What do Tiger Woods and Stephen Harper have in common?

We know that golfing philanderer Tiger Woods and bumbling Prime Minister Stephen Harper have at least one thing in common: they both made really crappy decisions. Turns out they also have another thing in common: really crappy taste in music:

Tiger Woods partied like a rockstar last night -- leaving his Isleworth compound to hang out backstage at a Nickelback concert in Orlando, according to a source at the show

We're told Woods was shrouded by security backstage at Amway Arena -- while the band did their thing.

We know Tiger's a big Nickelback fan -- he's even joined them on stage in the past... though last night he kept a much lower profile, for obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons like not wanting to be seen at a Nickelback concert? Our PM, alas, didn't have Tiger's good sense to keep a low profile:

We also hear Tiger is going to try to soften his public image by pretending to write a book about hockey.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals and NDP announce dueling conventions

If you're looking to plan your calendar for June 2011, we got two political save the dates this afternoon that set up an interesting set of battles, debates and conspiracy theories.

The first save the date came into my e-mail this afternoon from the alliterative Liberal Party president Alf Apps:

On behalf of the National Board of Directors and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, I am pleased to announce that the 2011 Biennial Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada will take place in our Nation’s Capital from June 17-19, 2011 at the new Ottawa Convention Centre.

And that was followed just over two hours later by a tweet from the non-alliterative, but we don't hold it against him, NDP national director Brad Lavigne:

#NDP will hold 50th Anniversary Convention in #Vancouver June 17-19 2011 http://tinyurl.com/dzudk5 #cdnpoli

So yes, you read that correctly. On the same afternoon, the Liberals and the NDP announce their 2011 biennial conventions, and on the same weekend in June as well.

Will we have an election or two before then? Will one or both end up being leadership races? Will Ben Mulroney be ready to challenge Justin Trudeau for the Liberal crown yet? Will Pat Martin use puppets and wage the awesomest leadership campaign ever? Such fun.

It raises some interesting logistical questions. Which MPs and staffers will need to skip their own party's event to observe the other's? How will CPAC choose which competing sessions to broadcast to the audience of tens that will want to tune in?

Then there's the battle to get the best media talent to come and cover. The Liberals have the benefit of proximity in Ottawa -- no travel, and sleeping in their own beds. But then again, Vancouver offers expense account fun. And mountains. Even if the bars do close way too early.

I look forward though to the conspiracy theories. Please don't disappoint me there, Conservative friends. NDP and Liberal conventions on the same weekend, announced the same afternoon? Surely this must be a conspiracy!

Proof of secret plotting on Coalition Deux? Or the planned fruition of highly secretive party merger talks, with motions to merge two be debated by each party at their conventions? The New Democratic Liberal Party?

The shadow knows!

In the mean time, save the date.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Taking a few bullets from the Conservative rifle on the registry

As a Liberal who grew up in a rural riding I’ve never been a big fan of the long gun registry, and not just for political reasons. It was an issue that spoke to the ongoing urban/rural divide in the Liberal Party, a well-intentioned piece of legislation that didn’t consider the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians – most likely because their perspective just wasn’t present at the table when it was drafted.

If anything, for rural Liberals, it exposed a chicken and egg paradox – are Liberal policies not considerate of rural Canadians because we don’t have many rural Liberal MPs to offer input, or do we not have many Liberal rural MPs to offer input because our policies aren’t considerate of rural Canadians?

So I wasn’t optimistic when I read that Michael Ignatieff was offering some proposals on the gun registry he hoped would appeal to rural Canadians, or at least to those eight Liberals that voted to scrap the registry on second reading of Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s (not really) private members bill. But after hearing that all the caucus is apparently on board with the changes and will now vote against the Hoeppner bill, I took a look.

Essentially, the proposed Liberal reforms are as follows:

*First-time failures to register firearms would be treated as a simple, non-criminal, ticketing offence, instead of a criminal offence as they are currently;

*Fees for new licenses, renewals and upgrades would be permanently eliminated; and

*The registration process – especially the forms – would be streamlined to make registration as easy as possible.

I wasn’t optimistic at first, but I actually like these changes. When you talk to anti-registry folks they have a lot of arguments against it, some legitimate and some not. I think these reforms address nearly all of the legitimate concerns I’ve heard against the registry, or at least those I’m inclined to agree with.

Their big argument was criminality: why should I be a criminal if I forget to register Great-Grandpa’s old rifle from the Boer War? OK, it’s now a non-criminal, ticket offence. Another argument was I have a large rifle collection, you’re going to gouge me with fees? OK, no more fees. And all that paperwork? There’ll still be some, but we’ll streamline it.

The arguments that are left tend to lose steam:

Why should I have to register my gun? Well, why not? You register your car and your dog.

Criminals won’t obey the law and register! Criminals by definition don’t obey laws. Does that mean we shouldn’t have any?

It's too expensive? Yes, building it went over budget but that money is spent, the operating costs are actually low. If a house went over budget during construction, do you tear it down once built?

The police don’t use it! Tell that to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and scores of police chiefs and officers across the country who say otherwise. Not all police support it, true, but many do. So if even half find it to be a useful tool, should we take it away for ideological reasons?

From there we descend into the conspiracy theories, about gun registration being the first step toward the government rounding up all the gun and marching us off to socialist work camps or something. I actually think that’s only if Obama gets a second mandate, actually.

The politics in Parliament

So with these proposed reforms, I understand that the entire Liberal caucus is now supposedly onside against Hoeppner’s bill. Reportedly Ignatieff will whip the vote, and I’m sure OLO wouldn’t whip it if they didn’t have them all onside. Well, one would like to think so, at least. It would be a pretty dumb move otherwise.

Even if all Liberal MPs are whipped, present and accounted for, and the BQ again votes no, it’s not enough to defeat the legislation though. Some 12 NDP MPs broke ranks and voted to kill the registry on second reading, mainly from rural ridings. The NDP says while it supports the registry, but it allows its MPs to vote their conscience on private members bills. Joe Comartin told Power and Politics Monday that while they’re trying to convince the 12, leader Jack Layton isn’t likely to whip the vote. Unless he changes his mind or convinces his 12 MPs to change theirs, the NDP will let the registry be killed. Indeed, they’ll help kill it.

It is a tricky situation, trying to bridge those cleavages within a caucus. We’ve been there. But hiding behind the “it’s a private members bill so it’s a free vote” line is a cop-out. The Conservatives are pushing this legislation; they did it as a pseudo private members bill PRECISESLY BECAUSE they wanted to peel off enough Liberal and NDP votes to pass it, because they knew they couldn’t pass it as a government bill. This is what the Conservatives want.

And if you believe the Conservatives aren’t whipping this vote on the down low, you’re hopelessly naïve. Not one Conservative MP from an urban riding (there are a few) or Quebec supports the registry? Well, all-righty then.

If the NDP really supports the registry, they need to either work with the Liberals and BQ on reforms that can get their caucus onside, or bite the bullet (to use a metaphor) and whip the vote. But it’s hard to have it both ways.

And the politics in Canada

Interesting to consider how this will play outside the Queensway. Let’s start with rural Canada. Will the Liberal reforms be enough to appease registry opponents? Not all of them. But some of them. There are those who will accept nothing less than abolition. They’re not likely to vote for Liberal for a boatload of reasons no matter what. But I think for many rural voters, the reforms address enough of their concerns to take this issue off the table for them. Getting them to vote Liberal will take a lot more, but it removes a roadblock and is a step in the right direction.

In urban Canada there’s probably no change as they support the registry and don’t think it should go anywhere, and I don’t think they’ll see the reforms as diminishing the effectiveness of the registry.

Now, what if the registry is killed by the Conservatives, with NDP support? Well, in rural Canada I’d see it as status quo. Could our rural MPs that voted to save it in vain be punished for trying to save the registry? Maybe. I’m sure the rabid registry haters would try to whip up some anger just out of spite. But given that they’d have won – the registry is dead – it’s likely most people who wanted it killed would be glad it’s gone and would cast their ballots on other issues.

In the cities, though, where support for the registry is strong, it’s another story. If the Liberal caucus unites in favour of the registry and the NDP splits to let it die, I wouldn’t want to be campaigning for the NDP in many urban ridings next election. What will they say in Surrey and Burnaby, in Vancouver-East, in Trinity-Spadina, and even Toronto-Danforth. Heck, how about Outremont?

And what about the Conservatives? We hear a lot of spin about how the Liberals are out of touch with rural voters on the registry. Well, aren’t the Conservatives then out of touch with urban voters on the registry? Hasn’t hurt them to date as they’ve taken no high-profile steps to kill it. Pass Hoeppner’s bill though and it’s another story, and I don’t think the “it’s a private members bill” line will fly with many urban voters. The Conservatives need to gain urban seats to move forward. This would make that dammed hard.

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd posit that the Conservatives want the NDP to defeat this bill. That lets them say to their base "we tried our best" while not pissing off the urban voters they need for growth purposes. And it lets them keep the registry alive as a red-meat issue, which has been their modus-operandi on justice issues from day one -- favouring politics and the appearance of progress over actual action.

So we’ll see how this all plays out. Right now, the ball is in the court of Layton and the NDP. Were I a betting man, I’d wager they find a way to get their caucus onside with some amendments. With the Liberals no longer to give them cover, being seen killing the registry would be unthinkable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BC is hungry for an alternative

I haven’t been active at all in provincial politics since I moved to Ontario nearly five years ago. Naturally, I’m inclined to support the McGuinty Liberals (some issue by issue disagreements with them aside) but I’ve neither joined (except briefly before the last election) nor volunteered for the party, and haven’t blogged much on provincial issues either.

Could be that I have my hands full following the minority madness in Ottawa, but I also think it’s because I was spoiled growing-up in British Columbia, where provincial politics is more than a little crazy, and always entertaining (even if Campbell tried hard to make it boring again.)

From the craziness of the Vander Zalm Socreds with scandals such as the Fantasy Gardens affair, to Bingogate under the NDP’s Mike Harcourt and all the drama about Glen Clark’s deck and the fast cat ferry fiasco (alliteration is key to a good scandal), to Gordon Campbell’s Hawaiian DUI, the legislature raids and now the return of Vander Zalm and the HST drama – BC politics is never boring.

It has, however, become increasingly polarized over the years, and that has left many – myself included – unimpressed with our options and hungry for an alternative. I joined and volunteered for the BC Liberals in my teens in the mid-1990s, when it was led by Gordon Wilson (before his nuttiness was evident) and was the third-party in BC. And when it was also still what you and I would call liberal.

Then when the Socreds imploded, they essentially launched take-over of sorts and Campbell took the leadership. They still seemed liberal enough in 1996, when they lost the seat-count to Clark’s NDP (but won the popular vote). I then headed East for university and, when I came back around 2002, they weren’t so liberal anymore. In government they’d taken a sharp shift to the right, leaving many centrist Liberals feeling homeless. Some stuck it out with the BC Liberals, others voted NDP. I cast my ballot based on the local candidates, supporting and voting for both parties over the years but with enthusiasm for neither.

It’s a situation many in BC find themselves in. The BC Liberals are too right; the BC NDP too left (and not particularly welcoming to federal Liberals either, which doesn’t help). It leaves many on the sidelines, and many holding their noses to vote for the lesser evil. And neither party seems particularly inclined to appeal to this disenchanted centre.

It leads to a teeter-totter of voter support in the province. The province, when it had enough of the Harcourt/Clark years, reduced the NDP to two seats in 2001, handing 77 seats to the Liberals. They gave Campbell two more majorities but with decreasing enthusiasm and now, with their handling of the HST feeding underlying fatigue and disenchantment with the governing party, the polls show the BC NDP is again poised to win a mandate (although the election won’t be until 2013).

The opposition New Democratic Party has harnessed public anger over the harmonized sales tax to open its biggest lead since Gordon Campbell's B.C. Liberals took power in 2001, a new Angus Reid poll has found.

Conducted this week, the poll found the NDP have 47 per cent support, a commanding 18 points ahead of the governing Liberals.

The Liberals have the support of just 29 per cent of people across the province, the poll found, 17 points below their total in the election last May. The Green Party has 15 per cent support, and the B.C. Conservative Party has five per cent.

Interestingly, though, it’s not as ifBritish Columbians are suddenly enamored with Carole James and the BC NDP. It’s just that they’re really pissed at Campbell’s Liberals, and there’s no other real option.

Forty per cent of people polled described the NDP as "inefficient," and 37 per cent called it "weak."

What if there was another option, though? That’s where it gets interesting:

The poll found that a newly created centre-left party could form the government if it ran in the May 2013 election.

When asked, 34 per cent of people said they would vote for the new party, ahead of 28 per cent who said they would vote NDP. A new centre-left party would relegate the B.C. Liberals to third, the poll found.

That may sound like a surprising number, but to seasoned observers of BC politics it really shouldn’t be. There is a strong hunger for a centre-left alternative in the province, for a real Liberal party founded on core Liberal values and policies, instead of a party of conservatives usurping the Liberal name.

Could the vaunted BC Liberal coalition of right and centre (if it ever really existed other than in name) be ready to fracture? Maybe. Could we see a third party in the province, a party of the centre-left? If things get dire enough for the Campbell Liberals, it’s certainly possible we could see an exodus.

The question though is who flees though, and who do they attract. The other possibility is a strengthening of a right-wing party. Might some of the right-wing BC Liberals flee to the BC Conservative Party, or form their own alternative? The same Angus Reid poll showed a new right-wing party would guarantee an NDP majority and reduce the BC Liberals to 15% in the polls.

Even if the right fled, allowing the centre-left to reclaim the BC Liberals, the brand may be pretty tainted, sadly, at this point. A new party would seem like the better choice, with the better chance of securing voter support. It may be a question of who flees the BC Liberals first. But a centre-left party would have the best chance to form a government, drawing support from both centrist BC Liberals and BC NDP supporters who voted for the party by default. A solidly right-wing party wouldn't challenge for government.

We seem to go through these upheavals every now and again in BC. The constant, though, has been a two-party system. The BC Liberals were largely a fringe party under Wilson until the Socred takeover. We essentially traded the Socreds for the new “Liberals.”

Now we may be due for another upheaval. Whatever happens though, I hope we don’t end up with another two-party province. The ideal situation would be parties of the left, right and centre. And wherever you’d put the Greens.

BCers deserve clear choices, and they’ve been lacking for far too long.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's job-killing tax hike will cost you $223

While Stephen Harper's Conservatives continue to try to twist Michael Ignatieff's words out of context and meaning to make you think he *might* one day raise taxes, his Conservative government ACTUALLY IS raising taxes. From higher airport security fees, to pulling funding for policing at airports (because we should have to pay a user fee for police protection, right?), to the most egregious example of all: his $525 tax hike on jobs:

Canada's budget watchdog says employment insurance premiums are going up, and by a lot.

The parliamentary budget office estimates that EI premiums paid by workers and employers will need to rise by the maximum allowable limit of 15 cents per $100 of insurable earnings to return the fund to near balance in five years.

That would hike annual contributions per worker by $535 — with about $223 more being paid by the employee and $312 by the employer.

Yes, that means you will be paying another $223 off your pay check to the feds every year, while your employer will be on the hook for another $312. What better way to ensure the economic recovery than a tax hike that will discourage employers from creating new jobs by making it more expensive for them to do so?

Yes, it's Stephen Harper's latest tax increase.

It seems he's the one that's just not worth the risk.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In the end, it’s really about judgment

The revelations, rumours and innuendo are swirling about so quickly these days in the drama of Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer that I think it’s about at the point where we need to step back, let the investigation proceed and, when all the facts are in, consider the results.

I will make some comments though, now that we apparently know the allegations that led the PMO to accept Guergis’ resignation and remove her from caucus, as broke by CTV and the Toronto Star:

The central allegation Snowdy presented is that Gillani, an accused fraudster, claimed to Snowdy that three offshore companies in Belize – a tax haven – had been "reserved" to hold cash for Guergis and Jaffer. Snowdy said he also told the Tory lawyer that Gillani boasted that he had cellphone pictures of Jaffer and Guergis partying with high-class escorts when cocaine was being snorted.

As was reported last week, the issue here is the possibility of a minister of the crown facing the threat of blackmail. That’s a very serious issue that does need to be investigated in full. That goes above and beyond the moral and comparatively minor potential legal issues of alcohol, drug use and association with dodgy characters to possibly calling the integrity of the government (as an institution, not the governing party) into question. When it received those allegations, the PMO was absolutely right to act swiftly.

Let me say though that, now that we know the source of these allegations: allegedly Gillani, via a private investigator hired by one of his alleged victims posing as a potential business partner, let me say that, while they must be investigated, I find it hard to give these allegations too much merit. Given what we’ve read of Gillani, I wouldn’t be surprised if these were just flamboyant boasts designed to impress a potential business partner with no more basis in reality than Jaffer’s alleged boasts of access to the PMO. I could be proven wrong. We’ll see what the investigation reveals. But the original source doesn’t inspire confidence, and in fairness I think we need to wait for the results of that investigation.

Anyways, the allegations are swirling so thickly like smoke now that we’ll have to wait for it all to settle. What we do know however, and what is abundantly clear, is that at its core this is all about judgment: that of both Helena Guergis and Stephen Harper.

Even if these latest accusations prove to be groundless, at the very least it’s clear that Guergis made some very poor choices about who she has been associating with, as did Jaffer. A person’s character isn’t always readily apparent, and politicians certainly do have all kinds of people trying to develop relationships. And they can't read minds. But for a minister of the crown a degree of discretion is in order, and for a normal person all kinds of alarm bells should have been going off here.

And while Harper moved swiftly when he learned of these latest allegations, the fact is he shouldn’t have put her into cabinet in the first place, and certainly shouldn’t have stuck with her until this bitter end. While these explosive allegations may have been news, there was an encyclopedia of information that should have made it readily apparent for some time that Guergis lacked the competence or the judgment for the job.

He couldn’t have known it would end up like this, but there was enough reason to seriously doubt her judgment. The fact that Harper stuck with her anyways, for what seem like purely political reasons, until he had absolutely no choice but to act, raises serious questions about the judgment of our prime minister and what guides his decision-making in any number of areas of fundamental import to this country

Those are important points that should be made. On a final note though, were I plotting Liberal strategy (perish the thought) I’d step back from this, and spend more energy on the economy and jobs, on health care (I agree no to user fees, but what IS the answer?), on pensions, on more substantive issues.

The media will keep pursuing this story anyway; better to step back and let the investigations proceed unless more information emerges. Polls are a dime a dozen, but one does show this morning that the Guergis affair may be hurting the Conservatives. That’s unsurprising. It’s not going to help the Liberals however, so let’s not worry about it.

People may briefly be willing to consider alternatives. As I’ve long been saying though, the only way they’ll consider the Liberals is if we actually offer one. So let’s build on the work that has been done, from Canada at 150 to the cross-country tours to the roundtables, and take this opportunity to put some ideas out there. That needs to be a long-term, ongoing process.

Frankly, even just BEING SEEN talking about substantive issues at a time like this would be an effective contrast.

Such a focus would be far more productive for the Liberals – and welcome by the Canadian people -- than all the ethics and conflict commissioner referrals, committee hearings and question period bluster in the world.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Elections BC’s recommendations for legislative reform include Saturday e-days

Elections BC has submitted a report to the BC Legislature detailing its recommendations for electoral and legislative reform. Much of it is technical, but there are a number of interesting reccomendations, including moving elections to from Spring to Fall and Tuesdays to Saturdays, and pre-registering 16 year olds so they’re already on the voter’s list by age 18.

You can read the full report here in PDF format. While Elections BC cautions that it’s role isn’t to advocate specific changes (other than technical bureaucratic problems) but rather to identify areas for the legislature to consider and debate, the report does raise some interesting topics and present a few interesting specifics. Among the highlights:

*Let’s vote on Fall Saturdays: Like many jurisdictions, B.C. now has fixed election days, on the second Tuesday in May every four years. Since the throne speech and budget usually come in the spring, Elections BC says the rules around advertising that come into force 60 days before the campaign overlaps the throne speech and budget, causing headaches for those groups that wish to comment on them as they are/may be required to register with Elections BC and obey reporting requirements. TO make things easier, they suggest considering Fall elections instead, with an e-day preferable before the end of October before it gets too chilly.

Also, Elections BC wants to re-visit Tuesday e-days. Since most polls are at schools, there are security issues given the presence of students. They say moving to Saturday e-days would eliminate that concern, as well as make it easier for find e-day staff, and possible increase turnout.

Personally, fall or spring matters not to me. They haven’t sold me on Saturday voting though. While I’m sympathetic to the security concerns, we’ve had polls in schools for years. Have there ever been any incidents? Staffing is an issue, but I don’t recall it being a huge problem in past years. And would it really increase turnout voting on the weekend? Sure, people wouldn’t have work. But I’d argue they’d be less likely to interrupt their day off to go vote then just ducking out of work, or doing it on their way to or from. Is there any comparative data between jurisdictions with weekend and weekday voting?

*Registering 16 year olds: Unsurprising given their low turnout, but voter registration for the 18 to 24 age group is the lowest of all age groups. The voting age is 18 but most are out of high school at that point, making registering them much more difficult. Australia allows voter registration at 17 (with voting age of 18) and apparently several U.S. states have or are looking at registering at 16 or 17. Elections BC says by allowing voter registration at 16 they could ensure more youth are eligible and able to vote by 18, and they say high schools are supportive of bringing this into schools.

Sounds like a good idea to me, anything that could get more youth voting is a positive.

*Nomination deposits: The report gives a statistic I found interesting: Since 1996, the number of candidates in BC elections has dropped by 33% while the number of seats rose by 13%. So less people are running for office, which I’d argue is a bad thing. Elections BC identifies nomination deposits as one barrier, with others being the need for solemn oaths to file, which cost money and can be hard to obtain in some communities .

BC currently requires a $250 nomination deposit, refundable if 15% of the vote is obtained. Elections BC notes a 2007 Ontario Superior Court ruling that found requiring a vote threshold for deposit return unconstitutional, and says the trend in Canada is to either require no deposit or make it refundable on filing required financial reports. Elections Canada now returns the $1000 deposit if financials are filed as required, while Ontario now requires no deposit.

I’d favour making the nomination refundable if all the paperwork is filed as required after the election. I do think there should be some level of deposit required, though. I think $200 is an OK figure, it’s fairly low, and a good balance between accessibility vs. discouraging the crazies.

Anyway, those were the highlights as I saw them, but lots more in the PDF.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Caption this photo!

A photo that must be captioned, from Reuters.

B: "No, Stephen Harper. You need your own environmental policy!"
S: "I'm sorry, Mr. President."

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) greets Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington April 12, 2010. Obama opened a 47-nation summit dedicated to keeping nuclear arms from terrorists and planned to seek momentum in his push for a new round of sanctions on Iran.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we get the politicians we deserve?

I have to shake my head a little every time I read another story attacking MP salaries or criticizing their “gold-plated” pension plans. It’s an oft-repeated, often reflex criticism, and it’s an easy one to make. I hear it just as often as I hear people lamenting the quality of people that politics seems to attract these days. It’s ironic the two complaints are so often heard, because I don’t think the complainers see the connection: do we get the politicians we pay for?

Certainly it’s easy to attack the compensation level of our politicians. Particularly when times are tough. It’s our tax dollars that pay their salaries, after all. And it can be politically dicey to set your own compensation. That’s why the last government moved to tie MP salaries to those of judges, so MPs wouldn’t be making decisions about their own raises – the idea being to de-politicize the process. Unfortunately, by announcing a plan to freeze MP salaries in the last budget, the Conservatives brought politics back into the process.

If some in the public had their way, we’d pay our politicians nothing. That’s obviously a silly and untenable extreme. Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi has pledged to cut his salary by 10 per cent if elected – a popular populist gesture, no doubt, but a purely symbolic one that does nothing to address the real issues facing the city while only serving to devalue the role that politicians should – even if they often don’t – play in governing and administering multi-million and multi-billion-dollar businesses.

What do MPs make? The annual base salary of an MP is $157,731. A full minister adds another $75,516.00, and a minister of state adds $56,637.00 (meaning that demotion really cost Helena Guergis). The Prime Minister adds $157,731.00, the leader of the opposition $75,516.00 and the other party leaders $53,694.00. Other positions such as whips and house leaders also add to their base salaries. Then, there’s the oft-mentioned “gold-plated” pension plans.

So, is the average MP salary too high? While $75,000 is above the average Canadian salary, when you consider the hours and the job responsibilities – primarily writing and vetting the laws that govern the nation – I think they’re well earned, and probably below what someone with similar responsibilities could expect to earn in the private sector. Is just over $200,000 really out of line for a federal cabinet minister, who is essentially a senior vice-president in a multi-billion dollar corporation? I bet if you factored in salary, stock options and other compensation, the private sector salary for a senior VP would dwarf a minister’s.

And what about pensions? While it was reformed in the mid-1990s into what I’d argue is a comparatively silver-plated MP pension plan (this is how all the Reform MPs justified opting into the plan they’d campaigned so hard against) it is still much better comparatively than most private sector plans. I’d argue MPs forgo salary earning potential to a degree for pension security, but more importantly I think seeing MP pensions as the problem when making that comparison misses the point. It should be a wake-up call about the growing pension crisis in the Canadian economy, and the need to seriously address it.

My point here, though, is that I think we get the politicians we pay for. I’m not arguing for salary increases. While politicizing the process again is a mistake, I agree in principle with the freeze – my own salary has been frozen through the downturn. But I reject this knee-jerk bashing of MP compensation, because it’s counter-productive.

We all agree, I think, that we need to attract a better quality of politician then we’re getting these days. But are we going to get them by refusing to give them fair compensation? Yes, you don’t want people attracted to the pay and perks. But you also can’t expect the talented, experienced people we want in politics to forego the compensation available to them in the private sector just for the love of public service. That’s not fair to them, or to their families. Would you take a large salary cut in your prime earning years to go take the abuse of being an elected politician? If you want talented people, you need fair compensation. Let’s keep that in mind the next time we kvetch about pensions and salaries.

It’s also about the role of the MP

Compensation is only half the battle when it comes to getting better people into politics, though. The other is the fact that, in the modern parliament, the role of the average MP has become so devalued and meaningless that few people of quality would want to take it on.

Never mind MPs being nobodies off the hill, as Trudeau said. They’re nobodies on the Hill, shackled by rigid party discipline, their roles marginalized into meaninglessness, mere trained seals to vote the party line and parrot talking-points on demand. Even if they’re lucky enough to get into cabinet, under this government their room to maneuver, to innovate, to operate has been narrowed to a strict mandate letter from the PMO they daren’t stray from.

Given all this, it’s no wonder we lament the quality of the people who are attracted to political life these days. Far from the best and brightest, it’s more those attracted to the perks – prominence, travel, an above-average salary and, if they’re lucky enough to get into cabinet, a car and driver and the odd Challenger flight if they toe the line. Certainly not the best and brightest.

To be sure, there are still those on all sides who get involved because of a genuine desire and love for public service. They’re increasingly few and far between though, and quickly worn down by the excessive partisanship and inability to really get much of meaning accomplished.

Sadly, we get the politicians we deserve. Until we change our expectations, that’s unlikely to change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rahim Jaffer: no logo, no influence

Word on twitter is that the Harper PMO has demanded embattled former Conservative caucus chair Rahim Jaffer remove the many prominent Conservative logos from his personal Web site. I guess his association with alleged con men, and allegedly busty hookers, is bad for government business. Plus the whole booze and drugs thing.

In cyberspace, though, you can never really erase these things from the record...

I wonder how long it will be before the disappearance of this photo is demanded too...

Meanwhile, spokespeople for the guy standing to the right of Rahim in that picture say it's "absurd" to thing the guy on the left would have any influence with him. I mean, it's not like he was once his hand-picked caucus chair or anything.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What does it take for Harper to punt a minister?

Reading Kevin Donovan’s explosive Toronto Star investigative piece linking Rahim Jaffer to an alleged conman, booze and drugs and, yes, busty hookers, I can’t help but wonder what it takes for someone to get fired from Stephen Harper’s cabinet.

Now, I’m not saying it’s fair to hold Helena Guergis responsible for the sins of her husband, alleged or otherwise. I think Guergis has done plenty on her own to merit her punting from the cabinet room, from her airport tantrum to the letter writing to her sheer incompetence for the job. (I think the mortgage stuff is stupid, for what it’s worth.)

It’s not fair to hold her responsible for Jaffer’s sins as well as her own but, let’s face it, fairly or not, as long as she’s in cabinet Jaffer’s indiscretions are a drag both on her and the Conservative brand. And it has to be pissing Stephen Harper and the PMO off mightily.

Guergis and Jaffer have become a distraction for the government, and are throwing them off message. The latest story will only intensify that. This isn’t an inside the Queensway story. This is a Tim Horton’s story, and erodes the very image the Harper Conservatives have been trying to portray: work hard, play by the rules. Already we’re hearing about Conservative fundraisers being told no more donations will be coming while Guergis remains in cabinet. The Conservative grassroots are angry, and the Conservative talking heads – likely with PMO permission – have been turned loose to attack her.

Still, Harper has publicly maintained his support for her. While he clearly would like her to quit and seems to be encouraging that, he seems unwilling to fire her only for fear of handing the opposition a victory. Give them snarling masses one trophy, the old Ottawa theory goes, they’ll only be back for more.

At some point, though, you’d think enough would be enough. At some point you have to weigh giving the opposition a trophy vs. the constant embarrassing revelations and distractions, even if they’re not all on her, and say it’s just not worth it keeping this person on. It's not like this guy has ever been known for personal loyalty. Just ask Jim Hawkes and Preston Manning.

Will Harper reach that breaking-point soon? I think many would have long ago.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(April Fools) I'm leaving blogging, and the Liberals

This may seem like a sudden decision, but really it's something and I've been wrestling with for a long time and, to regular readers of my blog, the tension has always likely been just below the surface. But after four-and-a-half years of blogging, and nearly 16 years since I first joined the Liberal Party of Canada, I have decided today end this blog and cancel my Liberal membership.

I've probably been heading to this moment since just after I began blogging, during the 2005/06 election. The Liberal Party after the years of Chretien/Martin warfare had lost its way, it wasn't the party I remembered. Following the soldiers in our streets ad, I nearly walked away right then. They did loose my vote that election.

But then came the selection of Stephane Dion as the new Liberal leader, and my faith in Liberalism was renewed once more. Alas, the party failed to rally around him, and he just couldn't get it done. He just wasn't a leader.

With not many palatable choices on the menu last time I decided to give Michael Ignatieff a chance. Despite my early optimism though, he has disappointed. His decisions not to force elections Canadians don't want was disappointing. His grand idea to hold a conference of "thinkers" to ask "experts" what they think about "problems" instead of just offering voodoo economics and empty platitudes shows just how out of touch he is with the Tim Horton's crowd. It's increasingly clear to me that Michael is just in it for himself.

I've been increasingly impressed with the leadership of Stephen Harper. I was skeptical at first, but he has proven himself to be an able and competent manager and an astute political strategist in touch with the needs and concerns of real Canadians. He has made Canada once more the true north, strong and free.

Accordingly, I will be moving to Ottawa today and have accepted a position as director of communications in the office of the Minister of State for the Status of Women. Apparently they've had a few job openings in the office lately and were very happy to get my resume, hiring me over the phone this morning, April 1st.

I know Helena Guergis has been taking a lot of flack lately. But I can say without reservation that these shortsighted and futile attempts by opponents to disrespect MP Guergis in order to advance their own political careers only reaffirms the reason that voters placed their confidence in her the last election. Are Helena and Rahim Jaffer a power couple--I don't know. Smart, hard working, accomplished--you bet!

I've enjoyed writing this blog and the interactions with you, my readers. If you're ever up in Ottawa after April 1st, look me up.

Yours in Conservatism,

Jeff

UPDATE: As many of you have figured-out in the now posted comments, this indeed an April Fool's post. I'm not actually going to work for Helena Guergis.

I'm actually replacing John Williamson in the PMO.

OK, not really. Happy April 1st to all. Enjoy a sunny long weekend.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal media bias? Not according to Tom Flanagan

Is the Canadian media a big, bad Liberal monolith out to get the Conservatives? Not according to Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political science professor, former senior adviser to Stephen Harper, former Conservative campaign manager, and the man oftem described as "Harper's Brain":

1:23 [Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Dear Mr. Flanagan Do you feel the Conservatives have to work extra hard to sell their proposals because of a more-than-usual hostile press?

1:28 Tom Flanagan: Our situation in Canada is very different from the USA, where the national media are definitely liberal (except for Fox News). In Canada both the Sun chain and the CanWest papers tend to be sympathetic or at least open-minded toward the Conservatives. The Globe and Mail sometimes indulges in quixotic crusades against the government (e.g., prorogation) but is pretty fair overall. The Toronto Star is relentlessly hostile, but nobody ever said you could make friends with everyone. I would say that, compared to most countries with which I have any famiiarity, the Conservatives in Canada actually have friendly media to work with. It was different in the past, but that's the way it is now.

Of course, this confirmation from their own camp, or even an objective analysis, won't stop the Conservatives from playing the media bias card at every opportunity. It's a strategy itself, of course, probably hatched with Flanagan's input back in the day: bang the media on the head regularly for being biased, they'll work extra hard to make sure they're not by bending the opposite way instead.

I've long maintained the only bias most media have isn't for the Liberals, the Conservatives or for Natural Law: it's for a good story. They won't bend things for any one party regularly, but they will bend things for a good headline -- the party involved is really irrelevant to them.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers