10 mostly negative (but I did try) thoughts about the Speech from the Throne

I know everyone stopped caring about the Speech from the Throne on Thursday, including Prime Minister Harper, who fled to Europe right after it was read Wednesday night to bring back every Canadian a block of gouda. I’ve been busy the last few days though so forgive me, but I’m just getting to the throne speech now.

I wanted to write something along the lines of five likes and dislikes, but I found that, even when there were things I liked, there were such caveats that it was hard to really call them likes. So, instead, here’s some thoughts of things I like but am sceptical of, and things I straight-out dislike.

• Probably the closest to a genuine like was the commitment to lowering inter-provincial trade barriers. It’s an important economic issue that doesn’t get enough attention. However, it’s not the first time the Harper government has promised to do something about it. About the only accomplishment I can point to on this front is wine, and I still can’t get much BC wine in Ontario because the province isn’t on board. And that was a private member's bill. Besides, if Harper really wanted to address this, he may actually have to get into the same room as the premiers. So I’m not holding my breath

• The government said it “work in partnership with industry to ensure that all major military purchases create high-quality jobs for Canadian workers.” Good. If we’re going to spend billions on new jets or ships, we should try to keep much of that money at home. If this is the government policy though, it’s a new one. Take the F-35. While every other country made a point of getting a guarantee that the vendor will spend X dollars (usually equivalent to the contract value) in their country, Canada pointedly did not. Our companies will compete on the open market for the work, the government said. Yeah, except it’s not an open market when every other country is getting guaranteed contracts.

• The government promised an “updated science, technology and innovation strategy.” This is important, we need one to refocus both government and industry in this area. I look forward to reading it. And I have been for some time. They were accused of lagging on this -- over three years ago.

• The government promised to “renew its efforts to address the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.” Since their efforts seem to largely be remaining the only group opposed to a national inquiry, I’m not sure how they plan to do that without a policy change.

• When it comes to the military, they pledge to “put front-line capability before back-office bureaucracy.” I agree. So did former Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie in his government-commissioned Report on Transformation, a report this government shelved. Leslie is now advising Liberal leader Justin Trudeau on military issues.

• More verbiage about the government’s support for veterans which, in reality, is limited to tweeting about wearing red on Fridays to show support for the troops. Meanwhile, veterans are increasingly vocal in their disgust for this government, are having to fight it in court to protect their benefits, and are under orders to keep their mouths shut. That’s this government’s definition of supporting our veterans.

• The government promises “changes to Canada’s elections laws to uphold the integrity of our voting system.” Meanwhile, the Conservatives were found guilty of breaking Canada’s elections laws and called the finding a “great victory.”

• Now we’re into straight-out dislikes. I think balanced budget legislation is stupid. It’s pseudo-populist pandering, like fixed-election date laws. And just as easy to ignore, as we’ve seen in the provinces where it’s been implemented. Besides, the Chretien and Martin Liberal governments didn’t need balanced budget laws to turn the Mulroney-era deficits into surplus. Perhaps the Conservatives do though, as Harper and Jim Flaherty quickly turned those surpluses into deficits, even before the recession and stimulus funding. This isn’t about budgeting, it’s about trying to politically limit freedom of movement for a future Liberal (or, sure, NDP) government, just as they’re starving government revenues. It’s an unnecessary law though, something the Conservatives are supposed to be ideologically against.

• Speaking of unnecessary laws, they talk about red tape for small businesses in every throne speech, fiscal update and budget. And they promise that “for every new regulation added, one must be removed.” That’s just dumb. Yes, we should minimize unnecessary regulations. But this kind of arbitrary approach to regulation isn’t particularly productive, or helpful.

• Finally, after all the hype about a consumer agenda, there wasn’t much here. On roughly one page out of 24, we got lowering roaming costs in Canada, unbundling cable packages, no fees for paper bills, cheaper banking services, and something about ending “geographic price discrimination.” I won’t say it’s disappointing, as I found the wholeconsumer-focus thing a distraction anyway. But to the extent they wanted to accomplish something with it, I don’t think this does it. About the only real thing is the cable thing, which will end up costing Canadians more anyways. As will all these things; end the $1 for a paper bill, sure – they’ll just raise rates by $1 instead. Consumers will always pay in the end. The geographic pricing thing is impossible to tackle and will go nowhere.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cell phone packages and cable bills: Is this the real middle class agenda?

The Harper government won’t deliver its speech from the throne until Wednesday, but the theme has been telegraphed for months, and much of the contents well-leaked over the past week. The government will appropriate the middle class theme that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been trumpeting since he began his leadership run, and will appropriate several mini-policies the NDP has proposed over the years, including ones the Conservatives have voted against in the past.

It’s time-worn political tactics to attempt to neuter the opposition by outflanking them, and the Conservatives are clearly concerned with the apparent durability of current Liberal popularity under Trudeau. Normally they’d want to strengthen the NDP to balance off the Liberals, but borrowing some of their micro-policies allows them to put some grizzle on their middle class bones and, in the best Conservative tradition of micro-targeting, allows them to offer something tangible to their target voters,  like the transit and arts program credits of past budgets, at little cost.

What micro-policies? We’re hearing through carefully-placed media leaks, and on the record interviews like Sunday's from industry minister James Moore, about airline regulations to strengthen passenger rights in situations such as overbooking, wireless carrier regulations to favour users when it comes to contracts and subsidies, regulations around the bundling of channels in cable packages, and other things of this nature. You can never go wrong picking on Air Canada and the big three wireless carriers, after all. It’s being billed as a “consumer agenda.”

Besides trying to outflank the opposition, it’s a pretty transparent attempt by the Conservatives to change the channel from the drip drip of a Senate scandal that seems to be in no hurry of letting up. Which isn’t to say it won’t work. At some point, political scandal becomes white noise. But when Canadians hear (no doubt in a coming wave of taxpayer-funded Economic Action Plan ads) that the government is going to make their cable bills cheaper, that’s real to them and their lives, today. It will resonate. So it very much has merit.

Let’s put aside for now that ideological conservatives must be aghast at what they’re hearing. If a Liberal government proposed an agenda of across the board sweeping intervention in private industry, protecting consumers against greedy corporations, the right would go insane. Instead, let’s ask, does what is being proposed by the government really qualify as a middle class agenda?

To hear Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the problem with the leaked throne speech contents is that the Conservatives are late (and probably not overly genuine) converts to the consumer agenda, and should have voted for these things when the NDP proposed them and/or put them forward years earlier in their government.

OK, sure. But how about mentioning the stunning lack of ambition of the Harper government? With a majority government, having hit the reset button to put forward a new agenda for governing Canada, they come up with cable bills, cell phones and airline overbooking? This is why they want to govern? This is their agenda for a 21^st Century Canada?

I have no doubt these items will be superficially popular with middle class Canadians. So would buying everyone a pony. And if middle class Canadians were to take a break from running the kids around to extra-circulars and making school lunches for a moment, they’d realize having to pay for more cable channels than they want isn’t their biggest worry.

Their bigger worries are probably how are they going to save for their children’s education and pay off their mortgage at the same time? How are they going to be able to care for their ageing parents when they’re no longer able to care for themselves? How will they ever be able to afford to retire? And what if one of them loses their jobs?

We need a government that looks at the bigger picture, and thinks to the future. The government's priority shouldn’t be cell phones and cable bills, and the problem isn’t that they didn’t ban airline overbooking sooner. The problem is this government’s stunning lack of ambition. Stunning, and deliberate, as the Conservatives don’t see a role for government in education, in health care, in elder care (and yet, bizarrely, they do in regulating cell phone plans).

This is a middle class agenda that demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance of and disdain for the middle class, and for all Canadians. The challenge will be getting Canadians to look past momentary self-interest, and think of themselves, not as consumers, but as citizens.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On generations, reefer madness and focusing on the economy

A week later and my news clippings are still filled with news about Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s sensible talk about marijuana legalization – and they say it’s hard for an opposition leader to get attention in the summer, when the House isn’t sitting…

The Conservatives are helping keep the issue alive with the usual fear-mongery fundraising pitch warning of Liberal-inspired reefer madness and the breakdown of civil society should we not continued with the spectacular failure that has been the war on drugs. Here’s what they fear the future would look like:

Ironically, these distortion-filled, fear-mongery fundraising pitches designed to scare money out of the base are the crack cocaine of Canadian politics: hopelessly addictive, and you need more each time to get the same results. Yet they’re legal?

But seriously, you’ll note that the soft on crime pro-organized crime Conservative pitch said “While the Harper government is focused on the economy…” And how’s that going?

Erasing the federal deficit is the top priority for the Conservative government, but monthly tracking shows Ottawa’s bottom line is moving in the wrong direction.

The federal government posted a $2.7-billion deficit over the first two months of the fiscal year, which begins April 1. That compares to a $1.8-billion deficit during the same two months – April and May – the year before.

So maybe stop with the lame e-mails and focus a little harder or something.

Meanwhile, over at the Globe, they tackle the issue (no, not the economy, silly) with a subscribers-only piece claiming “Trudeau’s stand on pot legalization gives Harper a generational wedge.” Is it a coincidence they put most of their weakly argued analysis-pieces behind a firewall?

Anyway, they're not the first pundits to argue only young people (who dont' vote much anyways) would find appeal in legalization,. Unlike the older middle class, who do vote and don’t like it.

But is that the case? Rather than relying on gut-based evidence, perhaps there is research we can use? Why wait, yes there is.

You know who does vote, and in big numbers? Baby boomers. And how do they feel about legalization? According to a U.S. study from the Pew Center, today 50 per cent of boomers (aged 49 to 67) support legalization, a number that has risen sharply over the last 13 years.

The study also found that 54 per cent of GenXers and 65 per cent of millennials are pro-legalization.

Now, this isn’t to say that this issue is a vote-getter for anyone, as that would need another study – but given the wide-spread support across age ranges, it’s not likely to be a vote-taker either. And while its true that under a first past the post system you don’t need a majority vote to form a majority government – it could well be there’s a decent enough core of hardened opposition to be beneficial to Harper -- I suspect that’s already his base.

But what is clear is that making this a generational thing, and saying legalization only appeals to youth to lazy to vote anyways, is a lazy hypothesis unsupported by the facts. While a majority of our politicians may be behind the times, a majority of Canadians are already there.

UPDATE: Here's an Angus Reid study from 2012 with Canadian numbers. According to this report, 57 pert cent of Canadians favour legalization. Support ranges from a high of 64 per cent in Atlantic Canada to a low of 51 per cent in Alberta. Support is higher with men (64 per cent) than women (50 per cent). When broken down by age, support for legalization is actually highest from Age 35-54, at 61 per cent, followed by18-34 at 58 per cent and 55+ at 51 per cent.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The state has no business in the computers of the nation

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, a future Prime Minister once said. Nearly 50 years later, it's time for an update, as the state has no business in our computers either.

Inspired by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has proposed legislation that would require British Internet service providers (ISPs) to filter any adult-related content on home Internet connections unless the customer has asked for it -- to protect children, they say -- Conservative MP Joy Smith says she wants Stephen Harper to bring similar regulation to Canada.

For all their supposed opposition to big government, why does it always seem to be the Conservatives that want to play Big Brother? Why is the party of parental responsibility not leaving the state out of this, and putting the responsibility to educate and protect children where it belongs, with their parents?

Parents have plenty of tools if they want to lock down their computers and block adult content, with a variety of applications and parental controls on the market. Many ISPs even provide them free of charge to their customers. An ISP-level filter is unnecessary.

Of course, young people still find the content. And they will no matter where the filter resides. It would be as simple as going over to a friend's house that doesn't have the filter enabled. Young people will always find such content if they want to -- they're much more tech savvy than their parents anyways. That's why trying to build a firewall, besides being impracticable, isn't the answer. Education is the answer. Parents need to have a conversation with their children at the appropriate age and put such information in context.

How would the Conservative great porn firewall work anyways? Would each ISP decide what qualifies as adult content that must be blocked? Would the government create an adult content censorship committee to review content for dirtiness and maintain a black list? And whose standards would prevail?

We got a preview of the sorts of issues and false positives that would arise last week when Tim Horton's came under fire for blocking access to a (clean) gay and lesbian news site on its Wi-Fi network. After a public outcry, it reversed the ban and blamed an overzealous contractor.

The state has no business in the computers of the nation. This is a horrible idea that should be killed here and now. Leave the state censorship, Internet firewalls and blacklists for China.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What happened to Harper's cheques for whistleblowers?

In the 2006 election, the Conservatives talked some good talk about whistleblowers. They got a whistleblowing former federal civil servant to run for them as a candidate, and they made protecting whistleblowers a key part of their election platform.

Here’s what they promised:

 

They won that election, and several since. And how are they treating whistleblowers? Here’s just the latest of many examples:

A federal fraud investigator has been suspended without pay, after she leaked documents showing that investigators had to cut people off their employment insurance benefits in order to meet quotas.

Sylvie Therrien told CBC News that she and other investigators were given a target to recover nearly $500,000 in EI benefits every year.

"It just was against my values, harassing claimants… trying to penalize them in order to save money for the government. We had quotas to meet every month," Therrien said.

According to their own policy, not only should the Conservatives not be suspending Therrien without pay, they should be protecting her… AND writing her a cheque.

This is far from an isolated situation, however. Harper’s war on whistleblowers is long-standing. There was Linda Keen, fired as head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for daring to raise issues of nuclear safety. There’s the muzzling of federal scientists, who can no longer speak to the media on routine matters of research, for concern their science could contradict the Conservative worldview.

And then there's the Agriculture Canada whistleblower who raised serious concerns about food safety. Not only did he face punishment, but Gerry Ritz -- lauded last week for his long tenure in the portfolio -- praised the person who leaked the whistleblower's identity.

Indeed, it seems most federal civil servants have gotten the message: if you value your job, keep your head down and your mouth shut:

Federal public servants remain fearful of disclosing wrongdoing, years after Stephen Harper's Conservatives rode to power promising protection for whistleblowers.

A government-commissioned study completed in December 2011 found that most federal workers see job reprisals as the likely outcome of any effort to expose a wrong.

In fact, bureaucrats said they believe that it's typically the whistleblower who gets punished.

Maybe the cheques are in the mail?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons vs. NDP on Dutch Disease shows marginalization of Liberal Party

I remarked last week on Twitter about how NDP leader Tom Mulcair has been dominating my daily news clip package lately, as his comments about an alleged Canadian case of “Dutch Disease” and subsequent trip to the Alberta oil sands spark a heated debate about the Canadian resource sector and its impact on the manufacturing sector and the wider economy.

A piece in Macleans recently helped put into context how this debate is an example of a rare issue where it’s advantageous to both sides to stoke the fire, something the NDP and the Conservatives have wasted no time doing.

It was a rare case of both sides seizing on the same acrimonious argument as a potential political winner. If they continue to see it that way, this regionally sensitive clash over economic and environmental policies could be a defining factor in framing the choice between continued Conservative rule and the NDP alternative. So get ready for “Dutch disease” to claim a key place in the vernacular of federal politics.

The article doesn’t mention the Liberals at all, save a throw-away line about Mulcair not wanting to be defined by the Conservatives as were Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. And that omission is telling, for this whole Dutch Disease/resource sector debate raises (for Liberals, if no one else) an important question: in a Canada where the political debate is increasingly polarized between left and right, NDP and Conservatives, are the Liberals being squeezed out?

Polarizations of the sort we’re seeing around this issue tend to lead to a simplification of the issues: make dirty polluters pay, support a valuable strategic industry that provides billions in tax revenue. And that’s what we’re seeing here: black and white lines being drawn.

Of course, in modern governance few, if any issues are black and white, and neither are the actual positions of the respective antagonists in this debate, even if they underplay that. There are many reasons for the decline of Ontario’s manufacturing sector. Few suggest shutting down the oil sands tomorrow. And credible plans to price carbon have been rejected by both sides. Still, it serves both sides to oversimplify the debate into good vs. evil, which side is which depending on your perspective.

While the NDP and Conservatives may be well-served by oversimplifying complex topics, the question is, are Canadians? I think most Canadians wouldn’t fit neatly into either camp on this issue. I think most would say we need to develop the oil sands in as green and sustainable a way as possible, as we do need those jobs and tax dollars and while, yes, we must develop alternative fuel sources, in the interim the world does still run on oil. And we must do what we can to ensure a vibrant economy in all regions of the country.

That’s not a position we’re hearing from either the NDP or the Conservatives in this debate, although many on either side would probably agree with it. We’ve heard little to nothing from the Liberals through this debate, thepoints they’ve had being drowned-out by the polarized din from either side.

Is there room for the Liberals to take a middle-ground position in this debate? And, even though it may be shared by many Canadians, would it even be heard above the noise of the left vs. right battle?

I don’t know. But the Liberals are going to have to find a way to make themselves heard on this and other issues, because this polarization isn’t going to be going away. This phenomenon is going to become more and more common and the Liberals risk being rendered irrelevant in the national debate. This issue is emblematic of the challenge facing our party.

And whether or not it’s from the Liberals, Canadians do deserve another option besides an oversimplified left and an oversimplified right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why is Julian Fantino hiding his campaign donors?

Blogger The Sixth Estate has written a post drawing attention to the campaign finance filing of Vaughan Conservative MP Julian Fantino from last year's election, noting two campaign contributions of "Dinner" and "Donation" that are rather odd names you don't hear every day. And if they are names, at $117,600 and $65,585 respectively they're well over the individual contribution limit of $1100 for donations to a political campaign.

Now, oddly enough, the Fantino campaign didn’t report a postal code either for Mr. Dinner, or for Mr. Donation. I wonder why that could be. As you can see, Mr. Donation is a very wealthy person. The legal limit is well short of $65,585, but that didn’t stop him! And who paid for the dinner? I certainly hope Elections Canada has more information than we do.

Intrigued, I went over to the Elections Canada web site to take a look for myself. And I was surprised to see that under "Candidates' Details - Statement of Contributions Received (Part 2a)" the only two donations listed were, indeed, Dinner and Donations.

To say this isn't how you are supposed to complete a filing is an understatement. Donations by corporations and unions are banned, and every donation by an individual over $20 must be identified by name and the amount of each contribution. Yet the Fantino campaign filing doesn't list the name of one single campaign contributor.

It would seem likely that the Fantino campaign held a major fundraising dinner that raised $117,600, and also raised another $65,585 through donations. Yet, for some reason, they listed the totals by categories instead of the names of individual contributors and the amount each donated, as required by law. It's such a ridiculous thing to do I'm inclined to think it was sheer incompetence rather than malice, as it's not the sort of thing you could expect to slip under the radar. One look at the filing and it's glaringly obvious. And if it is malicious, at best they could hope to delay the revelation of the names of their donors by a year.

The data posted in Fantino's filing is "as submitted" and hasn't been approved by Elections Canada. It's likely that someone from Elections Canada will be in contact with Fantino's official agent, looking for the missing information. Failure to comply would seem to, at a minimum, mean no expense rebate for the campaign (a loss of tens of thousands of dollars). Fines and possible de-registration of the riding association may also be possibilities; I'm not an expert on the intricacies of election law.

In the meantime, the question remains, just who donated to Fantino's campaign and why hasn't he revealed the list of donors, as required? It it just sheer incompetence or does he have something to hide?

It bears noting, though, that while an argument of sheer incompetence is reasonable with this incident in isolation, make questions have been swirling around the Fantino campaign of late:

* Ex-Tory riding execs question Fantino's election finances

Three former members of the Conservative riding association in Vaughan, Ont., are asking Elections Canada to investigate the campaign's finances. In sworn affidavits, Richard Lorello, Tracey Kent and Carrie Liddy allege possible irregularities in Julian Fantino's 2010 byelection and 2011 election campaigns.

* Elections Canada urged to investigate Fantino

The three former riding association members allege that Fantino’s fundraising chair, Sam Ciccolini, said at a January 2011 meeting that there was a second bank account belonging to the campaign that contained more than $300,000. It is against election rules to have more than one campaign bank account.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Budget 2012 shows Harper plans to stick around awhile

A week or so later, I've finally had a chance to take a gander through the Budget 2012 documents. I like to look through the source documents on things like this rather than rely on media and punditry analysis to form my opinions. And having  done so, I have to say my conclusion is that Stephen Harper plans to stick around for a little while.

Both the left and the right are angry with him, and they both have cases to make. The right wanted sweeping moves to reform and reduce the size of government now that the Conservatives have an unfettered majority. That's not what they got. And the left, besides being upset that the budget (of course) didn't invest in their priority areas, are upset at the areas Harper did decide to cut.

Majority or minority, Harper has generally struck me as a fairly patient man, and one with a plan. He does share the goal of his fellow right-wing travellers for smaller government (his high spending budgets notwithstanding). His most substantial move in this regard was cutting the GST by two per cent a few years ago, which deprives his (and future) government of billions in revenue, tax increases now being largely politically toxic. He wants a smaller role for government too, he just parts ways with some of the right on the timeline.

He took an incremental approach in the minority era because he didn't want his government to fall. With a majority he now has a blank cheque, and majority tradition is to do all the unpopular stuff in year one and then spend the next three trying to win the people back for re-election. If he implemented the kind of massive sweeping and transformative change that some wanted though, even with three years to soften the blow re-election would be a real challenge.

Instead, as has been his practice, he opted for an incremental approach. But if you look closely, the road to smaller government, less checks and balances to his executive power, and progress on Conservative pet peeves is definitely there, from cuts that will force a radical transformation of the CBC (once it loses Hockey Night in Canada and a big chunk of its ad revenue) to a gutting of environmental review regulations and reductions to funding for Elections Canada, which has sparred with the Conservatives over their violations of election law. Reduced funding to Parliament will also make it harder for MPs to do their basic duty of scrutinizing government legislation.

Call it transformation by stealth but slowly, year by year, he's re-making government in a more conservative mould, while working to make the changes difficult to do and harder to oppose. Massive changes overnight would be a rallying cry that could galvanize public opposition. By moving incrementally, he appears relatively moderate to the public, which is what they want. Of course the opposition is going to scream loudly; they always do. The public just tunes it out without something major to draw their attention.

What this budget shows me is that Harper plans to govern for many years to come. Conservatives can shelve any plans for a leadership race; it looks like he plans to run in 2015. At the very least, he wants to hand a good situation over to his successor.

But I think he plans to continue his agenda of incremental conservatization, year by year, for years to come. Conservatization by stealth. He told us once that when he was finished with Canada, we wouldn't recognize it. The change may not be clear year to year, but by the time he's done it definitely will be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rae ad a well-aimed Conservative grenade into the Liberal tent

Proving that you don’t need to ignore or even bend election law to execute a savvy political strategy and tie your opponents in knots, the attack ad launched Sunday night by the Conservatives against interim Liberalleader Bob Rae is clever strategy on many levels. Most of all, it’s a well-aimed grenade into the Liberal tent.

There are many motivations for the Conservatives to launch this attack, and launch it now. For one, it helped distract attention a bit from yesterday’s Toronto-Danforth by-election, where the Conservatives (as expected) got creamed with a paltry 5.4 per cent of the vote, barely ahead of the Green Party. And with more and more damaging revelations coming out every day about the vote suppression scandal, it gives the chattering classes something else to chatter about for a few days. Such as why they’re attacking the interim leader of the third party instead of the official opposition (don’t worry, they’ll get to it).

But more than any of that, the ad is designed to provoke a response from the Liberal Party, and get them to either spend limited resources on a response and/or split the party against each other arguing over what the response, if any, should be.

The Conservatives know that, after financing multi-million dollar ad campaigns that helped destroy the last two Liberal leaders out of the gate, party members are loathe to let it happen again. At January’s convention, members even endorsed the creation of a leader defence fund. The Conservatives know that when attacked, we’re going to demand a forceful response. And they know, fund or no, their war chest still dwarfs ours.

The Conservatives also know that Rae’s refusal to firmly say one way or another if he will seek the permanent leadership is a source of contention within Liberal circles. Those that seek a fair playing field for the leadership race don’t want to see the party-financed leader’s office used to give one candidate a leg-up over the others. There are reports he has alreadydecided to run.

This ad seeks to divide the party between those who will want to see the war chest opened to defend Rae and his record, against those who think using our limited party resources to defend an interim leader who will either not be here in a year, or who may be one of several candidates for the permanent leadership, is unfair and improper. It’s rather a win-win scenario for the Conservatives. Either we deplete our war chest or we fight against each other. Ideally, for them, we’ll do both.

And it also forces Liberals to agitate for a clear answer from Rae on the leadership question: either he definitively rules out a run for the permanent job and continues to ably serve-out his term as interim leader, allowing other contenders to begin organizing. Or he says he will seek the permanent position, and resigns the interim office. As I’ve said before, Ithink it’s time the Liberal executive demand clarity on this issue.

But we need to recognize what the Conservatives are doing here. They’re trying to shift the terms of the debate and get us to fight on a field that’s advantageous to them; we shouldn’t acquiesce.

I support a response, but it must be measured and appropriate, and play to our strengths and our strategy. There are several natural responses. I don’t think ads defending Rae’s record as the NDP premier of Ontario in the 1990s make sense at this point for any number of reasons. Which isn’t to say don’t correct the record and talk it up, just don’t do an ad buy.

You could go negative on Harper and the Conservatives, and that option would find wider support within the party. The question is though, would it be particularly effective? I have my doubts. Harper is a known quantity at this point, and opinions on the Conservatives are reasonably set. We’ve run many ads against them over the years, and I’m doubtful another ad pointing out their failings is likely to be impactful. Which isn’t to say they don’t have their place, let’s just be strategic about it.

What would be impactful, and I believe the Liberal Party is working on this as part of our renewal and rebuilding process, is to present a credible and trusted alternative to the Conservatives, and to the NDP. We can run all the anti-Harper or anti-Conservative ads in the world, but until we convince Canadians we’re a good alternative most will stick with the devil they know. Canadians don’t care about the Ottawa back and forth. They may not love the Conservatives, but they see them as competent managers and certainly don’t hate them the way partisans do.

So any response we launch can’t just be aimed at making Liberal partisans feel better about Conservative attack ads. That’s a waste of money. We need to get outside the bubble and connect with what Canadians really care about -- their families, their day to day lives -- and speak to that, not the scandal du jour. We need to erode confidence in the Harper Conservatives as competent managers deserving of the public trust, while positioning the Liberals as the party that cares about the issues Canadians care about and is deserving of their trust.

Craft a response with those goals in mind and I’m on board. We need to pick our own battleground. Let the Conservatives dictate it and we’ve lost already.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative “war criminal” round-up a made for TV spectacle

Some groups are only comfortable if they have enemies to fight, real or imagined. If you were wondering how the Conservative government would adjust to having a majority government and a rookie opposition, don’t worry: where they can’t find enemies, they’ll just make them up.

It’s been interesting to follow this drama around the government’s recent “war criminal” round-up, where they flashed names and photos (but scant details) of a so-called “gang of 30” immigrants deemed inadmissible for immigration to Canada for alleged conflict-related activities in their home countries. These people are here but need to be sent home, and the government wants the help of the public tracking down these “most-wanted” persons.

Actually, what has been more interesting is how the Conservatives have tried to pick fights over this program where fights don’t necessarily exist. For example, I think most Canadians agree people deemed ineligible for admission to Canada, particularly if there are questions over their activities in an overseas conflict, should be sent home. I think most of us are in agreement on that central point.

Where there is disagreement though, a point that the government and the haphazard editorial writers at the Globe choose to ignore, is how the government is going about this. It seems abundantly clear this program is less about identifying and deporting alleged war criminals, and more about politics. Creating a media spectacle, appearing “tough on crime” and trying to pick a fight, real or imagined.

For example, there are reports that provincial and local police didn’t learn about this “wanted list” until the government held the press conference, and that there were even known addresses for some of these people. It raises the question, just how hard were immigration authorities really looking for these people?

The government has also taken pains to try to play-up the history and danger these people post to inflame public opinion. If they’re inadmissible they’re inadmissible and they should go, but let’s remember these people haven’t been charged with a crime here or at home. They’re not being extradited. Branding them war criminals approaches hyperbole. Particularly when you’re tarring them with that brush but refuse to provide details, citing privacy reasons.

That this is a public relations exercise is underlined by the near daily press conferences with Harper cabinet ministers trumpeting yet another capture of one of these dangerous fugitives.

It’s become reality television meets the immigration and justice systems. If this pilot episode is a ratings success, expect a four-season renewal to follow. It may be compelling television, but it’s no way to run an immigration system. Particularly when this is a time we should be having an open and frank debate about reforming our immigration system.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons keep leadership system Finley says wide-open to abuse

In an convention that was seriously lacking in news (which is the way the Conservatives wanted it, incidentally) the one bit of drama was the battle (which seems to happen at each of their conventions) to re-write the rules for selecting Stephen Harper's successor.

When the Alliance and PCs merged, PC leader Peter MacKay insisted on an equal-riding system instead of the Alliance's pure one member, one vote where ridings with large membership bases (primarily in Alberta) would overwhelm smaller ridings in the rest of the country, giving candidates no incentive to campaign nationally. At his insistence they adopted a system of riding equality, where each riding gets 100 points regardless of membership, and so candidates need to gain support accross the country.

Some of the old Alliance folks have been trying to change the system for years, arguing it's unfair to large membership ridings (a vote in a small riding is worth more than one in a large riding), and it discourages all ridings from recruiting since they're capped at 100 points no matter how many members they have.

At this convention Ontario MP Scott Reid, generally seen as a proxy for future leadership candidate Jason Kenney (who would draw support from populous Ontario and Alberta ridings) put forward an amendment for what he called a compromise position: 100 point minimum, but if you sign up more that 100 members you could increase your points, to a maximum of 400 points. So there would be some incentive to sign up new members, but smaller ridings wouldn't be completely overwhelmed. Senator Don Plett lays out their argument here to delegates at a pre-vote hospitality suite:

On the other side is MacKay and a lot of old Tories, who see such a change abandoning one of the core principles on which the party was founded, and as a move that would stop the Conservatives from being the truly national party they seek to be.

The debate played out quite dramatically on the constitutional plenary floor, following some procedural wrangling. Usually amendments make it to the floor via workshops but the Reid motion was soundly defeated in workshop Friday. He managed to get it to the floor by a petition drive, which the MacKay side tried unsuccessfully to get ruled out of order.

Once debate proceeded, with Reid kicking off the for and MacKay the against, many of the speakers were high profile caucus and cabinet members. Michael Chong and Peter Kent sided with MacKay, while Doug Finley (who ran Harper's successful leadership campaign under the 100 point system) sided with Reid, describing the current system as wide-open to rampant abuse. And he's not entirely wrong; before she crossed the floor Belinda Stronach ran against Harper (and Tony Clement) in that leadership race, and became competitive by sending paid organizers into defunct Quebec ridings and taking them over for 100 points each.

In the end, delegates rejected the Reid motion so soundly by a show of hands the chairs didn't even bother going to an electronic vote. Interestingly, they also rejected an amendment from the MacKay side to enshrine riding equality in the party's core principles, which they argue would make future motion's like Reid's out of order. An interesting bit of balance.

I think Finley will come to regret those words if he's still around when a race to replace Harper does eventually happen. But in the interim, here's MacKay reacting to the day's events:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Barely news today, forgotten tomorrow: live-blogging the policy plenary

1:30 PM: And we're back, or we will be in 5 minutes, the voice from on high just informed the hall. It's time for the policy plenary, and apparently we have 30 or so to deal with in one-and-a-half hours. We'll see how that goes.

Policy plenaries are a funny thing. Well-meaning people spend months getting a policy to the plenary and lobbying for its passage, with much vigorous debate. The media and opposition will loo for controversial policies to highlight. And then after the next day, we'll never hear of these policies again because party leaders write their own platform, never mind what their memberships have to say.

It seems to be a bit of a kabuki play in all parties; after all, developing policy should be a prime reason for joining a party if you're joining for the right reasons. Alas, it's usually just for show.

1:37 PM: They're reading the rules. One requires a "clear majority" to demand debate on a policy for there to be debate. Hmm, how will Guy define a "clear majority"? Is it 50+1? More? Jack Layton definition or Clarity Act definition? Ah, fun.

1:45 PM: After 15 minutes of rules, we're underway. They're not naming them, so it's a it hard to follow. No debate on the first, which I think was basically we love veterans. It passed. They also oppose human smuggling.

1:48 PM: Still no debate. Policy on shared parenting (joint custody mother and father) passes. And motion on family and marriage, saying we don't want to force religious institutions to marry people they dont' want to. Which no one is forcing them to do. Anyway, it passes. This is going too fast.

1:50 PM: Finally debate on a motion which I support, to remove parental means test from student loan eligibility determination. Ridiculous speech against saying it's the millionaires resolution that kids of rich people that don't need it could be getting loans. Really, why would they? That's dumb. Speaker for makes point families can be asset rich/cash poor, like farmers, and shouldn't have to sell land to put kids through school. Glad to see it carries fairly clearly.

1:53 PM: Point of order from a delegate asking the chairs to slow the heck down is met with applause from the floor. I agree, but no clapping allowed on media row.

1:55 PM: This is too fast so I'm not going to comment on each one, just the major ones, and I'll let you know if one is actually killed.

1:59 PM: Point of order from floor, if it's close to wanting debate just have the debate, don't waste our time with the electronic voting. Given that it's two minutes of debate and takes at least that much time to do the e-vote, makes sense to me, and the floor and chairs agree.

2:00 PM: Now it's a motion to require immigrants adhere to "Canadian values." A speaker against asks just how you would define Canadian values anyway. It goes to an e-vote. It passes 65-35 on vote count, and it gets 9 of 11 provinces/territories, so it passes.

2:05 PM: A lot of people's votes aren't being counted electronically, because they're not using the machines properly. First you need to initialize it with the number of people using each machine, to a maximum of six. When you enter the votes, the yes and no votes must equal that number. Apparently people are trying to initialize six, or are trying to enter more votes than they initialized. In the last vote over 30 machines were invalidates, that could be as many as 200 lost votes.

2:08 PM: Debating a motion on refugee determination, #75, and it's the first to be defeated. It would be tougher on refugees, basically, and seems similar to government policy around the ship/s of Tamil refugees. So its defeat was interesting.

2:13 PM: Tension between delegates at the back and the chairs. Delegates say there's an echo in the room, we can't hear what you're saying and don't know what we're voting on, so slow down. Chairs have little sympathy, say we're following the order in your booklet so pay attention losers. Guy and friend are getting a bit chippy; so are delegates.

2:22 PM: That was social policy, now we're on to Government, Taxation and Crime.

2:23 PM: What looks to be a stealth anti-Sharia law motion passes soundly (B-98).

2:24 PM: Legalized prostitution? Not these Conservatives. They also oppose government waste. Wish I could have seen how Tony "Gazebo" Clement voted on that one. And ha, they're in favour of tax code simplification. Et tu, Jim Flaherty? This government has done more than any other to complicate the tax code than most, with all these ridiculous tax credits designed to buy the votes of target groups.

2:28 PM: Debating a motion to lower the number of convictions for dangerous offender status from three convictions to two. Young guy speaks against saying you don't want to have some lowly pot dealer named dangerous offender; I laughed, delegates not so much. I thought it passed by hands, but it goes to e-vote. And the "two strikes you're out" policy passes handily.

2:38 PM: And now it's the Khadr motion, which would remove right of citizenship even of people born in Canada that take up arms against Canada or its allies. I mean seriously, how do you strip a person born in Canada of their citizenship? Where would you send them exactly if they're not a dual citizen, Atlantis? Narnia? This is silly and dangerous. And it's thankfully defeated on a hand vote; good job delegates.

2:39 PM: Vote on clean air and green house gas policy that can be summed up as an anti-cap and trade policy. It appears to pass by hand, but they go to e-vote and confirm that yes, it carries by only by seven provinces to four. One speaker said this policy would condemn the government's current policy. Opps. I suspect they'll get over it though.

2:44 PM: Resolution that basically supports ending the per vote subsidy, passes easily but still with opposition. And now we're on to economic issues.

2:46 PM: Motion for union strike votes to be by secret ballot passes without debate, as does one to oppose penalties for picket line crossers. They also oppose red tape and support arctic sovereignty.

2:51 PM: We're actually now well ahead of schedule, knock wood. Just a handful of economic policies left and nothing controversial.

2:59 PM: And with the last motion passing, the policy plenary finishes one hour early. That was speedy. We'll see if they can move to the closing festivities early or not. Fingers crossed.

3:02 PM: Closing fun moved-up by 15 minutes to 3:45 pm, so see you then.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let's get ready to roberts rules rumble...liveblogging the constitutional plenary

(refresh for updates)

10:14 AM: After sleeping in a little and grabbing a muffin and a diet pepsi (breakfast of champions) I'm settled in on press row again for more Conservative mainhall drama. Actually, we may have a modicum of drama today because the constitutional and policy plenaries are the main orders of business.

The hall has been reorganized into tables and chairs with delegates seated by province, and the usual yes and no microphone positions have been set up. And on each table is what looks like an electronic voting do-hicky for delegates to enter their votes. Interesting set-up, we low tech Liberals just used voting cards and counters. This could potentially go more quickly, but the show of hands can be more fun.

Up first is the constitutional plenary at 10:30 am, followed by a buffet lunch and then the policy plenary at 1:30. The folks at iPolitics.ca have posted the resolution booklets here. I don't see Scott Reid's one member one vote reform one in there, but while it was defeated at workshop I did hear the petition drive to get it to the plenary floor was successful, so we'll see. I'm sure there's some fun policy stuff in there too. And Guy Giorno is going to chair the session, that should be...interesting.

I'll sign back on in a bit when the festivities get back under-way, so stay tuned for updates.

10:42 AM: OK and we're underway, just 12 minutes late. Guy Giorno has some sort of fluorescent green shirt on; it's hurting my eyes from the very back of the room. Hard to miss Guy in a crowd. Anyway, apparently there's voting-cards too, they only go to the vote machines if it's not clear. Pretty poor audio here, they're asking people to shussh. I see speakers at the back here, but they don't seem to be working.

OK, maybe it's a green tie Giorno is wearing. If that's so, it's overwhelming his shirt from back here. Wonder if the green is a message; a new environmentally-friendly CPC? Nah...

Each provincial group is cheering in turn. Alberta was the loudest group, but Ontario looked to be the biggest with over 1/3 of the hall. BC was probably second, and broke out into a spirited "Go Canucks Go!" chant.

10:50 AM: They're testing the vote machines with a best tie contest between Steve Blaney and Guy Giorno. Apparently there's some blue in Giorno's and it's his coalition tie; Blaney's is a majority tie because Conservatives hate majorities. Yeah, the delegates didn't find it overly funny either.

And they seem to have trouble initializing the voting machines; they're resetting the system and starting again. Or maybe Guy's tie lost and he's demanding a re-vote. And other request for people to stop talking because some people can't hear the chairs.

11:00 AM: We're still stuck on the tie voting. You know, this seems like one of those examples of technology not necessarily improving the process. Everyone can raise their hand...

11:03 AM: No tie results yet, but they've finally got the room to quiet down to a dull murmur so that's progress. But they're resetting the voting machines again; still having technical difficulties. I'm sure this is even more exciting on CPAC than it is here. And we're trying the tie vote again...

11:06 AM: And Blaney's majority tie beat Giorno's coalition tie with 69 per cent of the vote. There's no accounting for taste, I guess. Onto the rules: the chair makes the rules, the authority being granted by grand maker of all rules, Stephen Harper. No amendments from the floor. Speakers get a minute, yada yada.

11:10 AM: Lots of rules. To pass, constitutional reforms need a double majority: voters and provinces. And before the first resolution, a point of order! A real one or fake one, we'll see. Someone from Toronto is asking if these are the real rules, or, I don't know, rogue breaking all the rules rules. Blaney and Giorno confer and confirm yes, these are the real rules, but apparently there's another four resolutions or something. I don't know.

11:13 AM: First resolution is up, on secret ballot votes on national board vacancies. But there's apparently a difference between the text on the screen (which I can't read from back here) and the handout, so they're moving to the next one while they figure it out.

By the way, it occurs to me that the reason they're seated by province is because of the double-majority needed to pass constitutional amendments.

11:16 AM: Someone from Rona Ambrose's riding is introducing their housekeeping motion, and calls her the most civil MP. Being civil is easy when you're invisible, I suppose. The motion passes easily by a show of hands.

11:18 AM: Now it's a change to give Conservative Fund workers delegate status. Guy moving it says they do hard work we need their perspective. Guy opposed says only elected people should be delegates, we don't want to open the door to ex-officio nonsense. Neither do the members, they defeat it by a show of hands. By the by, do unelected Conservative Senators get automatic delegate status or do they need to get elected by an EDA?

11:21 AM: Next is an item that says the national board needs to inform EDAs what's going on in a timely fashion. A few people speak against it, saying it's nice but it's vague apple pie that doesn't belong in a constitution. It's defeated by a show of hands.

11:22 AM: Motion to give each territory it's own seat on the national board. There are three territories, they each want a seat; makes sense. One speaker says they don't have enough people to have one each, Alberta with its huge membership only has three speakers and it's not fair. Now another guy says Ontario would be screwed by this too. Foreshadowing of OMOV? Looks defeated to be but it's close; crowd sighs as Blaney says they'll move to electronic vote.

11:26 AM: Motion is defated by electronic balloting, looks like about 2/3s opposed. Next is a similar motion for representation on a policy committee. Speaker for says it's not a voting group, it's about policy discussion, and we have three territories so don't lump us all into one for the love of pete. Speaker against says dido the last vote, and you're territories not provinces so suck it. Clearly defeated in a hand vote.

11:29 AM: Membership motion that says if you're CPC you can't be a member of another party. It seems pretty clear it's a yes vote, but they're not sure of the regional majority so they're going to do an electronic vote. And they're going to re-boot the system because more people have been arriving. The electronic vote is barely yes, compared to what seemed like an overwhelming show of hands. Seven provinces in favour so it carries, but that was closer than I'd thought.

11:34 AM: Some guy on a point of order says people were being moved around and may have voted at different provincial tables, and we may need to revote. People boo, and Giorno says not gonna happen.

11:34 AM: We're back to the national council one we delayed because of the different texts issue. It would elect national council members by secret ballot; speaker says there's been intimidation in the past. Guy from Red Deer notes there's a mistake in the French text, which everyone finds amusing. Giorno makes a joke about the BQ having less seats than a Toyota Corolla. Vote by hands is overwhelmingly in favour.

11:39 AM: Now we're on to the motions that made it to the floor by petition instead of workshops. Apparently there's three, including Reid's OMV leadership one that has caused some drama.

Reid's motion is up first. On a well-cheered point of order though, a speaker says this motion is our of order because the petition process isn't meant for do-overs of things defeated in workshop. Giorno tells the cheering crowd they'll base decision on rules, not cheers, so shut it, and the point of order continues. He seems quite well argued, and I'm not a CPC rules expert but he seems to be making a good argument. It was defeated in workshop, after all. Now he's on to a slippery slope argument though, which is always lame.

11:44 AM: Points of order aren't generally debatable, but Guy says they're going to use their discretion to let a few people add further input. Which seems weird. Aren't the rules the rules. Someone has another interpenetration though, and says workshops are more guidance, not votes, and don't replace the plenary. Chairs are now conferring on the point of order.

11:58 AM: The point of order is over-ruled; the plenary will get to vote on Reid's motion and Reid is now speaking to his motion, telling the history of merging the CPC and PCs and saying why his hybrid approach is the way to go until he's cut off by the timekeeper.

Speaking against the motion is Peter MacKay, who also helped merge the parties and opposes this motion. He says it's about equality, about confederation, this system elected us a great leader and led to a stable majority government, let's keep it.

Over to Doug Finley speaking for; he says this system is broken. He ran Harper's campaign under this system and there is ample and unbelievable room for abuse and shenanigans. And in a rebuke to MacKay, he says the system didn't give us a majority, it accidentally elected a great leader that won a majority.

Michael Chong says the current system is fair, it works, don't tinker with a system that works.

A delegate from BC is for it, one from Quebec speaks against. Unsurprising. Getting the regional support will be a challenge for Reid's motion.

12:04 PM:Hey it's Peter Kent. He opposes the motion, and says it is symbolic of the creeping horror of proportional representation or something. Now to electronic vote, after re-initalizing the system again. Apparently hungover delegates are still trickling in.

12:08 PM: Motion is defeated by a show of hands, to cheers and a standing-ovation. Blaney said it was a clear 60-70 per cent majority, but don't publish that. Sorry, Steve. So that was interesting, but not surprising given the workshop results. So now the next CPC leader will be selected under what Doug Finley says it's a broken system subject to rampant abuse...

12:10 PM: Now they want to enshrine equality of ridings in the principles section of the constitution, which apparently would make amendments like Reid's out of order in the future. Speakers from the west opposed, east in favour. Interesting regional splits in the CPC. Motion is "clearly defeated" by hand vote, so Team MacKay loses one too. So we'll probably see this OMOV issue raised next convention, and the next...

12:13 PM: Last motion is something to do with who can run for national council; they want to ban spouses of caucus members from national council to avoid conflicts of interest. Is this an anti-Doug Finley motion (his wife Diane is in cabinet.). Interesting... Motion looks defeated by hand vote, but they're going to electronic vote. And it's defeated.

12:20 PM: Before breaking for lunch, Blaney admonishes people to be more discipled next time. I thought they did fairly well. Signing off, back for policy at 1:30pm.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My day two video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

Back again with my day two video blog of Friday's fun and games at the Conservative convention in Ottawa.

We got shut out of the good stuff, such as the constitutional and policy workshops where, once again, the creation of a youth wing was soundly rejected, perhaps on orders and pressure from the party brass. Scott Reid's semi-one member one vote motion also got a rough ride, but it appears he has enough signatures to get it to the convention floor through other means.

Things I did get to see though included a panel of pundits, research on Conservatism with Preston Manning, heckling protesters and a speech from Stephen Harper. Here's my video blog:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Navigating the anti-Harper protest line (video)

After venturing off campus Friday afternoon to have a drink with an old Carleton friend, I returned to the conference centre to find the road out front closed and filled with about 200 protesters there to greet Stephen Harper who was due to speak to delegates that evening. I proceeded to work my way through the rather profane cloud who were swearing at anyone in site they thought might be a Conservative. This included me, in my Walmart sportcoat and Zellers shirt. I particularly enjoyed being told to choke on my money, as we all know how well blogging pays...

Here's a look on video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblogging Harperpalooza gloat-a-thon 2011

7:01 PM: I've settled in on press row for the evening keynote by Stephen Harper. I'm a little late but, thankfully and true to form, Harper is even later and the event shows no sign of starting, so it's all good.

Was off campus meeting a friend from my Carleton days for a drink, and had to run a bit of a protester gauntlet to get back in. The area in front of the conference centre is cordoned off from traffic and there were maybe less than 200 people making their feelings felt. It seemed like a rainbow of issues, united only by their dislike of Steve.

Flashing my blogger badge I managed to finally get past the activist cyclists who tried to block me with their bikes, finally crossing the barricade as a protester told me to go enjoy my money. Hey, I'm a blogger, if only...

The keynote hall isn't filled with chairs but it is now standing-room only and then some. Apparently delegates launched a raid on the press section for chairs (I think the press let them have five chairs, but five only). Staff replenished the press riser (in the far back of the hall) and press are now trying to guard their seats.

With that, I think you're caught up. I'll pause until the program begins, hopefully soonish.

7:12 PM: And we're starting; about 42 minutes late masters of ceremony Steve Blaney and Pam Wallin are on the stage getting things started. I'm distracted by more chair marauders, but I just heard someone say "strong, stable blah..." so I'm doing a shot in my mind. And wondering how far they're going to run into the Canucks game...

The pre-show is still going on though, with Jacques Demers interviewing James Moore on the floor, a Canucks fan celebrating his birthday today. And the crowd breaks into a not overly spirited rendition of Happy Birthday. It's also Preston Manning's birthday today.

Meanwhile, pretend reporter Mike Duffy is talking to delegates as well. But diverging for a moment, the Conservatives don't have near enough chairs here. The room isn't full, tons of empty space, but a few hundred are being forced to stand. Including a number of seniors. The media are being forced to give up chairs or be jerks, when really the party should (and could) put out enough chairs for attendees.

My head down, but Duffy just made a comment about "little women visiting native reserves" by themselves or something; yeesh.

7:21 PM: Wallin is going on about how Harper doesn't look for parades and lead them, he's guided by his principles. His principles, and massive taxpayer-funded polling and public opinion research to fund out where parades that he can lead are.

Now she's building a Harper as Rocky theme, or maybe Rodney Dangerfield. Always been underestimated, can't get no respect, yada yada. Trying to build a prompt and response rythym, but the crowd isn't buying into their "they were wrong" part that enthusiastically.

7:27 PM: And nearly 30 minutes after he was supposed to start speaking, Harper is slowly making his way to the stage, kissing hands and shaking babies to non-de-script rock music, as is the custom.

7:31 PM: Harper welcomes us to the new Ottawa Convention Centre, which is apparently the house that John Baird built (actually, the taxpayers of Canada through Canada's Economic Action Plan, but whatevs). With a hammer and nails, I'm sure.

Harper says there's two Ottawa, including the one "the media" refers to as Ottawa, the big government town. And then there's the real, hard-working Ottawa filled with good citizens who vote Conservative. Umm, sorry Steve, but the Conservatives bashed "big government Ottawa" for years, so give me a break. Of course, now Harper's party is the establishment, so the establishment is now ok.

7:36 PM: Harper was winning a few points from me with a well-placed Seinfeld reference, but then he ruined it by a baffling line "but it wasn't me that learned from George Kostanza, it was the Liberals." I don't get it, did we buy cheap wedding invitation envelopes or something?

7:40 PM: Harper is lauding his taxable day care subsidies; meanwhile with funding from the Liberal daycare program now gone daycare spots across the country are drying up. You can't have choice in child care, Steve, unless you have choices to make.

7:42 PM: Tax breaks for corporations now, and for families when we get around to balancing the budget. On crime, he affirms the crime omnibus bill will be introduced within 100 sitting days. Fairly sure he said sitting days. Was that the promise in the campaign, or was it 100 days overall?

He promises legislation this fall to scrap the gun registry, pitching it as part of supporting victims of crime. Umm, no. The registry was created in response to the concerns of victims of crime. Killing it has nothing to do with helping crime victims.

7:46 PM: Now it's on to using the troops as props. I'm fine with giving the military the tools it needs, I agree with that. But I can't stand lines that pretend other people don't support the troops as well. Don't use the military as a partisan prop, it's pathetic.

Meanwhile, he's moved on to righteously promising to continue not sucking up to dictators at the United Nations. Particularly, I suppose, after under Harper's leadership Canada for the first time failed to win election to the security council.

7:54 PM: Conservatives aren't a party of entitlement, declares Harper. Someone save that clip for future commercial use, because these guys are rocking-up the arrogance scale at an accelerated rate. Trust me when I say that, we Liberals no arrogance when we see it...

7:56 PM: The honeymoon with the NDP will pass, he says. And it probably will. And then he switched to French to speak to those Quebec NDP voters. Sounds like he's wrapping, hockey game starts shortly. But he wants to remind us that Conservative values are Canada's values, and the Conservative Party is Canada's party. He used to think it was arrogant when Liberals said things like that, but this time he thinks it's true, I'm sure, so it's different.

By the way, every speaker has their crutch lines. For Paul Martin, it was "let me clear." For Steve, it's "my friends."

Harper wants us to "be all we can be." Not by joining the army though, I hope? No, by building a better Canada in the years ahead. And hey, hockey game dude, wrap it! Canada is the best country in the world, he says. And the biggest hockey fans, Steve.

God bless all of you, god bless Canada, and he's done and walking out to more non-de-script rock music. I'll sign off for now, may have some thoughts later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dean Del Mastro's lie-based campaign techniques

At a punditry panel this morning at the Conservative Convention in Ottawa, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Dean Del Mastro, took to the microphone to share some of his campaign techniques.

Apparently his primary technique is deliberately misleading his constituents. In this video, he talks about how he told voters that a private member's bill from Ruby Dhalla about immigrant pension reform was a Liberal Party policy, even though he knew full well it was a private member's bill that not only wasn't Liberal policy, but was officially opposed by the party leadership.

Stay classy, Dean.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gettin' our conservative on: live blogging Preston Manning at #cpc11

10:30 AM: Had to run over to the Rideau Centre for a cold beverage because none seem to be available in the conference centre, but I'm back in the same hall. It's now packed; with the delegates having sent a message to Canada's youth by massively rejecting the creation of a youth wing, they're now here for a panel on the Manning Centre's "everybody's conservative" report with headliner Preston Manning, who is looking greyer than I remember him.

10:34 AM: Apparently everyone is becoming conservative and is finally realizing how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. I find it just amazing how research commissioned by a conservative think-tank just happens to confirm and buttress he organization's world view. Fascinating, that.

10:37 AM: And here's Preston Manning. Directly over his shoulder is a sign for the ladies room; I hope CPAC frames that out of the camera shot. On the report, Manning says more and more conservative values are being shared by more and more Canadians and are becoming mainstream values, which he says is a good thing. But as a note of caution, as they become more mainstream a challenge will be that they become less identified with the conservatives.

He goes on Canadian views on the perception of government is changing; we're getting more sceptical of it's ability to do big things and are turning more to community groups. Left unsaid is the Harper government's strategy to make the government less relevant; it's self-fulfilling to a large degree in my view.

He also says it'd worrisome more people said they had a worse view of politics after the election than they did before, and feel people don't get into politics for good reasons. Preston wants to change this. Hey, here's an idea Preston: tell Steve to stop spending millions attacking people's personal motivations for getting into politicians as part of your party's partisan strategizing. Your party is feeding this problem you claim to lament.

10:43 AM: Now Carleton University's Andre Turcotte, who put together the research, is diving deeper. He says while Cons built popular support from 2004 onward the number of those identifying with conservative values was actually decreasing, but something really changed between 2008 and 2011.

People don't want big things from the government and don't trust them, except on public safety. There's no appetite for grand designs at the moment, he says. People want the government to work with other organizations and governments.

Now they're getting into the specific questions, and some of their methodology really becomes questionable. They ask if you have a problem, who do you turn to first, and say it's telling that you turn to themselves and and their friends first, before the government. Well, of course we do. And then he says the only thing they turn to the government first on is public safety. Again, so what? I'd agree to both and that hardly makes me Conservative. If I'm out of work I'd turn to friends and family to help find new opportunities; if I'm mugged I call the cops. So what?

10:52 AM: Oh, some of these questions: do you want a government focused on today's challenges or doing bold things about the future? Yeah, because you can't do both, it's totally an either/or. How about asking if you want a government that can walk and chew gum at the same time? That's what I want.

10:59 AM: Apparently Canadians are increasingly isolationist and want government to solve problems at home and not everyone else's overseas. This counts as increasing Conservative values, but only if you ignore strong Conservative support for the mission in Afghanistan, in Libya, and elsewhere.

11:04 AM: Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans here. The link between their data and their conclusions is being seen through blue-tinted glasses. Some of these questions are just silly, and besides, left unsaid is the huge gulf between so-called conservative values and the actual policies and actions of this conservative government.

11:13 AM: Now it's questions form the poll. One questioner wants more conservative professors preaching conservatism in universities; alrighty then. Manning uses that to segue to the need to educate and train campaign volunteers, something his Manning Centre does. Another questioner from Ottawa takes an offhand crack at Quebec on pork-barrel politicking.

11:17 AM: They're talking about people wanting more choice and control over their lives; meanwhile somewhere else delegates are debating the definition of marriage.

11:18 AM: Questioner now doesn't like human rights tribunals, calls them a "debate blanket" that stops debate. What, debate on not exposing human rights violations?

11:22 AM: Now a Lyndon Larouche-supporting "journalist" is on a diatribe about financial market conspiracies, and killing cattle or something. Manning says the biggest threat to private enterprise isn't socialist NDPers, it's irresponsible corporations that give everyone a bad name.

11:24 AM: A questioner is now complaining that her daughter is being brainwashed by "left-wing teacher" and is developing opinions that don't match her own world-view, requiring her to re-educate her daughter by forcing her to share her perspective. Oh, boy. Yeah, don't let her form her own views or anything.

Former Nanaimo-Cowichan candidate John Koury says he was looking to create wedge issues in the campaign; the budget has good policy but the NDP were talking electoral reform. He's wondering if there's anything in their research on rep by pop and if democratic reform has merit.

Manning says while he's not against electoral reform, he'd ask why NDP governments in power provincially in a position to change election laws haven't done anything about it. It's hypocrisy, he says, and he's right.

11:31 AM: And that's about if. I'm off to lunch. Looks like the afternoon is closed off to the media for the most part, so I'm off for lunch and I'll be back early evening for the big Harper speech, and the protests outside.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Don Plett rips into Peter MacKay on one member, one vote

As promised, here's some video of a speech Conservative Senator and former party president Don Plett gave at a hospitality suite Thursday night sponsored by MP Scott Reid, who is leading the movement to do reform the system of riding weighting for leadership voting that the party adopted when it was formed through the merer of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

Former PC leader Peter MacKay had been leading the charge against Reid's proposal, and when Plett refers to a letter that's been circulating, he's referring to MacKay...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblog: Panel of Conservative pundits

(refresh for updates)

9:05 AM: Whole delegates are off doing fun constitutional things blogger/media types like me are banned from, I'm with a small group in a large room for a panel of pundits hosted by Monte Solberg. Other pundits on the panel of men in suits include twitterer Mike Storeshaw, recently former PMO staffer Dan Robertson, a fellow whose name I didn't catch, and Jamie Watt.

9:08 AM: Monte is talking about cratering Liberal support. Geez dude, I'm right here? But his question to the panel is how do we pick up cratering Liberal support without selling out and becoming *gasp* Liberals ourselves?

Jamie replies first step is solidifying support of the fight-leaning Liberals that voted CPC in 2011. One advantage is Harper was very clear on what he put on offer in 2011 campaign, he says. His research shows right-leaning Harpers were willing to give Harper a shot. To keep them, he says CPC needs to honour their promises by doing exactly what they said they'd do in the campaign.

Dan says rising NDP with the prospect of government is causing nervous Liberals to go CPC to keep NDP out of power, and best thing to help CPC keep gained LPC votes is Jack Layton as NDP leader.

9:12 AM: Monte cites the Manning Centre's "everyone is becoming more conservative" research (which I find less than compelling), and asks if the CPC just communicates better how awesome they are, won't everyone flick to them.

Guy I don't know says people are no longer identifying as partisans, it's about issues that impact them. Storeshaw talks about the importance of working between elections, being pragmatic and working for the people. Oh, and I see on Twitter the other guy's name is Jason Lietaer.

Jamie adds that writ periods are getting shorter, and for Ignatieff it wasn't long enough for him to kick the crap out of the CPC and sell his "family pack" or "whatever the hell they called it." Four days of Facbook story cost him 10 per cent of the campaign and his bandwidth to sell his message to Canadians.

Meanwhile, Robertson is writing the obituary of the Liberal Party. I remember when people wrote his party off; I guess he has forgotten though. Of course, no one will remember his definitive statements when they're proven to be full of crap. But Motne is excited about it.

9:20 AM: Question from floor, member from Ottawa-Centre doesn't like loyalty of his riding association and wants to know how to build a better one so they can knock off Paul Dewar, of whom I'm guessing he's not a fan.

Monte notes that Mark Holland actually kept his vote in Ajax-Pickering; when I heard Holland's name I expected something bad because they dont' like him; particularly after Mike Duffy's Nazi reference last night.

Meanwhile, Robertson is ranting about vote splitting as a myth.

9:25 AM: Apparently I'm in a CPAC camera shot, particularly when questioners are at the mic, so I guess I need to work on my posture. Anyway, a delegate from Don Valley West walks about the hard slof they've had there, and asks how they can keep with the multicultural support they've won in order to keep the riding.

Watt has nothing on topic, just repeats about Harper needing to keep his promises. Robertson continues in that theme, but the questioner gets back up and complains they're not answering her question, which is about how do we keep faith with the poor and disadvantaged that voted for them, because if they're not helped they'll lose their votes. Monte jumps in to list all sorts of great things the CPC has already done for the poor folks.

9:31 AM: Delegate from Quebec feels communications response needs to be better when the party was getting slagged for Harper not visiting the flood sites. Apparently he was in Europe and Afghanistan, but all the media were being mean because he didn't visit Quebec and he party didn't respond well, comms wise.

Jason, who works on comms team in PMO and the campaign, says they could have done better in Quebec in the campaign but comms wasn't their big challenge and their quick response was fine, the media was just mean to them. Internally, he says their focus was on talking to journalists quickly rather than getting into to riding associations, and they need to do better on the second half.

Meanwhile, Storeshaw answers her question in the language she primarily asked it, French.

9:41 AM: Parliamentary secretary to the PM, Deal Del Mastro, takes the mic to say as important as doing what we said we'd do is saying what we won't do. He says CPC is better for poor people than the NDP, and boasts about how he lied to voters by pretending Ruby Dhalla's pensions bill was a Liberal bill. Of course, he knows it wasn't and that the Liberal leadership didn't support it.

9:47 AM: Robertson says Conservatives have replaced Liberals as the patriotic party of Canada, and Storeshaw questions Ken Dryden's performance in the 1927 Summit Series with the Soviets.

9:52 AM: Former candidate says he doesn't see many people from his riding or volunteers here, because it's so expensive to attend the convention; it's mainly MPs and staffers because to much. He wants to know if anything can be done to make these events more affordable and inclusive and make all members feel included. Monte says more can be done with technology, and strong ridings can fundraise and help support delegates.

9:56 AM: Question on NDP Quebec support. Watt says it's not orange crush, it's a box of cracker jacks. It's entirely Jack Layton. When the BQ stumbled, people looked at the LPC and apparently we're toxic, and they looked at the CPC but apparently Jamie's party is awesome but just misunderstood. so beer-goggled Quebecers went home with an ugly Layton. Watt also switches from saying we need to make the NDP seem close to government so we can scare people to saying they're not close to government so they won't keep support.

10: 00 AM: And that's about it. Back in half an hour with a session with Preston Manning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers