It's Time For De-Unification of the Right

It is clear that since the merger of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party in 2003, there has been one voice and only one voice in Canada for those  who tend to inhabit the territory to the right of the political centre. That voice is Stephen Harper's. 

Actually, the transaction that brought the two right-leaning parties together was less of a merger and more of a hostile take-over. It was a carefully orchestrated maneuver that involved equal amounts of manipulation and treachery. The main goal was not so much a meeting of Conservative minds but the acquisition of the Conservative name. You see, the only way Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan and their cadre of Straussian ideologues could gain credibility east of Manitoba and hence, any hope of ever forming a government was through the annexation of an existing political party.  The Progressive Conservative Party was severely wounded and directionless since the Mulroney years and thus, ripe for plunder. 

Once he had his hands on the Conservative name, Harper wasted no time in dropping the "progressive" label. For the first few years of this shot-gun marriage, Harper had to keep the old progressives happy in order to continue the existence of his new creation. This included keeping co-conspirator Peter MacKay well placed in the Conservative hierarchy. Despite having become a political liability as a result of his numerous blunders, MacKay remains as deputy leader of the party. But as time passed and his core of hard-right disciples became stronger and stronger, the old P.C.s in the Harper caucus have had less and less of a voice in managing party or governmental affairs. In fact, all power with in the party rests with Harper himself and his collection of Harper-Youth within the PMO. 

No room for Red-Tories in Harper's Caucus

At first, this "new Conservative deal" seemed like a good idea. Harper had the grit, the smarts and the ruthlessness to finally lead right-leaning Canadians out of the shadows and into government, thus supplanting the age old Liberal party and their attitude of entitlement. The problem that has eventually come to light though, is that while Harper has finally formed a majority government (however credible it may be), he has stepped on a lot of toes along the way and forced the majority of his caucus into the rather embarrassing role of cheerleader. No one dares contradict "His Harperness". Any MP who inadvertently expresses an independent thought is quickly swarmed by the Harper-Youth and immediately "reprogrammed". As a result, all the old "progressive" voices with in the party have been effectively neutered, cut off by the hard-right cohort who sit at Harper's right hand. 

Many of the old P.C.s saw the hand writing on the wall from the outset. Ex-Prime Minister Joe Clark would have nothing to do with Harper's Hooligans and sat out his remaining days in Parliament as a P.C. Some Senators continued to do likewise. Former Mulroney Cabinet Minister Sinclair Stevens went so far as to form a new political entity, the Progressive Canadian Party (thereby retaining the old P.C. moniker). But Canadians, as Harper had calculated, are traditionalists by nature and have stuck with the party that still retains the Conservative name. Slowly however- ever so slowly - voters are beginning to wake up to the fact that the CPC is NOT the Conservative Party of Joe Clark, Robert Stanfield, John Diefenbaker or their grand daddies. Harper's party (and make no mistake about it, it is most definitely HIS party)is nothing more than the Tea Party on steroids. It has no room for "Red-Tories" or progressives. Various Harper minions such as Jim Prentice awoke to this fact and have since "retired" from politics. 

History will show that Richardson
backed the right horse.

One of the most telling departures from Harper's caucus of late was Lee Richardson from Calgary Centre who took his leave round about the time Parliament was having C-38 shoved down it's throat and various glassy-eyed CPC MPs were forced to applaud and shake their blue pom-poms on cue. While the timing of his departure is certainly suspect, the most interesting aspect of it is that he left the Harper-fold to work for Provincial P.C. leader Alison Redford. It's no secret that The Government of Harper supported the radically ideological Wildrose Party over the Progressive Conservative Party in the last Alberta election. This made Richardson's move all the more interesting, and telling.

 Harper likes to think of himself as overlord of the Provincial P.C. parties, simply because he stole the Federal Party out from underneath everyone's noses, but the Alberta scenario has proven that the Machiavellian Harper will squash any P.C. who disagrees with him and he'll prop up any Premier, regardless of Party, who he can manipulate. Harper is no friend of nor has he any loyalty to any provincial Progressive Conservative Party anywhere in the Country. Just ask Danny Williams. 

So moderate right-leaning voters are presented with very few options. Either support the radical ideologues who have stolen their party or look to the fractured left of the political spectrum. Not an easy choice. One that probably leaves many Canadian voters shaking their heads and deeply regretting the "Unite The Right" movement that at one time, shone like a beacon of hope and now burns them like an interrogator's lamp. It is time then according to this writer, for all good Red-Tories (and some disgruntled Blue Liberals) to reclaim their turf - to "Take Back the Right" from the autocratic Harper. To do this, they must undo the mischief wrought by Harper's Henchmen. They must untie the knot that bound their fortunes to a second rate Banana Republic dictator. The marriage born of treachery must be annulled.  It is time for the Re-birth of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. 

Could Redford be the one to lead a
reserected Progressive Conservatve Party?

It says here that in the end, Lee Richardson has backed the right horse. If anyone is to lead the New Progressive Conservative Party, Alison Redford is a good fit for the job. She is proving to be a skilled tactician, in overcoming the manipulation of the CPC in the last Provincial election, certainly Harper's equal. But she is also a good politician who has demonstrated the willingness and ability to work with the other Premiers all for the greater good of the Federation. And in standing firm with the show-boating Christie Clark, she demonstrates the  ability to make the "tough decisions" when necessary.   And Redford's collaborative approach is gaining her supporters outside of Alberta's borders as well. So she is well equipped to lead the re-birth of a proud Canadian tradition. Hence, she is well placed to restore the Progressive voice to Canadian democracy and to pull the rug out from underneath his Harperness. 

It's Time For the Rebirth of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party.

308 Independent MPs -Canada Needs More Than Just Electoral Reform

Much has been written about the need for electoral reform in Canada. I first started hearing about it during the Chretien years when the Liberal Party won successive majority governments while achieving less than 50% of the popular vote. But the notion has really come to a head with The Conservative Party of Canada having won it's recent majority government with slightly less than 38% of the popular vote. 

The skillful use of Smoke and Mirrors:

First Past the Post

Stephen Harper and the CPC were able to use skillful campaigning, a tightly controlled message aimed at a targeted number of "swing-ridings" in vote rich Ontario as well as ethically questionable tactics borrowed from the well financed Republican Party in the States to manipulate our "First Past the Post" electoral system into it's first majority government. And the CPC are using their majority of seats like a blunt force object to hammer away at Canada and it's socially and democratically responsible system of governance. All of which has left the 62% (+/-) of us who did not ask for this majority, wringing our hands and feeling quite helpless in the face of the Harper Juggernaut. We look to tomorrow and see a Canada that is considerably less kind and gentle while appearing to be much poorer (both financially as well as morally) and increasingly careless and callous with our environment. 

So as a result, many Canadians are now organizing and advocating for a fairer electoral system, one that is less likely to be manipulated by overenthusiastic, pimple-faced, morally bankrupt, backroom, political zealots.... and their object of worship. A system in which each vote counts and our Parliament is more reflective of the will of the majority of people rather than the will of the well connected and the bamboozled minority.  This is referred to as "Proportional Representation"  and such high-profile politicians as Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May are adding their voices to the growing number of advocates. "Fair Vote Canada" has been one of the most vocal and well organized groups promoting Proportional Representation. 

The Complications of Proportional Representation:

The Honorable
Stephane Dion

Now there have been a number of "Proportional Representation" Models devised by people much wiser than myself. On the surface of it, one would think that this would not be such a complicated task. But alas, this is not the case. Fair Vote Canada advocates for three such systems: List Systems, Mixed Member Proportional Systems and Single Transferable Vote.  The Honorable Stephane Dion has devised a fourth system referred to as "P3". With out going into great detail (readers can check out the links for themselves) it seems that each system requires such things as multiple lists of candidates from competing parties, prioritizing and ranking of candidates and complicated "formulas"  (for the mathematically challenged among us like myself) . Mr. Dion proposes having more than one MP, perhaps as many as five in each riding. Needless to say, compared to our relatively "easy" First-Past-The-Post system, these alternatives can seem rather confusing and complicated. 

Despite the apparent complication of these Proportional systems, several countries in the world, such s Brazil, Australia, Israel and Russia already employ such systems. Their effectiveness however, is open to conjecture. Canada has dabbled with introducing these systems at the the Provincial level (British Columbia and Ontario) but they have been met with reluctance from the electorate. 

One possible benefit of these systems is the elimination of majority governments (again, whether or not this is seen as a benefit is a matter of opinion). This possibility would certainly eliminate heavy-handed governments such as the CPC in the future.  But as we saw when Harper had a minority Government, he simply stacked the Senate with Conservative Cronies, there-by ensuring his "will would be done" anyway. 

Is Electoral Reform Alone the Answer?

Canadian MPs  Influenced More By the Party Whip
Than By their Constituents.

It would seem then, that what ails our democracy here in Canada the most, is not so much our electoral system but the rabid partisanship of our political parties. It is becoming increasingly apparent that genuine political debate is becoming a thing of the past and that rhetoric and character assassination have become the order of the day. And it would seem that, as displayed by the number of "whipped" votes that occur in Parliament, MPs are no longer free to vote their conscience and that back-benchers, as seen in the C-38 fiasco, have been reduced to nothing but cheerleaders. The best interests of parties seems to be more important in Ottawa now than the best interest of the country. This may have been the case to a certain extent for quite some time, but this rabid partisanship seems to have been personified by the CPC. 

What I therefore suggest; and I realize that in this current political climate, it is a "pie in the sky" scenario, is that for the sake of democracy and the sake of the country, political parties be eliminated. We could then keep our rather simplistic "First Past The Post" system but each of the 308 ridings in Canada would elect a 100% independent Member of Parliament, each one free to vote his or her's conscience and/or according to the will of the people in their respective ridings. 

A Partyless Democracy:

Eliminating
Hyper-Partisan Rhetoric

There are no major democratic countries in the world that operate with out political parties and some observers might suggest that a country that functions with out political parties might be more open to degenerating into a totalitarian state or one that is influenced more by other external forces rather than the will of the people. I would argue however that this would be less likely to happen in a country with a strong democratic tradition and an engaged electorate. 

But democracies can and do operate on smaller scales without parties, including right here in Canada. In most Canadian municipalities, party affiliation is largely non-existent (unless you happen to live in Toronto where the current mayor is known to go fishing with the Prime Minister). In cities such as my home town of Hamilton Ontario, Councillors and the Mayor are elected on their individual merits rather than on party affiliations. While there might be "voting blocks" in Council from time to time, they usually arise as a result of individual issues and have nothing what so ever to do with party affiliations or allegiances. 

In the Canadian Territories of Nunavut and the North-West Territory, these governments, unlike the governments of the 10 Provinces, function completely with out political parties. The Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected in each of the ridings and they in turn, chose first the Speaker of the House, then the Premier and then the  Cabinet Ministers. The remaining MLAs are then seen as the "opposition".  

So while there are no large scale examples of a "Partyless Democracy" there is no reason why it couldn't work in a country the size of Canada. It is acknowledged that it would certainly take several years to "wean" current politicians off of their respective party allegiances and that unofficial "voting blocks" could be formed in the House. But as with politics at the municipal level, they would most likely arise on a situation by situation basis rather than on an ongoing, permanent  basis. 

How it Might Work:

Whether The Prime Minister and Cabinet are selected in the same manner as in the Territorial models, by the individual members of the House, or the Prime Minister is elected on the same ballot as the MPs in each riding as with the municipal model, depends on how much direct say  the electorate wishes to have in the selection process. If the PM were selected by the House, he/she would constantly be subject to the confidence of the House as with minority governments today.If Parliament selects the Prime Minister and he or she fails to maintain the confidence of the House, they could be replaced by Parliament with out having to consult with the Governor General or going to the Polls. A single four or five year Parliamentary cycle then, could see more than one Prime Minister. As such,the Prime Minister and Cabinet are wholly accountable to Parliament rather than the opposite such as we have today and their continuation in their elected capacities would depend entirely on their performance. 

I would also suggest that selection of Cabinet Ministers and the Speaker would be best left up to the Members of the House as it would be far too complicated and unwieldy a task for each to be chosen by the electorate. And I would suggest that, rather than being chosen by the Prime Minister, having the Cabinet Ministers chosen by the House would be more efficient and would make each Minister more accountable to his peers. It would keep the Cabinet more balanced and eliminate the  possibility of the PM selecting his own cronies. 

Elizabeth May

Another added bonus of a "Partyless" system would be that single hard working MPs would have an equal opportunity of becoming Prime Minister. For example, one of the hardest working Parliamentarians in the House today is Elizabeth May. But because she is not the leader of one of the three main party's, it is virtually impossible for her to become Prime Minister under our current system of Government unless she jumps ship and joins a "winning team". In a Parliament with out parties, Ms. May would have as good an opportunity to become Prime Minister as any other skilled MP.

Oh, and since the Senate was formed primarily as a "House of Sober Second Thought" to offset possible partisanship attached to any legislation passed by the Lower House, There would no longer be any need for the Red Chamber. Party Partisanship would be eliminated and each and every MP would then be equally important and have a voice in the House. And each would ultimately be accountable to their constituents rather than to the party or to the "Non Elected" muscle of the PMO. 

Democratic Reform will not be just Handed to us:

We cannot count on our current politicians to willingly give up the system we have now. It is up to Canadian citizens to demand this kind of change. We must be the ones to pressure our elected officials to give up the "Old Boy's Clubs" that currently inhabits Parliament Hill. But if the pressure is hard enough and sustained enough at the constituency level and enough candidates choose to run as Independents, Canada may yet come to see the birth of a democracy that could well  be the envy of the world. 

308 Independent MPs, Each one equal,
Each one Accountable

Is the Dutch Disease Theory Really a Wedge Issue?

Alberta Oil Refinery

This past Spring, newly-minted NDP leader Thomas Mulcair introduced the notion of "Dutch Disease" in relation to the Canadian economy. Simply put, he meant that the booming oil economy in Alberta is inflating the Canadian dollar which in turn, is negatively impacting the manufacturing sector in the rest of the country, particularly Ontario which, once upon a time, was the economic engine of the country. 


Almost on cue, the western-centric Reform/Conservatives,sensing an attack on their economic and political base, lashed out at Mulcair saying his comments were not only faulty, but divisive (talk about the pot calling the kettle black). They even released their first attack add aimed at the NDP leader, claiming his theories were "risky" and that he is promoting "dangerous economic experiments". 


In June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  released a report that in essence, lent credence to Mulcair's assertion, saying that the Government needs to do more to promote the "non-resource" sector of the economy in order to maintain a higher employment rate and a more even distribution of wealth across the country. 

Gotta build us a FIREWALL around Alberta

Since then, there has been nary a word from the Reformists about "dangerous economic experiments" but they have certainly kept up their stinging mantra about Mulcair's comments being divisive and "anti-west". As with their misleading  commentary about the legitimacy of coalition governments, usual CPC operating procedure is to repeat the same erroneous statement over and over again until it becomes believable - believable at least, to the uninformed and the CPC's Reformist base. 


But were Mulcair's comments divisive? Were they an attack on the west? It was certainly easy for many Canadians to jump on that band wagon, claiming that the "Bearded Wonder" was no better than Harper in his use of the politics of division, pitting Alberta against Eastern Canada which in itself, is a festering rivalry reminiscent of the Hadfields and the McCoys. The Reformists of course, were only too happy to fan those flames. But why is applying the Dutch Disease theory to Canada divisive? 


No where in Mulcair's comments was he using an accusatory tone with regard to Alberta and why should he? Is it Alberta's fault that someone discovered oil in their back yard? Is it Alberta's fault that this find is causing their economy to boom? Of course not. Nor is it their fault that their good fortune, just happens to be having a negative impact on the manufacturing sector. It's a side effect of the oil boom, but certainly not one that was foreseen or was intentional. And I can find no where in Mulcair's theories where it says that Alberta should stop being prosperous. No, his is merely a statement of possible fact in relation to a theory that may actually have some merit. It has no blame what so ever attached to it.

In simple terms, this situation is not unlike two neighbours living side by side. For years, one has been cultivating and nurturing an Oak tree in his back yard. Finally, after much patience, the Oak matures into a beautiful shade tree, one that would certainly add to the value of the owners property. The problem is, the branches spread out over the property line and deposits leaves and other debris in the other neighbour's yard. It is certainly not the tree owner's fault that his Oak is creating a problem for the guy next door. But it is a problem none the less. Will hurling insults over the fence line at each other solve the issue? Certainly not. So how do good neighbours collaborate to resolve the issue in a way that's acceptable to both property owners? 


It is not a bad thing then, that Mr. Mulcair had the courage to raise this Dutch Disease issue. It was a simple statement of the facts as he see's them, with no actual blame attached to them. So how then, does Western and Eastern Canada work together as good neighbours to resolve this potential problem in a way that is mutually beneficial?   Certainly not by being defensive and assigning guilt, but through understanding and negotiation. The way Canadians usually solve their problems.