for me once again just a river in Egypt.

While I will always remain at heart a BCer in Toronto, I think I’m finally ready to admit to myself that I do live in Toronto now, and hey, it ain’t so bad.

However, the Maple Leafs still suck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, July 21, 2006

You're welcome Peter!

So Peter McKay isn't happy with a Globe and Mail story about the government's handing of the evacuation and so he wrote a long, whiny letter to the editor about it. Well, I say quit your whining Peter. We've had enough of your ungrateful bitching. You should just be grateful the media is covering your minority "government" at all. I mean, my taxpayers dollars are paying the salary of this "Minister of Foreign Affairs" and he's so ungrateful!

Signed,

A sarcastic and ugly Liberal whiner

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lessons in manners from the Blogging Tories…no, really

Scanning through the Blogging Tories Web page before heading off to bed tonight (although I really shouldn’t though, it angries-up the blood) and post after post (I counted at least eight) are attacking those “whiny” Canadian evacuees leaving or waiting to leave Lebanon.

The BTs call them “ungrateful” and whiners” that should "be grateful” they’re being rescued at all, and should just “quit bitching.” And, of course, lots of gratuitous shots at the media, for actually, you know, reporting what people said. It's a conspiracy, you know. It seems, after waiting for days in 30 to 40c weather in makeshift camps and then enduring long, cramped crossings in crowded boats where many suffered from sea sickness, many of these evacuees were less than bright eyed and chipper when disembarking on the other end.

If you’d just been through such an ordeal, would you be in a great mood? They’re not really pissed at Harper, they’re just hot and hungry and tired, in a pissy mood, and, given they’re escaping a war zone, maybe just a little freaked-out about the last few days.

Has the evacuation been handled as well as it could/should have been? I don't know, it remains to be seen. Such questions are legitimate, and the exercise should be examined, but it's too early to say at this point. Right now let's just focus on getting everyone out safely, there's no need for armchair quarterbacking yet.

But I mean come on, give these people a break. In a few days, once they’ve gotten a good night’s sleep, taken a shower and put on some clean clothes and had a change to get over the shock of their experience, I’m sure they will be expressing their gratefulness and thanks to the Canadian government. For now let’s cut them some slack. Picking on evacuees from a war zone? Really classy guys.

While I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories (unless it involves the (John F.) Kennedy assasination) I do find it interesting that this groundswell of Blogging Tory outrage seems to have erupted so widely all of a sudden. Coincidence, I’m sure. But it seems while Steve Harper can take a punch, his followers clearly can’t. Oh, and clearly, as experience has shown, Harper really can't take a punch either.

UPDATE: I have to say I'm a bit shocked at the vehamance some people are expressing here.
Even Stephen Harper is willing to cut these people some slack:

“A lot of [these] people are very grateful,” the Prime Minister said on the dark pre-dawn tarmac at the Ottawa airport. “A lot of [these] people are very frustrated. They had a long and difficult trip.”

And from the same Globe story, here's a quote from someone who appears to meet all of the Conservative requirements of "true Canadians", and illustrates the shift I'm saying will occur:


Despite the anger expressed by some at the embassy's disorganization, their mood seemed to improve the moment they were finally put on boats. “I was a little cranky last night after being in the sun for seven hours, but now I'm just glad to be going,” said Janet Jacobsen, a 61-year-old physiotherapist from Crofton, B.C.


She had been in Lebanon for a friend's wedding, which took place last Friday despite the fact many guests were unable to attend because of the bombing.


“This was the adventure tour of Lebanon,” she said as she settled into her seat for the ride out.

As I wrote in the comments, I just hope none of you ever find yourselves in a war zone, with your kids in tow, bombs going off around you, food and medicine becoming scarace, not sure when or how you'll be able to get out. I'll try to have some sympathy if the stress makes you say a few things you may regret later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, July 20, 2006

When is a Canadian not a Canadian?

Sadly, that seems to be a debate we're going to have to have in this country once all the Canadians of varying degrees of residency and hyphenation have been safely evacuated from Lebanon. I'll tell you now where I stand though: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

With some estimates pegging the number of Canadians in Lebanon at around 40,000, not all of whom are looking to leave, the question that has been raised is what is the obligation the federal government has to these people.


And I can accept that question, to a point. Even before this latest crisis the region was far from safe, and wasn't high on my list of possible vacation spots. When you travel to the Middle East I think you have to be ready for the possibility of trouble, and accept a certain level of risk.


However, all-out war is a different matter, and in such cases governments have traditionally taken pains to evacuate their citizens. While it might not be in the Charter, it's one of the duties governments have come to owe their citizens, and I think that's right. I think most Canadians would agree with this principle.


The debate tends to get more complicated though when we get to the issue of dual citizens, and residency. Some are asking, if they're a Canadian citizen but have lived in Lebanon for some time, do we owe then a boat cruise to Turkey? Or, what if they're Lebanese-Canadians currently living in Lebanon; do we have the same obligation to them as a non-hyphenated Canadian?


While I can see somewhat where such critics are coming from, I have to say an unequivocal yes, they are all Canadians and we have the same obligation to them all, no matter their residency or hyphenation.


Going down such a troubling road would lead to different classes of Canadians. Perhaps a rating scale of one to four. Citizen? One point. Born in Canada? One point. Resident in Canada? One point. No dual citizenship? One point. Four out of four, congrats, go to the head of the line. There's another troubling question that bears asking here. Would we be having this debate if we were talking about British-Canadians, for example? Perhaps not.


If there is a will in this country to change our laws to prevent citizens from holding dual citizenships, that's one thing. I'd disagree with that policy, but that would be a fair and legitimate debate to have.


In the meantime though, there are no varying classes of Canadian citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian, and all should be treated equally.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Is Slobodan the new Adolf?

Just wondering. If comparing the Conservative’s softwood sellout to the failed appeasement of Nazi Germany is bad (I think it is, and so did she) then isn’t it also bad to compare, say, the Premier of Ontario or Vancouver City Council to practitioners of ethnic cleansing?

I'm genuinely curious here.

Also, while it seems that while Germany circa World War Two comparisons are out, it looks like Germany circa World War One comparisons are just fine.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

At least it wasn't a WW2 memorial

Must focus on work today, but couldn't let this item found during my morning reading pass without comment. It's from the Toronto Star's political blog, and an entry on the Harpers' touring World War One cemeteries in Northern France yesterday.

I did the same thing myself some years ago, participating in a Remembrance Day ceremony at a Canadian military cemetery in Northern France. It was an emotional experience, and I can certainly understand the emotion Laureen Harper must have felt visiting the grave of her great Uncle.


What I can't understand though is this comment later in the day by Stephen Harper, while he was touring the Vimy memorial site, comparing the German soldiers who fought the Canadians at Vimy to the Parliamentary Press Gallery:


Harper walked through the preserved battle trenches nearby. But, with news photograhers following his every step, he seemed a bit preoccupied with his sometimes strained relations with Canada's media.


As they recorded his exit from one trench, Harper looked at the photogs and mused about the war fought here 90 years ago. Back then, he said, "the enemies had guns, not cameras."


I don't know what to say about that. It's just pathetic. I could go on about the role of media in a democracy, about disrespecting the sacrifice of our soldiers, or about how those young kids having to face gassing and bullets and the hell on earth of trench warfare has absolutely NO comparison to a media scrum. But instead I'll just say get a life Stephen.

UPDATE: Paul Wells weighs in on Harper's "Back then, the enemies had guns, not cameras" quote with this biting remark:

True. Which is why Canadians are so greatful that back then, our soldiers were less likely to wallow in bottomless self-pity than, say, some of today's political leaders.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Great Canadian Tax Experiment, the Wrap-Up

The receipts have been processed and the numbers have been crunched. To sum it up in three words: I got hosed. I'm paying more taxes under the Conservatives then I did under the Liberals. But hey, the government knows how to spend my money better than me…right?

A few weeks ago, on Canada Day, to celebrate the Conservative one per cent cut to the GST that came into effect that day I decided to save all my receipts for a month, track my spending, and see how much I'll actually save. Also, with the Conservatives raising/lowering the lowest income tax bracket to 15.5 per cent, I wanted to see if I came out ahead or not.


I quickly learned saving all my receipts is a pain in the ass, and some places look at you funny when you ask for one. So, I decided a 15-day window, also coinciding with one pay period, would be a representative sample. I could use that data to forecast a month's worth of spending, and add in regular monthly expenses like rent and utilities.


As I set out downtown on Canada Day to catch a Jays game it was clear some businesses hadn't changed to the new rate yet. The newsstand at Warden Station still charged $1.75 for a Black Cherry Vanilla Diet Coke, and they still do two weeks later, so I guess they've pocketed the savings there. And they're not the only businesses that seem to have done so.


The Blue Jays are passing the savings on to their fans though, even though it makes life tough for the guys hawking beer and popcorn in the stands. The Jays used to have even numbered tax inclusive concession prices to make change more easily, but that has changed. For example, with GST and PST a popcorn used to run you an expensive, but even, $5. Now it will set you back an uneven $4.95. A nickel savings. I'd imagine most people let the popcorn guy keep it.


The numbers


When you add up all the numbers and project it over the month, including everything from rent to phone and student loan to groceries and entertainment, I spent $1728/month. Man, I really need to start saving more. Not all of my spending was GSTable, for example most groceries aren't, nor is my single largest monthly expense, rent on my palatial Scarborough pad. But thanks to Stephen's one per cent GST cut I did save $3.99/month. Projected out over a year, that's $47.88. Not a lot, but hey, it's something, right?


Not quite, for now the other shoe drops. For on July 1, the new old revised lowered but higher income tax rate kicked-in and began to impact those of us that have federal tax withheld on our paycheques. Before the last election the Liberal government moved to lower the rate from 16 per cent to 15 per cent, and in their budget the Cons set the rate at 15.5 per cent, which is more than 15 per cent. They said it was to pay for their GST cut.


Now, before I have the Cons all over me, I know the Liberal tax cuts that came into effect before the last election were never officially passed and proclaimed into law. I also know that's not immediately necessary for income tax changes, and I also know that I and every other Canadian was paying the lowered rate of 15 per cent up until June 30. If I was paying 15 per cent before, and 15.5 per cent now, proclamation or no that's an increase.


So, the black and white of my pay stub shows I am paying more in federal tax now than I was before June 30, and so is every other Canadian. In my case, my pays stub for the first 15 days of July shows I paid $4.74 more to the Feds in tax this pay period than I did in the last one, or $9.49/month. Or, if you prefer, a $113.88/year tax increase, gross.


Now let's factor in those big GST savings. Subtract my GST savings from my increased tax payment and I'm behind $5.50/month. Or, over the course of the year, the Conservatives are taking $66 more in taxes from me than the Liberals were.


Remind me again who the tax and spenders are? But hey, I'm sure Steve will spend the extra $66 I'm sending him wisely, right?


Now yes, you'll say, but if I bought a brand new house or a luxury car I'd save even more. And I'd say to you man, I wish I could afford a house or a luxury car. But, you see, I've got these student loan payments because when I went to school in Ontario in the late 1990s, tuition skyrocketed when the Mike Harris Conservatives slashed university funding to pay for his "Common Sense" revolution. So, alas, that Lexus will have to wait.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, July 17, 2006

Liberals call nomination meeting in Emerson's riding

The LPC(BC) has scheduled a nomination meeting for July 29th to select a Liberal candidate for the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, which is held by turncoat Conservative cabinet minister and "softwood savior" David Emerson.

You may recall Emerson was elected under the Liberal banner, promising Stephen Harper he'd be his "worst enemy." Just days after the election though Emerson was negotiating to cross the floor into his enemy's arms, and was sworn into Harper's cabinet.


The news of a nomination meeting is interesting. I'm not aware of any other Liberal nomination meetings having been scheduled, and I read recently the Conservatives haven't either. Clearly they have a candidate or two in place.


I like this strategy. Let's get a Liberal candidate in place and they can start campaigning now, and speaking-up for the thousands of constituents who elected a Liberal, not a Conservative, and were disenfranchised by Emerson's floor crossing. Shadowing him every time he's back in the riding. Nice work.

Side note, with the Conservatives likely to stop protecting sitting members from nomination challenges will Emerson even be able to win the Conservative nomination, assuming he still wants it?

Follows the press release from LPC(BC):


For Immediate Release
Nomination Meeting Called for the Riding of Vancouver-Kingsway

Vancouver (July 17, 2006) - Today, the Liberal Party of Canada (BC), on the call of BC Election Readiness Chair, Sharon Apsey, and with the approval of the National Election Readiness Co-Chairs, Mike Eizenga and Lucienne Robillard, issued notice for a nomination meeting in the federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.

"Liberal voters in Vancouver-Kingsway were disenfranchised by David Emerson's stunning decision to cross the floor just days after the last election," said LPC (BC) President Jamie Elmhirst. "The executive of the Vancouver-Kingsway Riding Association has consistently asked for an early nomination meeting to help provide a positive outlet for voters' anger and frustration."

The nomination meeting will take place on Saturday, July 29, 2006 at the Alpen Club, 4875 Victoria Drive, Vancouver BC (33rd and Victoria Drive). Voter registration begins at 12:00 PM and will end at 5:00 PM.

Potential nomination candidates have until 5:00 PM on July 21st to seek approval from BC's Election Readiness Co-ordinator, Sharon Apsey and the Green Light Committee. To vote in the nomination, local members must have joined the party on or before July 14, 2006.

This notice is being published providing notice according to Section 11.0 of the Nomination Rules for British Columbia and is hereby made available to all eligible voting members of Vancouver - Kingsway Electoral District

Members of the Liberal Party of Canada (BC) will be required to show identification proving both identity and residency to the satisfaction of the Returning Officer. In order to establish identity, at least one piece of identification shall be photo identification. Members must establish residency at the residential address on the Party's membership list.
---

UPDATE: Sean Hollman at Public Eye Online reported last month that Wendy Yuan was seeking the nomination. He reports today she's still the only known candidate although more may still come forward by this Friday.
---

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Refooooooooorm is needed, so let's start talking about it

I don't agree with everything outlined in the media coverage of Belinda Stronach's proposal for reforming the Liberal Party (I'd like to read the full, uncensored document) but I'm impressed and glad that a senior member of our party is putting these issues out there for discussion.

It's a discussion we need to have, but haven't been having. She's been taking a lot of unsurprising flack, but while she's a newcomer to the party I haven't heard many of the old crowd taking reform. Carolyn Bennett has talked about returning power to the grassroots but I haven't heard any specifics, and her second-tier candidate status makes it tough for her to garner attention. I'm also doubtful about the LPC's renewal commission. While I may yet be surprised, revolution rarely comes from within the old guard, and this seems like an old guard exercise.

On to Stronach's ideas now, as outlined on the media coverage.

*$1 memberships
I think I like this. It's unclear from the coverage whether she would also favour a national membership list, but I think that would be necessary to make it happen. A national membership would relieve pressure on the regions letting them focus on organization, and improve membership services by streamlining the process and consolidating the process. Why should I need to buy a new membership when I move to Ontario, a year after buying a 4-year membership in BC? A $1 membership fee would level the playing field across the country, and ensure cost is no barrier to political involvement. It would also remove the "did they may for their membership?" stigma of mass sign-ups. On the flip side though, is $10/year or $20/year really much of a barrier? There is a cost involved to process each new membership; I think the fee should be at least cost recovery, particularly given our sorry fundraising record. Maybe $2?

*One member, one vote
I liked this idea at first. Delegated conventions do seem to be rapidly becoming a thing of the past. It rubs me wrong that one person could vote 5 times for the leadership if they're a member of a campus club, women's club, the aboriginal commission, their riding association and elected as a delegate. There was an angle I hadn't considered though until I read a post at Bowie's Call and that's regional representation. A large membership base in Ontario, or even Toronto, would overwhelm the West and the Maritimes. Scared of Volpe's 36k signups now? This isn't an insurmountable hurdle though. Design a system where each riding gets an even number of votes, divided amongst the candidates based on how its members vote.

*Substantially streamline the party infrastructure, reform fundraising
Specific details were lacking in the coverage, bit I agree in principle here and have said so in the past. Would like specifics.

*Caucus elects the cabinet
This is just loopy, and is a horrible idea for many reasons. It's so far out there I'm not going to dwell on it, although I certainly could. It'd just be too easy though, and given this will never happen it'd also be a waste of time.

As I said, the media coverage was lacking in detail in the proposals and focused on the most sensationalistic of them, with the least chance of happening: caucus electing the cabinet. The report is supposed to be circulated amongst the party, and I hope to read it soon.

While I don't agree with all of her ideas, and I think the cabinet thing is way off base, I'm glad someone is finally thinking a bit out of the box anyway, and hopefully this will be the start of a party-wide debate on some of these issues.

And another thing

As I read some of the snarky comments and insults Stronach is taking from members of our party for even speaking out, I'm both saddened and more convinced than ever that more needs to be done to bring more women into politics, remove barriers to entry and most sadly, in this day and age, change attitudes.

I'm glad Stephane Dion is raising this issue and I like some of his ideas, but not all of them. I have trouble with hard and fast quotas for either appointments or nominations. If we can address the systemic issues and barriers, quotas shouldn't be necessary. That's where we should focus our efforts.

UPDATE: Thanks to Zac for noting the Stronach document is available online here (clicking link opens an Adobe PDF file). Looking forward to reading it after work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I am in love with this motherf'in snake!

When I first saw a clip from the upcoming Samuel L. Jackson movie Snakes on a Plane on The Colbert Report I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's a real movie and I can't wait to see it.

Sometimes a movie is so bad, it's good, and this looks like one. Read more here and here, watch viral videos here, and see the official site here. And hear from Colbert here.


It's already a cult classic and it's not out until August 18. I love though how, when the studio wanted to change the title from Snakes on a Plane to Pacific Air Flight 121, Samuel L. Jackson would have none of it:

"What are you doing here? It's not Gone with the Wind. It's not On the Waterfront. It's Snakes on a Plane! "We're totally changing that back. That's the only reason I took the job: I read the title."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Playing hardball with softwood

Not having time to write at length about Bob Rae’s response to Harper's softwood lumber brinksmanship between work this afternoon and dashing off to a disappointing Blue Jays game this evening, I would now like to try to expand a bit on the topic now. To borrow a phrase it's a complex file, so I'll try breaking it down into questions and answers.

Is the softwood lumber agreement a good deal?


No, it’s not a good deal at all. When they’re honest, I think even its supporters tacitly admit this, admitting ‘well, it’s the best deal we can get.’ Canadian Cynic had a great post on this topic the other day that provides a nice retort to that sentiment. Putting aside the next question for a moment, I think we can all agree this is a bad deal. Basically, we’re paying $1 billion in extortion money for them to stop picking on us and to get a limited time period of peace, rather than face the uncertainly of continued illegal duties and legal challenges in the hope of getting it all back and settling this once and for all.


So should we bend over and take it?


Now that’s the $4 billion question, isn’t it? To bend over, or not to bend over. The legal road is a long and risky one with no guarantees, and the U.S. hasn’t shown itself too keen on obeying rulings anyway. Despite feeling we’re in the right, if we’re going to abandon that road in exchange for certainty and give something up we feel we shouldn’t have to, we still have to get enough back to make it palatable, otherwise staying the course remains more attractive. A clear verdict on this point seems to be emerging, and from those with the most knowledge and interest in the question: the governments and forest industry in B.C. and Quebec.


I think we have to put a lot of stock in the fact that so much of the industry, and it would seem these two provinces as well, have serious reservations about accepting this deal. Why? Because they have the most to lose. It’s the industry’s $5 billion, it’s jobs and the economy in their provinces that’s suffering. If they say this deal just doesn’t do it, I’ve got to believe them.


It has been a long, tough road. But those impacted have persevered through it by saying it will be worth it, by sticking the course we’ll finally settle this thing once and for all, and we won’t have to go through this all again in a few years. But, with this agreement, the suffering would have been for naught, and we’d be right back at square one in a few years. This is no long-term fix, it’s a very expensive bandaid.


Should this be a confidence motion?


No. Harper says he can make anything he wants a confidence motion because he’s the PM. A year and a half ago, he said Martin couldn’t make anything he wanted a confidence motion just because he was the PM. Still, if Harper wants to make this a confidence motion, he’ll probably make it happen. But, legitimately, should a deal to resolve a trade dispute really be a matter of confidence? Nope.


Why is he making it one then?


Once again, to weaken and divide the opposition and push through his agenda. I like his strategy, but he needs us to vote for the deal to carry it out. He wants this agreement, he wants to campaign as having solved the softwood crisis in BC during the next campaign. Wait a minute, we Liberals
would say, that was a crappy sellout of a deal. Well then, why’d you vote for it then? the Conservatives would retort. So, Harper campaigns as the softwood savior even though it’s actually a bad deal, and we’re unable to call him on it because we got goaded into voting for it because we were to weak to stand up to his posturing and bluffing.

Does Harper really want an election on this?


No. Why would he? He’s made some progress on his ever-evolving priorities but he’s not there yet. Even with the Liberals in leadership flux, getting another budget would still be ideal for him. Also, to get his majority Harper needs Quebec and BC, and this deal is quite unpopular there. An election called with Harper on the wrong side of this issue and the opposition parties on the right side would motivate a large concerned voter group in those provinces, and Northern Ontario too, to vote.


Would it really be a softwood election?


After a few days, certainly not nationally. But again, remember the regional considerations. It would be to certain key segments across the country. But more than the merits of softwood, a larger issue would be why the Cons wanted to bring us to the polls over a trade dispute in the first place, when they could have just respected the democratic will of the House of Commons and moved on. There would also be many other issues, which I won’t get all into now. Long story short, I wouldn’t mind our chances.


But wait, weren’t the Liberals going to sign a similar agreement?


Well, we heard that one was on the table. What exactly it looked like, I don’t know. It did seem to be hushed-up, that pissed me off at the time. It seems when the industry was consulted they indicated it was unacceptable, so the thing was shelved until after the election. The rest is history. So, does that make the Liberals offside on this? Hardly. Let’s look at it. Both the Liberals and the Cons negotiated, both reached some kind of tentative accord. Both took it to industry. Industry told both it wasn’t good enough, let’s keep negotiating/fighting. Liberals said ok, we’ll get back to this after the election, which they subsequently lost. The Cons said suck it industry, take it or leave it, because we’re cutting and running, and while we said we’re going to stand up for Canadians, we didn’t mean you guys. And as far as Emerson attesting to anything, David is hardly a model of chastity and virtue, particularly in BC where they’re likely to care about all this.


Bottom Line


The Liberals need to vote no on this, and if Harper insists on irresponsibly making it an election, so be it. We can’t vote no because we’re scared of an election, or because it doesn’t suit our leadership timetable. The Canadians that voted Liberal and sent Liberal MPs to Ottawa didn’t send us there to put our election timing issues or leadership agendas first. They sent us to represent their interests. This deal isn’t in their interests, so we should vote against it. Plain and simple. It’s time to be decisive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers