Listening Yet?

Liberal Senators draw ire of prairie Premiers

As Joan Fraser and the Liberal party's senate caucus plot their next move regarding their controversial ammendments to a bill that would abolish 2-for-1 sentencing provisions, they may want to consider a joint press release written by he Premiers of BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In the press release Alberta's Ed Stelmach, Saskatchewan's Brad Wall and BC's Gordon Campbell reiterate their support for the bill to abolish these sentencing provisions. They add their voice to Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, who had previously voiced his displeasure over the matter.

“Our provinces all agree that eliminating the two-for-one credit would help our provinces fight organized crime and keep our communities safe,” said Wall.

“Albertans expect a system that represents their values and instills confidence,” added Stelmach. “Double credit for time served doesn't work for Alberta."

“Criminals should not be able to manipulate the justice system to their advantage by getting extra credit for time in remand,” Campbell said. “The amendments proposed by this unelected Senate water down the strength of Bill C-25."

Previously, Doer had suggested that the matter helps demonstrate the case made by those who call for the abolition of the Senate.

"We believe the Senate should be abolished — and if we ever saw a case for the Senate being abolished, we just saw it last [Wednesday] evening," Doer fumed. "Elected people in the legislatures of the country, elected people in ... Parliament should be making decisions."

As noted previously, support for Bill C-25 came from across Canada, from across partisan boundaries. Stelmach governs Alberta as the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. Wall governs Saskatchewan as the leader of the Saskatchewan party -- Sasktachewan's primary conservative party (a Progressive Conservative party remains registered but doesn't field candidates in elections). Campbell governs BC as a Liberal, and Doer is the outgoing NDP Premier of Manitoba.

If Canadians needed any further indication of precisely how unresponsive an institution the Senate has become, this particular issue certainly presents it.

With its current Liberal majority, the Senate doesn't seem to care what the people of Canada, their elected representatives, or the provincial governments of Canada have to say on this issue.

They plan to go their own way, and drag the rest of the country along with them. They just aren't listening.

Gary Doer predictably toed the (rather frightening) NDP party line on abolishing the Senate. Canadians clearly don't favour this option -- numerous polls have demonstrated the Canadian preference for an elected Senate.

But in the absence of an elected Senate, perhaps other reforms should be considered. Legislation allowing provincial governments to summon their Senators before the legislature could at least improve the responsiveness of Senators to the constituents they're expected to represent.

Better still would be legislation allowing provincial legislatures to dismiss Senators deemed to have insufficiently represented their constituents -- perhaps with a 75% vote.

Such reforms could at least force Canada's Senate to listen to the people they're expected to represent. As recent episodes have shown, Senators like Joan Fraser simply aren't listening.

The HST: The Great Divider

Political tensions over HST have intriguing implications

One benefit Canada's recently-averted election holds for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the freedom to flip-flop on his own rhetoric without any serious consequences.

Take, for example, a recent Ignatieff flip-flop on the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax.

For those not in the know, a Harmonized Sales Tax is a fusion of Provincial Sales Taxes (PST) the federal government's Goods and Services Tax (GST). The argument being raised in favour of these taxes is that they're good for business, making it easier and less costly for business to remit these taxes to the government.

The argument against these taxes -- and a very persuasive argument at that -- is that these taxes are bad for consumers, and would apply sales taxes to transactions to which they hadn't previously applied, such as grocery and housing bills.

Needless to say, the matter has been very controversial in provinces that are planning to implement the HST -- chiefly British Columbia and Ontario. There's been an intriguing federal-provincial political dynamic at play in the affair, in which both major provincial and federal parties seem to be at odds with one another over the issue.

The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has been instrumental in decisions to implement the HST, offering billions of dollars in short-term help to provinces that decide to implement the tax.

Ignatieff has publicly derided the HST, referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax".

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits that the HST would be bad for Canadians in the short term, but it insists it would be good for the country in the long run.

"It's good longterm economic policy for the people of Canada," Flaherty insisted, noting that this is a provincial matter. "The decision to harmonize is always up to the individual province whether they choose to do it or not."

When pressed on whether or not he was "picking a fight" with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (or BC Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter, also a Liberal), Ignatieff seemed to shift his position away from using it to score cheap political points and closer to the position being taken by the government.

"Our position from the beginning has been that this is a matter between the Harper government and the provincial governments concerned. Period," Ignatieff insisted. "I'm the leader of the Opposition. I've got no position to clarify. It's between those two governments. And when I become Prime Minister I'll have other decisions to take."

Ignatieff has apparently moved to reassure McGuinty that his party's federal cousins wouldn't kill the HST deal just to maintain their own rhetoric.

"I assured him that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of government," Ignatieff said. "We don't rip up agreements that have been duly negotiated by previous administrations, and I made that clear to him and I think we're on the same page on this issue."

That's an obvious shot across Harper's bow in regards to various issues such as the Kelowna Accord and the national daycare program. (Unfortuantely for Ignatieff, the Canadian public at least seems to be largely comfortable with these particular decisions.)

However, Ignatieff and McGuinty aren't the only ones to be at odds over the HST.

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has been vocal in his opposition to the HST, paying little mind to the governing federal party's effective sponsorship of the tax. Although Hudak has a different name for it than Ignatieff's -- he calls it the Dalton Sales Tax.

"[Toronto Dominion] Economics shows the 'Dalton Sales Tax' is just that - a permanent tax grab that will result in higher prices on the things we buy with no immediate benefit to consumers despite the premier's promises," Hudak publicly fumed. "[Premier] Dalton McGuinty has taken the idea of reducing red tape for business and turned it into a massive tax grab on Ontario's families in the midst of a recession."

Any direct tensions between Hudak and Stephen Harper on the matter must certainly be minimal -- Harper has had very little to say about the HST, and simply allowed his Finance Minister to carry that particular football.

But Hudak's deputy leader, Christine Elliott, is married to Jim Flaherty. Whatever political tensions subsist between the two over the matter are likely being contested -- perhaps silently -- over the dinner table.

"As Christine said to me on the weekend ... we'll remain married of course, and the children are very happy with that, but we're non-harmonized," Flaherty recently joked.

So if the Flaherty-Elliott marriage isn't at risk over the issue, the Liberal party faces a much more serious dilemma.

One way or another the HST is an issue that may harm the Liberal party significantly. Liberal MPs are worried that they'll be the ones to suffer the political consequences for the HST should they have to face a federal election before the Campbell Liberals face a provincial vote.

That particular dilemma for the Liberals could be as immediate as Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe decide it should be.

However this federal-provincial political dynamic plays out -- with the actions of provincial parties harming the prospects of federal parties, and vice versa -- the HST could be a largely-peripheral issue that could interest Canadian political scholars for years.

Just Another Reason Why Unions Should Leave Political Campaigns to the Pros

With a provincial election just around the corner, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees union is gearing up to take a serious run at Liberal BC Premier Gordon Campbell.

Their message for BCers is actually a simple one: Gordon Campbell may possibly hate you.

In an ad recently uploaded to YouTube, COPE seems to poke fun at some of bombastic messages of amateur political ads. An obnoxiously-loud voice asks "did you know", then lists off a litany of imaginary Campbell offenses -- trying to "kill your grandma", "is fighting a secret war against wild salmon and river otters", and "eats children" while a more moderate and evidently skeptical voice questions the assertions, although noting that Campbell has closed down hospitals, approved hydro-electric development and ignored child poverty.

A myriad of poorly-photoshopped images flash by on the screen, including one of Campell firing a gun off into the air while flames engulf fish and otters.

Yet at the end of the ad, the one assertion that seems reasonable is that "Gordon Campbell hates you".

"Hmmmm," the narrator's seemingly-more moderate foil muses. "That actually seems reasonable, based on everything he's done so far."

"Maybe everyone should be asking 'does Gordon Campbell hate you?'" he concludes.

While it clearly has an amusing edge to it, the ad's conclusion clearly falls well short of its evident goal of parodying childish political rhetoric. When the ad concludes that all BCers should wonder if Campbell hates them, the ad's attempt to counter-brand Gordon Campbell as antithetical to the ads' evident targets values instead embraces that childish rhetoric.

The ad is reminiscent of the Albertans for change ads -- which were bankrolled by Alberta unions -- in which some "ordinary Albertans" were shown professing distrust for Premier Ed Stelmach with smiles on their faces.

The ads were a flop, as Stelmach was reelected with a dominant majority government.

COPE's ironically petulant anti-Campbell ad could turn out having the same effect. This, along with CUPE's recent anti-Israel debacles and then-CAW President Buzz Hargrove's 2006 self-humiliation, is just another reason why labour unions should leave political campaigning to those who know how to do it.


Hilarious addendum - It's amazing what can turn up in the "related videos" section:

United They Stand

BC amalgamation plan will give aboriginals a stronger voice

In a province where dealing with aboriginal affairs has been notoriously difficult things are about to simplified significantly.

In 2002 the people of British Columbia approved the Gordon Campbell government's eight principles for treaty negotiation.

Those principles set the Campbell government's criteria for treaty negotiations. They stipulated the following:

-Private property rights should be respected, and that treaty settlements shouldn't involve the expropriation of property.
-Land use terms and licenses should be respected, and anyone whose commercial interests are disrupted should be compensated.
-The use of Crown land should be reserved for all British Columbians, including for hunting, fishing and recreation.
-Provincial parks should be reserved for the use of all British Columbians.
-Resource management and environmental protection standards shoulda apply province-wide.
-Aboriginal government should be modelled on local government. All powers delegated by the federal and provincial governments should apply.
-Harmonization of land use planning should be entrenched within treaties.
-Tax examptions for aboriginals should be phased out.

Even with the government's criteria for an agreement mandated by the citiens of BC negotiation of those treaties have proven very difficult. With more than 200 separate aboriginal groups in BC, reaching an agreement would prove nearly impossible.

A recent piece of legislation introduced by the government of BC would allow aboriginal groups to amalgamate, reducing the number of separate groups to a number as small as 25.

The legislation will also recognize the title rights of BC aboriginals as the original inhabitants of the province.

"We heard the B.C. minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation say that it is up to the First Nations to determine what their political structure is going to be -- and it might well be 203 First Nations or it might be 30 or it might be 100. We just don't know how that's logically going to play out," said Chief Judith Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation. "People have to ask questions because I don't want to be forced into working with First Nations that we might not get along with or it doesn't make a natural fit."

By amalgamating their groups not only will aboriginal treaty negotiations with the BC government go smoother, they will also have stronger, more unified voices to speak with.

That's why the Member of the First Nations Summit's decision to support the legislation put forth by BC Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Mike de Jong is so important.

It could even provide a better model for Aboriginal self-government for the rest of the country.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Chrystal Ocean - "Native Rights to be Entrenched in BC Law"

Divide and Conquer?

Grits target BC in last-ditch attempt to win election

In a negative ad released earlier in the 2008 federal election campaign, the Liberal party accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of practicing "divide and conquer" politics.

Now, with the polls solidly favouring the Conservatives with at least a 12-point lead as the days tick down to balloting day, the Liberals have set their sites on British Columbia in a last-ditch effort to squeak out of the 2008 campaign if not with a victory, then with a less-than-humiliating defeat.

The efforts seem to be organized by former BC (NDP) Premier Ujjal Dosinjh, who appears prominently in the mini-campaign.

When examining the TeamBC.ca website, it appears that the Liberal tactic seems to be throw everything -- Insite, 9/11 Conspiracy theories, the Canada Action Party -- against the wall and see what sticks.

The Liberals have even released a campaign ad targeted at BC:



Dosanjh appears in the ad lamenting about the alleged difficulty of making British Columbia heard in Ottawa, and promises that if voters support the Liberals, he will make it so. He insists that Harper is to blame for Ontario's recession -- despite the fact that the Dalton McGuinty Liberals are currently in power there -- and insists it must not be allowed to spread to BC.

He even drops George W Bush's name in the ad, stressing the need for a truly Canadian approach to global warming (it seems that will less than three months to go with Bush in office, the Liberals are trying to take as full advantage of it as possible).

The intent of this spot -- in fact, of this entire microcampaign -- is to brand the Liberal party as the party that will "fight for BC", while trying to counter-brand the NDP as crazed -- at one point relying on the expressed beliefs of the wife of an NDP MLA (you read that right -- the wife of an MLA) -- and the Conservatives as uncaring.

In the end, however, it's still going to be an uphill battle for the Liberals in BC. After all, Liberal premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax remains extremely unpopular, and many British Columbians continue to worry about being double-carbon taxed.

This all may be too little too late for the Liberal party not only in BC, but in the entire country during this election campaign.