Will the LPC respond?

Parliament resumes and the "we don't want an election" rhetoric seems to have been dialed down as the NDP and CPC both release campaign-style ads aimed at convincing Canadians they have what it takes to lead this country.

Meanwhile at Stornoway, crickets chirp. I'd like to think that the LPC will jump in within the week with their own set of positive ads, but something inside of me says that I will be disappointed.

Impolitical posted a great video a few weeks ago of James Carville speaking during the 1992 Clinton campaign; and I think it is relevant to this topic. Every time the CPC and NDP release a set of ads, the LPC needs to respond if they want to remain at the forefront of the voter's minds. And I understand that television ad space and production costs money. But it inaction costs something too. Except those expenses get paid on election day.

We saw it with Dion and we saw it with Ignatieff - the CPC will run negative advertising against the LPC at any chance they get. If the Liberals do not respond with a counter-message the CPC narrative will go unchallenged, making the LPC not only look passive but also apathetic. How can Liberal Party organizers expect their grassroots to get energized when HQ doesn't jump to defend their leader, policies or values?

However, silence isn't the worst option in this case. Not when you log onto BCer in Toronto and read Jeff Jedras' abysmal and pathetic critique of the Jack Layton's appeal to Canadians. I hope the LPC doesn't pick up on Jeff's petty angle. In all honesty, I thought the NDP ads were all right. While they lacked any real policy information they were not nearly as cliched as the latest round of "Here for Canada" slop thrown to the masses by the Harper Party.

The bottom line: everybody's doing it! As much as the "we do not want an election" line is standard operating procedure, it's about as opaque as an x-ray. Will the Canadian people "reward" that LPC talking point come E-Day? It's probably wise to start putting your props on the stage as it's being set.

But what do I know. You don't have to listen to me, just take Carville's advice.

Gun registry, bad. Kayak registry, good?

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Harper Party.

The Transport Canada regulations, brought in last fall, will require everyone from professional outfitters to people leading recreational boat trips to fill out five separate forms, measure their boat and pay a $50 fee.

Wow. If the long gun registry is rarely used, a waste of money, and an infringement on our "rights" to do whatever we want; what would that make the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system?

But just before you are going to write an angry letter to Chuck Strahl, Minister of Transportation, telling him he's the worst kind of hypocrite; it should be known that he has a parry for your thrust:

It's unclear how the policy came into place. Strahl's office blamed a Liberal Party policy put in place around 10 years ago.

Oh no, you di'int!

Oh yes, he di'id. You see, while all this red tape might be bad, or ideologically inconsistent, or stupid or whatever you want to call it -- it's not the Harper Party's fault! The Liberals put all this in place so you should be mad at them. Chucky is just the policy messenger. He's just doing his job. After all, who has heard of a government reversing policies enacted by their predecessor because it didn't jive with their ideological framework? His hands, along with Harper's, are tied to implementing the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system for the safety of Canadians.

The kind of safety that assures you -- the taxpayer -- can go to sleep easy knowing that the government knows exactly where every boat floats. Just look at the list of procedures a kayaker needs to complete in order to register and license their recreational water vehicle.

1. Complete the Application for Registry and submit it along with the other completed documentation to the Registrar at the Vessel Registration Office at the address below.
2. Produce evidence of ownership/title to the Registrar of Vessels. If the original document of title (e.g. Bill of Sale/receipt, Builder's Certificate or other documentation) that proves you own the vessel cannot be produced, you must complete a declaration. You must also complete the Declaration of Ownership form.
3. Complete a Statement of Qualification for Vessel Registration to prove your eligibility to be registered as owner of the canoe or kayak.
4. Complete the Authorized Representative form. It lets Transport Canada know who to contact if the canoe/kayak is owned by a business or multiple owners. If you are the sole owner you must still complete this form.
5. Complete the Simplified Method of Tonnage Measurement form. We have provided two sample documents to help figure out the tonnage measurement for canoes and kayaks. Adjust the measurement numbers for your particular boat. Sample document A - Sample Document B .
6. Pay the fee of $50.00 for the issuance or renewal of a registration or a $50.00 flat fee for a “fleet” of vessels. Fees are payable by Visa, Mastercard or AMEX. A Certificate of Registry (Small Vessel Register) is valid for five (5) years from the date of issue.
7. If you are choosing to pay by cheque/money order, it is to be made payable to the RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA.

They know the size of your boat. The depth of it's hull. They know if you are registered to operate that boat. They know if anyone else in your family is registered to operate that boat. And lastly, they know exactly where you live. So at any time, day or night, a federal agent or a cop can show up at your door with reasonable cause and ask you to provide proof that you are in fact the owner and operator of said water craft. And you have to comply!

They make you pay a fee. And fill out forms. And all of this is done for your safety, Canada. And all of this is being implemented by Chuck Strahl and the Harper Party. Believe them when they say that the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system is a useful tool for emergency response and your well being.

Unlike that other registry. Whom Chuck Strahl stood up and voted to kill on September 22, 2010 on the grounds that it doesn't save lives.

Corking popped CPC Champagne: EKOS reports reality

A week ago CPC drones were celebrating tantalizing poll numbers that put the Harper Party close to majority territory. Today, EKOS reports what I believe to be the reality on the ground.

How does one party go from a 13 point lead to just under 5? Was it the shameful display of Bev Oda and a crumbling moral authority to govern? Or was it, as Frank Graves ponders, a kick-back in soft-support for the current government as they reached terrifying majority-like numbers?

While we do not have the regional results of the Feb. 10-22 poll where over 2800 Canadians were questioned, the thesis that the Harper Party has been "Oda-sized" seems to be the best fit for the dip. It is worth noting that this latest news from EKOS has more than 1,150 more responses and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 compared to their pre-Oda poll earlier this month. (Imagine that, the more Canadians you talk to the more come out in support of the Opposition parties.) All things considered, progressives can breathe easy as it has become normal to see Harper around 33%-32% to the LPC 28%-27%.

Graves hits on a number of other issues while on Power and Politics. Every time that Harper reaches majority territory there is a recoil effect; and second, every time there is some sort of stability in the government and things are going swimmingly for the Harper Party, they end up committing a massive public faux pas.

Which is good for us and bad for them. Leaving the only one question left: what's the best way to cork popped CPC champagne?

How convenient...

Foreign hackers attack Canadian government websites.

I seriously question the timing of this piece and the ReformaTory spokespeople who are at the forefront of this breaking news. A cyber attack on the very department that is "hard at work" on the up coming budget. If we go into a spring election $10 bucks says Harper will blame the coalition between the Liberals, Socialists and their "Foreign Operatives."

Liberal Party of Canada: it's not about him

For all intents and purposes, my Saturday was supposed to be about relaxation. And it started out that way. I went out for breakfast, read the paper, got a haircut, came home around noon only to have it all go to hell. What happened? I logged onto Far and Wide.

Steve's analysis of the latest EKOS poll had me flabbergasted. Disillusioned. I wouldn't say heartbroken, but my balloon was seriously deflated. Things were going so well for the Liberals since the new year began. Now, it wasn't like they were at 40% and Harper's kingdom was on the verge of total collapse, but gains were being made. Policy was pushed. Messages were being heard. The 20/11 Listening Tour was considered, by all accounts, a success. Then EKOS goes a head and blows it all up. And now the familiar verses I've heard so many times by the CPC and their flying-monkeys is being uttered in the progressive blogosphere.

Ignatieff is not a leader.

It is time for Ignatieff to leave.

Go back to Harvard.

I don't like Harper but I can't stand Mike.

During the 2008 Parliamentary Crisis the Harper Party said that the people may not have voted for a CPC majority but they certainly did not vote for Dion to be Prime Minister. And the public ate it up. Only the politically engaged stood up and said, "wait a minute... no one voted for Harper to be Prime Minister either." We vote for our representatives who belong to a party of values led by a person who has the vision and abilities to articulate those values to the electorate. Stephen Harper is the man who does this for the Conservative Party. Elizabeth May, the Greens. Jack for the NDP and Michael Ignatieff for the Liberal Party of Canada. Behind these men and women are their candidates, some of whom will go to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons. Their team.

When I ask the question, who is most fit to be Prime Minister? Ignatieff ranks in the top 5. But there are others on this list who are MPs from a variety of the parties. Some have yet to be elected.

When I think about the incompetence of Bev Oda regarding KAIROS funding; I wonder whether or not Harper is a good leader. Then I think, is Lisa Riatt a good Minister? Or Maxime Bernier? Or Vic Toews? Or Tony Clement?

Behind Ignatieff is, what I believe, an extraordinary team of people. Ralph Goodale, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall Findlay, and Scott Brison to name a few. Is there an exceptional CPC MP fit to be a minister? I can think of only one. Chuck Strahl. Other than that, the pickings are slim.

I may not be in love with Michael Ignatieff. Some may not think that he is any different from Harper. That's fine. I can cope with that. What I cannot deal with is placing the entire party on his shoulders. If we want a strong man to lead us - we already have it in Harper. When I think of the Liberal party I see a team and every time I have heard Ignatieff speak I am left with the impression that he has what it takes to lead that team to build a more prosperous Canada.

I wasn't an advocate for Ignatieff in the 2006 leadership race. He might not be the man I believe is best suited to lead the Liberals in a future leadership race. But I know, with good certainty, that we cannot go wrong with a Liberal government given the MPs who are in the LPC caucus right now -- with or without Ignatieff.

So the idea that the LPC should throw Ignatieff out completely boggles my mind. The party is so much more than him. In talking with friends and coworkers who don't think Ignatieff is that great of a guy, I like to say, "You might think that he's the same as Harper, but when was the last time Harper came through Winnipeg and had an open mic night where you could ask him any question you wanted?" or "I think Michael has more talent behind him than Harper. Anita Neville is a great representative for Winnipeg. The best Harper has is Shelly Glover and Rod Bruinooge."

That gets people thinking. Liberal supporters need to get their friends and family who are less that luke warm towards Ignatieff to see the bigger picture. We spend day and night arguing that the CPC attack ads are poisonous to democracy and then we go ahead and make the entire Liberal Party about Michael Ignatieff. Even though it never is, or ever will be, all about him.

Mr. Speaker, a question for the honourable member...

...What does it cost?

The Harper Party rebuttal: law and order is priceless!

The logical follow up: Is knowing the price-tag on policies to incarcerate people for non-violent offences too much to ask for these days?

The Harper Party rejoinder: YOU'RE SOFT ON CRIME!

Private Bills from the gov't that are not Government bills

We saw this tactic months ago when Candice Hoeppner tried to kill the long-gun registry through her "private member's bill." Since it worked so well, Harper is going to try it again. This time, with the Canadian Wheat Board.

Bruce Stanton, MP for Simcoe North in southern Ontario, introduced a private members' bill Thursday which would allow prairie farmers to opt out of selling their wheat and barley through the wheat board for periods of two years at a time.

Part of the legislative difficulty facing the Tories [is] the fact the government knows it has no support for the issue from any of the opposition parties and cannot get such a bill through in a minority Parliament. But private members' bills are free votes which could mean the government could seek the votes it needs from individual MPs who would not be necessarily required to vote along party lines.

Stanton acknowledged his position in the line-up for private members' bills is one of the reasons he is bringing the bill forward rather than one of the MPs from the three prairie provinces.

A free vote should be rejected by Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe on the grounds that there is no secret that this bill seeks to advance neo-conservative ideology that goes all the way back to the Reform Party in the 1980s.

Moreover, the question for the Opposition leaders should be: who speaks for the grain farmers of Western Canada? The CWB directors who are elected directly by the membership? Or Bruce from Ontario?

For me, there is no ambiguity as to whether or not the majority of Western grain farmers support the board given paradox of representation: while one may interpret the fact that nearly 100% of these farms fall within federal CPC ridings as a sign of displeasure with the Board; I believe that if anti-Board numbers were truly as strong as their MPs claim then farmers would stop electing pro-Board candidates as directors. In fact, the instant-runoff voting system used in CWB director elections is a more democratic process than how our MPs are currently selected.

Trying to cloak party ideology in a private member's bill is the latest tactic Harper is using to split the opposition and drive wedge issues into the HoC. The opposition parties ought to get together and vehemently oppose private members bills that are taken directly from CPC party platform - 100% of the time.

To be sure, the bill itself does not aim to eliminate the CWB, it certainly aims to cut a leg from underneath it. And I do not have real qualms with the bill's proposition -- I feel strongly about the way it is presented in parliament and the signals this sends to farmers and the general public, namely, that the federal government runs the CWB and MPs are the voice of farmers regarding the direction of the Board. If I were to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Stanton, I would say that this approach is ignorant to the way the Board is governed. However, given past actions from this government and our PM, I would bet that this angle intends to mislead a casual public as to how the Board operates.

Oppose it, opposition. Oppose away.

Of what value is Bernier to Harper?

Maybe Harper really is the master tactician that Flanagan and Levant swoon about. Maybe. After all, I cannot for the life of me figure out the value Bernier has to Harper and the CPC caucus in Quebec. Well, that's not true, I have a loose hypothesis but I'm not really seriously considering it. Sorta.

My at-a-distance-analysis suggests that Bernier's new found libertarian approach to everything under the sun, in combination with his opposition to Bill 101, is a ploy designed to woo Anglophone Quebeckers over to the Conservative ranks. As an anglophone with deep prairie roots, some of the garble he spits out makes sense to me on a philosophical level but is quickly rejected out of sensibility. Perhaps foolishly, I assume that most anglophones feel the same way about libertarianism, especially those from provinces that have a "victim narrative" in federal politics -- such as Alberta and Quebec. Then again, I think that the only people who continue to remain in opposition to bilingualism in Canada today are hard-core Reformers who are active in federal politics under the cozy guise of a "national" CPC; and that surely even the majority of anglophones in Quebec see the value of national bilingualism and with it the ability for provinces to protect minority languages in the name of a national institution.

But that's not all, ladies and gentlemen. It seems as if Bernier is pretty much free to say and do whatever he wants without reprieve from the PMO. When have we ever seen this from Harper's leadership? I mean, Helena Guergis was a candidate in a safe, socially conservative riding in Ontario, whose only crime was marrying an idiot. She was dropped long before there was any verdict on her alleged criminal activity because the PM needed to "maintain the confidence of all the people work in for him." And if there was any more loyal a foot-soldier than Guergis in Ontario, let them speak now!

Is Bernier that reliable? Does Harper have more confidence in Bernier than in Guergis -- who practically begged to be kept in the party in front of the entire nation? To be sure Guergis was unqualified as a minister to do anything. And I am not sure the Canadian public would be any more at ease if Bernier was tapped to take over any file that Guergis could not handle. But that said...

The ultimate question for me isn't, does Bernier actually believe this crap he's saying? Rather, it is, why is he allowed to speak his mind so openly on non-issues (at least we can hope) for the federal party? The last two times he has opened his mouth he has stirred some pot. I wouldn't call them gaffes but his increasing comfortableness with proselytizing his libertarian views to Quebeckers with no recourse from the PM makes me uneasy.

You know the kind I'm talking about -- that "it's too quiet in here" type of feeling.

The kind of uneasiness that does not know whether to be happy that Bernier seems to be setting the party up for bad press; or nervous because after the dust has settled all remains quiet from the Western front.

You win this round, Bernier...