Extreme Agendas = Favouring Abolition of the Senate

BQ, NDP both favour abolishing Senate

Speaking at a recent panel discussion on the topic of Senate Reform, Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers, NDP MP David Christopherson, Liberal Senator James Cowan and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal all discussed the topic of Senate reform.

Two of those individuals -- Demers and Christopherson -- weren't interesting in talking about Senate reform at all. Rather, they were more interested in talking about Senate abolition.

"My party is against senate reform, my party is for the abolition of the senate," Demers insisted. "There is no way the senate can be reformed unless you reopen the constitution and to do that, you need the goodwill of 10 provinces. We know you won't get the goodwill of 10 provinces so it just makes no sense."

Demers knows full well that if she had her way, no consitutional talks could attract the good will of Quebec.

Pierre Trudeau learned the hard way about the folly of attempting to have good faith constitutional discussions with a separatist. Rene Levesque learned the hard way that wasn't going to fly indefinitely.

Christopherson echoed Demers preference for abolition.

"It's a holdback from another era and its time to eliminate it," he added. "The government is bringing in legislation that's just nibbling at the edges and is probably going to do more harm than good."

He insisted that piecemeal Senate reform would make the ill effects of Senate reform entrenched.

It actually wouldn't. Rather, if particular Senate reform bills really did more harm than good, Parliament would be able to repeal the legislation. Unlike a constitutional amendment -- the repeal of which would require another constitutional amendment.

Funny how that escaped Christopherson's notice.

But, then again, it should be no surprise that parties with extreme ideological agendas would oppose a house of sober, second thought that would derail their agendas.

For the Bloc Quebecois, abolishing the Senate means there would be one less house of government that would have to approve of any negotiated agreement on Quebec separation, should they ever manage to win a referendum.

(The odds continue to remain against it.)

For the NDP, the Senate would merely be another source of opposition to a far-left waffle-driven hidden agenda. It would make it remarkably easy for minority governments -- which the NDP would certainly have to settle for, if it ever managed to govern federally at all -- to hammer their legislation through a weak opposition, should such a government be so fortunate.

Cowan made his objection to senate reform a little more transparent. He argues that legislative means of Senate reform are unconstitutional.

"It can't be done by act of parliament because we have the constitution and you can't change it without consent from the provinces," he insisted. "We know Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia ... are not in favour of an elected senate and they are ambivalent about the proposal for a limited term."

But clearly Cowan has misunderstood the nature of Canada's Constitution. Canada's Constitution is a British-style Constitution with written and unwritten elements -- and that the written elements of Canada's Constitution are not limited to the British North America Act.

(For example, many Canadians don't know that the Magna Carta is part of the written body of work that makes up Canada's Constitution.)

Segal hit paydirt on this particular detail when he noted the number of public institutions that aren't covered by the Constitution at all.

"Many of the things we have in our system, cabinet ministers, political parties, they aren't mentioned in the constitution," Segal explained. In fact, some of the basic parts of Canada's political institutions -- like the office of Prime Minister -- aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Rather, many of these things have come about as Constitutional convention -- part of the unwritten element of Canada's Constitution.

In fact, the current Senator selection process -- under which both Cowan and Segal were appointed -- is a matter of convention. Under the Constitution, Senators are to be appointed by the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen.

At a purely ceremonial level, this continues to be the case. But constitional convention has since defined the right of selection to belong to the Prime Minister.

That convention could be expanded to require that the Prime Minister appoint Senators chosen by their constituents via an election.

Canadian democracy is badly in need of Senate reform. Although individuals like James Cowan may insist on standing in the way, it remains the only means of ensuring that parties with extreme agendas don't manage to seize control of the country.

Abolishing the Senate would make the advancement of such single-minded extreme agendas easier. It's one of the best reasons why anyone who favours abolishing the Senate should be viewed with suspicion.

Segal Out of Place as Head of Anti-Terror Committee

Hugh Segal elected to chair Senate committee on anti-terror laws

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has been elected to chair a special Senate committee on anti-terror laws. The committee will examine two anti-terror bills, including Bill C-17, which will restore anti-terror laws that sunsetted in 2007.

"It was an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to investigative hearings," Segal explained. "Whether somebody could be held because there was a suspicion that they had either been involved in a terrorist act, or had information about a coming terrorist act, and what were their rights in that process, and what were the rights of the Crown."

In order to make decisions regarding the legislation, the committee will investigate the overall terrorism situation in Canada.

"We're going to be working on an update of what is the state of the terrorist threat in Canada (and) how has that threat changed in the last five years," Segal explained.

Segal has proven to be an adept thinker on numerous policy issues. But terrorism-related issues isn't one of his strengths.

Pierre Trudeau's decision to invoke the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 has been a controversial one in Canadian history. Segal, who was a student at the University of Ottawa at the time, has been an outspoken critic of that decision.

The limitation of civil rights is not a matter to be taken lightly at any time. But the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Pierre Laporte, a Quebec cabinet Minister, limited Trudeau's options in responding to the crisis.

Invoking the War Measures Act was a necessary part of the response to the threat posed by the FLQ. It introduced a crucial element of control into the situation, allowing the government to account for the activities of FLQ sympathizers who may have aided the terrorists.

The crus of the matter was, of course, that the Trudeau government had, through its own negligence, allowed the situation to grow out of control.

Unless Segal's views on the October Crisis have changed drastically in short order, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that Segal isn't up to the task of making decisions in regards to terrorism -- particularly when Segal himself seems to understand that the nature of current terrorist threats represents a more fractious, less centralized structure.

"We now face a threat that is more diffuse, in other words it's not somebody in a cave sending instructions to cells around the world," Segal said. "But rather self-identifying cells of individuals deciding they are frustrated with this, that or other, and they want to use terrorism as a means of making their point."

In his favaour, Segal seems to understand that the government cannot afford to repeat the preemptive failures of the Trudeau government.

"When you have individuals who [are] more than prepared to die, then that of course provides a preventative challenge," Segal declared. "So it changes the dynamic of the challenge and makes it more complex, all the more reason to make sure we're doing it in the best possible way."

But while Hugh Segal may be more than willing to do what is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, he needs to show concerned parties that he's willing to do what is necessary if those preventative measures fail.

Otherwise, his chairing the Senate committee on anti-terrorism is a mistake.

Serving Canada's Interest in Human Rights

W2I a realistic upgrade on R2P

When the Responsibility to Protect (also known as R2P) was released, it promised to revolutionize the foreign policy debate on human rights and the manner in which failed states would be handled by the international community.

The doctrine simply stated that countries have the responsibility to protect their citizenry and respect their human rights. If any state failed to live up to this responsibility, the stable and wealthy nations of the world had a responsibility to step in and protect their citizens, whether that protection was from the forces of another state, militant groups within the country or from the state itself.

In some cases the western world exercised its responsibility in these matters -- in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

In other cases -- such as Rwanda and the Sudan -- this responsibility was not exercised.

The Will to Intervene, a foreign policy strategy developed by retired diplomat Robert Fowler, former International Association of Genocide Scholars President Dr Frank Chalk, Senators Romeo Dallaire and Hugh Segal, and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, will hopefully fill in the missing blanks of R2P.

The report addresses numerous issues that tend to emerge around genocide and other crimes against humanity, including refugee camps (which they rightly note can help to spread various diseases, including potential pandemics).

"One of the most surprising discoveries we made ... is how vulnerable we are here in Canada to the indirect consequences of events like the Rwanda genocide," Dr Chalk noted. "These things will come back and invade the soft, quiet, safe, comfortable lives that we live in these parts of the world."

The report argues that "The chaos resulting from these atrocities poses credible danger to Canadian and American national interests at home and abroad."

"We need to redefine our national interest more broadly, not only to help failing states, but also to help and protect ourselves," the report adds. It notes that Canada should be prepared to use military force when necessary (and possible) in places where violence threatens the lives of civilians.

"If you're a leading middle power in the world and you have in the entrails of your ethos the belief of human rights and the belief in humanity and the moral strength to back up all those conventions you've signed, then you've also got to be prepared to not just throw cash at it afterwards, which usually ends up costing a lot more than preventing, but also sweat, tears and sometimes the blood of some of our youth," Dallaire insists.

"If we in fact move into a realm where we proactively intervene with the soft power elements of increasing our diplomatic capabilities, our international development capabilities, of going in and assisting to diffusing the frictions, that is peanuts compared to the billions (of dollars) ... of trying to pick up and sustain millions of people who are suffering."

Ed Broadbent elaborated on the depth of the human suffering that can be prevented if Canada acts sooner, as opposed to later.

"If the government of Canada had done the right thing when they had that information, perhaps the atrocious situation that confronted General Dallaire and the world community a year later could have been headed off," he noted.

The report recommends the establishment of a government ministry responsible for the global prevention of genocide -- clearly sharing responsibilities with the Ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation -- to plan and coordinate early responses wherever crimes against humanity are taking place, as well as a Commons standing committee on preventing genocide.

The report also calls for Canada to act with its allies in preventing these atrocities.

"We should not be doing it alone," Dr Chalk announced. "But before we can co-operate with allies and a coalition of the willing, we have to improve our own domestic capacity to co-operate. That means we need more infantry, that means we need new doctrines for the Canadian military so that they're being trained to protect civilians and can interface with other armies doing the same if necessary."

Dr Chalk boldly notes that Canada may even have to circumvent the UN Security Council and plan missions without the Security Council's authorization.

Hugh Segal noted that part of Canada's strategy toward genocide requires taking decision-making power out of the hands of bureaucrats. Segal noted that they must be denied the "flexibility to avoid" the responsibility to act.

Fowler recounted the story of a foreign affairs bureaucrat writing "not in Canada's interest" on a memo his office had issued about the genocide in Rwanda.

"That is, as far as I'm concerned, a simply unacceptable reaction," Fowler fumed. “What we are talking about here is the moral imperative of engaging when truly appalling, unspeakable and unacceptable things are occurring.”

"It's about what I would call coalitions of the relevant ... acting when there is no other choice," added Segal.

As valuable a document as Responsibility to Protect was, it suffered from one fatal flaw: that many governments, including Canada's often fail to find the Will to Intervene.

W2I sends a powerful message to the world: Canada will intervene whereever possible, whenever possible, and by whatever means possible. If Canada's allies don't want to be embarrassed by inaction, they'd better prepared to muster the same will.

Five very wise men -- Robert Fowler, Dr Robert Chalk, Romeo Dallaire, Hugh Segal and Ed Broadbent -- have spoken. Now it's the responsibility of the government to do the right thing with the recommendations in this report: implement them.

Time to Turn Back the Tide of Afghan Defeatism

Murray Dobbin crows about "failure" of democracy in Afghanistan

In the "Saving Private Brian" episode of Family Guy, Brian and Stewie are trying to get out of enlisted service in Iraq -- an enlistment that is actually illegal, as Stewie is a baby and Brian is a dog -- by intentionally shooting each other in the foot and calling it an accident.

Even after Stewie and Brian are told that they're out of luck, as being wounded isn't enough to be sent home, their fortune drastically turns. Democracy kicks in.

Suddenly, a human pyramid of Iraqi prisoners collapses into a laughing pile of identical fratboys. Terrorists filming the beheading an American prisoner become barbers instead administering a shave. Burka wearing women transform into trampy women working a bikini carwash, spraying each others' chests while they make out.

Seth MacFarlane's message is a simple one: the notion that democracy will magically and automatically heal all the ills of Iraq is a silly notion.

Meanwhile, in an op/ed column appearing in both The Tyee and the ideologically parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin insists that the outcome of the Afghan election is actually meaningless. He insists that American aid provided to the Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of the country rendered democracy impossible, and that the United States has undermined Afghan democracy because an independant and secular democracy in Afghanistan would surely thwart American imperialist ambitions.

In a particularly revelatory turn, Dobbin even goes so far as to open his column with a quote from Karl Marx.

The complaints of people like Dobbin -- that a perfect democracy has, as yet, failed to emerge in Afghanistan -- are every bit as silly as the rosy visions of a post-democratic Iraqi miracle that MacFarlane critiques.

Dobbin trots out numerous polls -- suggesting that, among other things, Americans don't agree that they're winning the war in Afghanistan, that Americans want a troop decrease, and that Americans do not believe that the Afghan election will produce an "effective government" -- to support his argument that introducing democracy in Afghanistan is a lost cause.

But for someone who clearly fancies himself a historian, Dobbin is uniquely ignorant to history.

Nowhere in the world, in all of history, has a functional and vibrant democracy popped up overnight. Ever.

Even in the United States -- if one were to take that to be a rough model for democracy -- the early years of the union were marred by an ineffective federal government. At one point in early American history, the state of Maryland threatened to secede from the Union because the other states refused to help them quell various militia uprisings.

Even the establishment of British democracy was marked by civil war between King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. History speaks for itself -- even Cromwell's victory, on behalf of Parliament and at the head of the new model army resulted in what was actually a military dictatorship under Cromwell. A fully-developed British democracy was still centuries of incremental change away.

Likewise, a fully-developed, fully-functioning democracy in the western model is a long way -- likely a very long way -- away in Afghanistan. That there is not yet such a democracy in Afghanistan is not a failure, and it doesn't mean we should abandon Afghans to their own devices and to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

Rather, it means that the western world needs to afford Afghan democracy time and space in which to grow.

In Fear's Empire, Benjamin Barber reminds us that a democracy imposed by an outside power -- at least, as this author would add, without domestic support for it -- is not truly a democracy. The same goes for a democracy in which the form of that democracy is imposed.

The democracy in Afghanistan may not resemble a western democracy as closely as we would like. But nearly every western democracy in existence today has grown and taken form over a matter of literally centuries. The slow development of the Afghan state is not sufficient excuse to abandon it.

One should recall that Americans once wrote off Iraq as a lost cause as well. But improvements over the past two years in Iraqi stability show that insurgencies -- even insurgencies as determined as the Taliban and their allies -- can be fought, contained and, given the right mixture of time and determination, defeated.

As Hugh Segal would remind us, the costs of abandoning Afghanistan are great, and would expand beyond Afghanistan into Pakistan and even India. It cannot be allowed to happen, no matter how utterly indifferent individuals like Dobbin seem to be in regards to whether or not it does.

The defeatism of Dobbin and his contemporaries requires that we ignore successes and pay attention only to the challenges and setbacks in Afghanistan. But considering that they don't have a credible frame of reference from the very beginning of their critique, there is very little reason to give their criticisms any more credit than their thinly-veiled conspiracy theories are due.

Democracy is not a magical panacea that will solve every problem Afghanistan faces. Nor should defeatists like Murray Dobbin be allowed to denigrate efforts there on the basis that it hasn't sprung up overnight.

Setting the Record Straight is Only the First Step...

...The second is to see what the record actually tells us

With the public health care debate heating up in the United States, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is continuing to peddle horror stories about the Canadian health care system.

The horror story most frequently being peddled right now is the sad story of Shona Holmes, who was unable to procure treatment by Canadian cancer specialists and was forced to borrow $100,000 in order to obtain treatment at the United States' Mayo clinic for a brain tumour.

Aside from the fact that this case is fairly similar to thousands of cases in the United States, where individuals without health insurance are forced to burden themselves with gargantuan debts in order to receive treatment -- and in some cases, shady insurance companies simply refuse to abide by the terms of their contracts with their customers.

McConnell's peddling of this story -- and others -- has raised the ire of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who has publicly defended Canada's health care system south of the border.

"The notion that we have some bureaucrat standing next to every doctor between the patient and that doctor is a complete creation, there is no truth to that at all," Hugh Segal told CNN. "What you have is a longer life span, better outcomes and about one-third less costs. That's what you have."

A Canadian also has superior access to health care. Once again, this is something that McConnell has failed to mention.

McConnell's comments, however, have sparked a vital debate on the role of the bureaucracy within health care.

The first thing that should be noted is that the United States wastes more money on health care bureaucracy than Canada does. this has been known since at least 2004.

But this doesn't mean that Canada's priorities regarding health care are actually in order.

When presented with the priority between providing front-line medical service -- the kind that Shona Holmes didn't receive -- and maintaining a bureaucracy to oversee the system, the priority is obvious: provision of front-line service is the purpose of the system, and it thus the priority.

Yet Canada's health care system provides no incentives for the reduction of overhead costs. Bureaucrats have no incentive to control the growth of a bureaucracy, and reduce the amount to which that bureaucracy eats away at overall funding.

Just because the Canadian health care system does a better job of controlling these costs than the American system doesn't mean that these costs aren't an obstacle to superior care.

Canadian conservatives should embrace the opportunity to defend Canadian health care against the attacks from south of the 49th parallel as an opportunity to have a debate about this topic, and the kind of reforms that could redirect vital funds from maintaining a bureaucracy toward proving front-end service.

That would go a long way toward preventing the Shona Holmses and the horror stories of tomorrow.

Christine Elliott and the (Alleged) Nadir of Red Toryism

Despite Elliott's leadership setback, red toryism will survive

If politics were merely about being nice, Christine Elliott probably would have won the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership hands-down.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal's endorsement of Elliott reinforces this. Segal has often focused on praising the humanity and civility of political leaders. To Seal, these are important values.

Of course, politics is not merely about being nice. Few Canadians, inside or outside of Ontario, would pretend that former Premier Mike Harris is an implicitly nice individual. Yet his endorsement of now-PC leader Tim Hudak certainly went a long way toward establishing his credentials as a "common sense conservative".

Mike Harris won two majority governments in Ontario. Hugh Segal wound up runner-up to former Prime Minister Joe Clark in the 1998 federal Progressive Conservative leadership contest.

Perhaps the lesson is that perhaps, in politics, nice guys really do finish last -- or at least that in politics, as in life, people who are too nice invariably finish last.

In the wake of Elliott's defeat in the Progressive Conservative leadership contest, many people -- like the Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski --- are wondering if conservatism in Ontario, formerly a bastion of Canadian red toryism, has irrevocably taken what Brooke Jeffrey once referred to as a hard right turn.

(Jeffrey, for her own part, actually seemed perplexed by her inability to win election by labelling all of her would-be constituents in a riding she was parachuted into as racists, so maybe one should carefully consider the source.)

Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Ontario Conservative party has many people wondering if perhaps speculation that harder forms of conservatism are needed to prevail in Ontario.

In recent years, the failures of leaders such as John Tory have largely spoken for themselves. There's a real question regarding whether or not red toryism can flourish in Ontario -- or Canada -- any longer, or if it's simply become too "Liberal-lite" to be palatable to conservative voters.

Yet those reputed to be red tories who have gotten closest to the Liberal party have shown their true political colours. In the case of Garth Turner, those colours turned out to be red. In the end however, it turned out that he wasn't a Tory.

When the former Halton MP joined the Liberal party in 2007, then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion crowed that "Tories were becoming Liberals".

Yet, as it turned out, Turner was far from a proper red tory. He lacked that key combination of fiscal conservatism and social principle that has forever properly characterized the red tory. When he finally got his first opportunity to campaign against the Harper Conservatives he chose to embrace divisive fear-based campaigning.

Prior to that, Turner attempted to divide Canadians by attempting to invent a separatist threat in Alberta.

Red toryism has forever held at its core an organic conceptualization of society -- one wherein social tradition is balanced against the public good.

Fear mongering and the creation of artificial -- and largely non-existent -- enemies is as great an insult to the principles of red toryism as one can possibly manage.

Turner had been preceded in joining the Liberal ranks by David Orchard, who had his nomination in a Saskatchewan riding overturned by Dion in favour of a hand-picked candidate who subsequently lost to Conservative Rob Clarke. When Orchard finally got his own turn in 2008, he lost as well -- and lost amidst his own fear-based attempts to campaign against the RCMP.

David Orchard, as many may recall, conceded the federal PC leadership to Peter MacKay only under the condition that MacKay wouldn't discuss unification of that party with the then-Canadian Alliance.

Orchard, for his own part, failed to recognize the value in allowing an organic political bond to develop between Canada's conservatives, and would have rather allowed the Liberal party to govern Canada in perpetuity than be caught dead dealing with the "wrong" conservatives.

If Canadian red toryism has truly reached its nadir it isn't in the defeat of Christine Elliott. Rather, it reached that nadir when those who consider themselves red tories failed to put their political principles ahead of their political vanity.

Whether or not Elliott will turn the tide of this unfortunate trend by working together with her party's new leader, and whether the hard conservatism of Tim Hudak and Mike Harris can lead the Ontario Progressive Conservative party to victory in the next election has yet to be seen.

If Hudak possesses the wisdom to make Elliott a part of his leadership plans for the party, and if Elliott can, in turn, soften the hard conservatism of Hudak and company also has yet to be seen. But it will be interesting to see.

Politics may not necessarily be merely about being nice. But it couldn't hurt to have a nice guy -- or gal -- on side, either.

Sizing Up Conservatism's Challenges

Conservatives in Canada, US and UK face very different challenges

In a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Hugh Segal makes the case that the challenges to conservative parties being posed by elections are largely immaterial compared to the challenges being posed by the current economic times.

At a time when even conservative administrations are instituting lavish Kenyesian economic policies, it's easy for fiscal conservatives to wonder precisely what this means for conservatism and the free market:

"Imminent elections focus the mind. But the global intellectual challenge to those of us who consider belief in free markets an integral part of our conservatism is larger than the next or last election.

The fact that parties of the left and centre left did not do well in recent European elections is a hint that voters do not see either an ideological culprit for the collapse of over-engineered credit structures or an ideological saviour from anti-free market apostles. What is apparent is that balance and fairness do matter and are not outside the conservative political realm."

Segal is making an important point by noting this.

While the election of Barak Obama as US President is being viewed by many as the nadir of conservatism, perhaps not even merely in the United States, it's important to note that other left-of-centre parties are not enjoying the same level of success.

"The political geography of each of the UK, US and Canada is vastly different. Americans have just come off two terms of Republican prominence. The UK is at the point where a Labour Finance Minister who managed during good times finds special challenges managing in different times. In Canada, what is still a fledgling Tory minority faces a more competitive Liberal opposition. So the short-term challenges for conservatives are genuine but not insurmountable. The American Republicans must be credible and engaged by the mid-terms in less than two years. Both David Cameron in the UK and Prime Minister Harper here face more pressing moments of truth."

In Canada, Stephen Harper may be facing a fall election opposing a strengthened and (at least temporarily) re-engergized Liberal party led by Michael Ignatieff.

In Britain, David Cameron isn't expected to have to fight an election against Gordon Brown and the Labour party until 2010, but the expectation is that he may win a Tony Blair-style majority government.

What remains to be seen for Harper is whether or not he can keep is majority government alive at all, let alone manage to win a majority. For Davoid Cameron, the test will be whether or not he can successfully defeat the Labour party during what is expected to be a time of economic recovery.

In the United States, meanwhile, Republicans are facing an althogether different challenge -- the challenge of not shooting themselves in the foot:

"In the United States, the Obama presidency, while not flawless, is sophisticated in ways the United States has not seen before. Some conservatives, doing themselves and the Republican Party's mid-term election prospects absolutely no good, have chosen an arch ideological scream over reasoned and thoughtful engagement. With the US government now owning large chunks of the financial and industrial United States, the intellectual challenge for Republican conservatives is defining the new balance between social and economic opportunity, necessary stability and the market freedom vital to rebuild the US economy."

If one reduces conservatism to the preservation of the status quo, one has to realize that government ownership of formerly private enterprise -- General Motors clearly being the most prominent example -- will have become part of that status quo.

If one subscribes to a far more nuanced definition of conservatism, one still has to realize the scope of the challenge that government ownership of financial and industrial industry poses.

One way or the other, conservatives will have to address the issue of this ownership. Privatization of these industries would be a simple solution for conservatives to pursue.

Yet when government privatizes public assets or enterprises one thing that is undeniably part of the transaction is a depreciated return on the public's investment. Privatized government assets have proven to be a bargain for many private buyers for this very reason.

But considering the scope of the public investment in ownership of these industries, government has the responsibility to recover the maximum value of that investment. As Benjamin Barber pointed out to Tim Geithner, the public has absorbed a great deal of risk in helping these companies effectively "start over" (something that has made GMs batch of PR ads on this very topic very much insufferable). The public has the right to expect a return on that risky investment.

For some conservatives, this may seem far too much like government reaping profits better left for private investors. This is market conservatism ad extremis -- one that denies the reality of this particular matter to the extent of being nearly self-destructive.

Conservatives the world over, meanwhile, should be as lucky as the British Conservative party's David Cameron:

"In the UK, Tory leader David Cameron, in embracing decentralization and more popular restraint on government excess, is true to both the Thatcherite and 'wet' side of Britain's Tory spectrum and the core centralizing myopia of 'big Government' Labour party approaches. The fact that this is done with a strong tilt to 'compassionate conservatism' provides both a spectrum-broadening base and intellectual frame for an eventual victory. But the intellectual challenge for British conservatism is being embraced head on.

At home, the universal kudos among critical international bodies like the OECD and World Bank for Canada's handling of the credit meltdown and US prime mortgage collapse speaking well of how Stephen Harper has managed to date. But the conservative intellectual challenge will also have to be met during the next election."

In facing the strengthening federal Liberal party, Stephen Harper will face a very different challenge than Cameron's.

For one thing, the Canadian Liberal party hasn't managed to burn nearly as many bridges as the British Labour party. And, as Barry Cooper points out, the Conservative party isn't nearly as adept at exploiting bureaucratic survival instincts for its own political advantage as the Liberals have been.

Even beyond this particular disadvantage, that the Canadian Conservative party has embraced stimulus economics with a fervour that seems to put the lie to fiscal conservatism, many of the challenges the Tories will face will be a result of their own emergency economic policy:

"That challenge might best be described this way. If stimulus and corporate stability investments have, along with economic downturn and tax cuts, produced a short-term deficit, what are the values Tories want to sustain through this for which they seek a mandate? This is not about what any government is doing or seeks to do in the future. This is about why we want to do it."

The Conservative party has provided a solid roadmap out of the current economic crisis for the country at large.

What the party has not produced is a solid roadmap for its own return to the fiscal conservative principles its expected to embody. This is certainly a problem, as it leads to a glut of policy deficiencies on numerous issues:

"National security is about domestic social and economic opportunity as well as a robust foreign and highly deployable defence capacity. It is about market freedom as an instrument of economic expansion and environmental competence. Ceding any of this ground to other parties weakens the Tory claim to a new mandate. Embracing it with clarity and intellectual integrity is what Canadians have the right to expect; it is what Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have done when at their best. The argument to do it again has never been more compelling."

Of course, therein lies the rub.

It's easy for conservative political parties to be at their best during times of economic prosperity. They can move ahead on fiscally conservative programs without seeming callous or careless.

When times are bad, however, is when left-of-centre political parties tend to shine brightest. Canada's Conservative party hasn't led the country on any kind of a national project since sir John A MacDonald's ambitious railroad building project. This is a real problem for the party, as it leaves these opportunities to its left-of-centre opponents, who have led Canadians on national projects such as public health care.

Sadly, something in the conservative imagination tells conservatives that national projects are, in and of themselves, left-wing social engineering projects that undermine conservative values.

Yet an ambitious national project conceptualized and completed under the public-private partnership model embraces the principles of conservatives such as Segal. Such a project could be nation and enterprise at its best -- if only Canadian conservatives can muster the courage to attempt it.

There could even be opportunities to attempt such projects on an international scale:

"Kamalesh Sharma, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, recently called for an economic and social contract to ensure that the recovery does not make things worse for developing countries. In every country, the way out of the recession will be bracketed by concerns about market freedom and social justice. The challenge for Tories in the anglosphere is the same--a coherent plan for the way ahead that embraces both pillars underlying successful societies, market freedom and genuine equality of opportunity. Deserting either of these is not a rational way ahead in any industrialized country, and certainly not appropriate for conservatives of any variety."

As the world navigates its course out of the current economic crisis and its accompanying recession, we will also be confronted with opportunities to change the way we have approached policy issues such as foreign aid.

Jeffrey Sachs will certainly be first in line to attempt to re-start his (mostly) failed policies in the developing world. But conservative governments in countries such as Canada and (by then) Britain could -- and should -- quite easily bypass individuals such as Sachs and employ the wisdom of economists such as William Easterly, whose proposed policies vis a vis foreign aid call simply scream out for the P3 model.

The various industrial and financial firms that governments now find themselves owning significant portions of could even be offered the opportunity to work off their debt to the state by investing in these kinds of programs, allowing people in developing countries to shape aid programs through market forces and helping themselves out of poverty, as opposed to waiting to be saved.

It's on this note that one must remember something that Hugh Segal would certainly want Canadian conservatives to recognize: the current political and economic climate poses serious challenges to conservatives. But with difficult challenges come fantastic opportunities.

Conservatives, in Canada and elsewhere, can benefit greatly from these challenges if they can only prove able to grow into them.

Progressive Conservatism Is Not "Standing for Nothing"

Randy Hillier embraces small tent conservatism

When the Ontario Progressive Conservative party leadership candidates locked horns in a leader's debate at the University of Ottawa, it couldn't have possibly become any clearer that the 2009 Ontario PC leadership race is a battle for the very heart and soul of the party.

The battle lines seem to be drawn: Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier firmly favouring the socons, and Christine Elliott and Frank Klees carrying the banner for procons.

Perhaps no one in the field has embraced this apparent internal culture war as Hillier, who told Elliott that "watered-down conservatism" will not lead the party to victory, and power.

"When we stand for nothing, we lose everything," Hillier insisted.

Elliott had previously described herself as a "compassionate" conservative.

Hillier seemed to be thinking in a similar vein as Tom Long, who recently gave a speech to the Manning Institute's Networking Conference in which he took note of the fact that, in recent history, hardline Mike Harris' fiscal conservatism has been more successful than its more progressive counterpart -- as recently represented in leadership by John Tory.

Such ideas stand in stark contrast to the widely-disseminated beliefs of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who continues to insist that building consensus between the various strains of conservatism -- usually defined in Canada as fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, democratic populism, progressive conservatism, British Toryism and libertarianism -- in order to be truly successful. Segal has often added that the best way to do so is within a "nation and enterprise" model in which government collaborates with society's various institutions in order to produce an environment in which free markets can provide for the needs of Canadians.

As Lloyd Mackey noted of David Orchard -- who ceded the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative party to Peter MacKay only under the condition that he refused to merge the party with the stronger Canadian Alliance -- people like Hillier and Long represent a sense that their particular brand of conservatism is the only truly "pure" brand of conservatism. Consider the rhetorical implications of Long's description of his favoured strain of conservatism as "unhyphenated" conservatism.

Mackey brilliantly describes individuals with such small-tent notions of conservatism, such as Orchard and Hillier, as virtual mirror images of each other.

Hillier's particular brand of conservatism is best described as a fusion of fiscal conservatism with libertarianism -- a stark contrast to Elliott's mix of fiscal conservatism and progressive conservatism.

Whether Hillier agrees with it or not, Elliott's progressive conservatism is necessary to strike a balance with his particular brand of conservatism. Even though Long may disagree, the only conservatism that has ever proven sustainable in Ontario was a conservatism respectful of progressive values.

Though Long may not understand it, Mike Harris' hard fiscal conservative coalition was not sustainable without its progressive counterparts. If it had been, Ontario wouldn't be governed by the Dalton McGuinty Liberal party right now.

Randy Hillier's and Christine Elliott's strains of conservatism need each other. It's rather unfortunate that Hillier doesn't seem to have the wisdom to recognize this.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy - "Randy Hillier for Premier"

A Killing Joke for American Conservatism

Many American conservatives don't get Stephen Colbert

There is no doubt that Stephen Colbert is a comic genius.

In just a few short years on the air, the Colbert Report has managed to eclipse Jon Stewart's Daily Show in popularity, and has endeared itself to many people around the world -- within the United States and outside of it -- as a masterful parody of American arch-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and "Papa Bear" Bill O'Reilly.

Yet for concerned American conservatives -- those who probably love Colbert's show as much as anyone -- a recent study conducted by the University of Ohio has revealed a disturbing factoid about the show. It seems that a majority of American conservatives may believe that Colbert is actually one of them.

Colbert's parody may be more stunningly close to the genuine article than many people had realized.

"I'm thrilled by it!" Colbert says of the study. "From the very beginning, I wanted to jump back and forth over the line of meaning what I say, and the truth of the matter is I'm not on anyone's side, I'm on my side."

"The important thing is that the audience laughs," he adds.

The audience has, indeed, laughed, including at Colbert's appearance at the 2006 White House Correspondant's Dinner, when it seemed that then-US President George W Bush may not have understood Colbert's parody until it was utterly too late for him.

But this revelation should be especially disturbing to American conservatives who have become concerned about the direction that individuals like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and others have drug American conservatism -- into the fringes of lunacy and extremism.

The self-glorifying, barely-functional image Colbert portrays on the show is not one that embodies the finest intellectual traditions of American conservatism. American conservatism, it seems, has come a long way down since the days of William F Buckley.

Buckley had always insisted that conservative political parties should support conservative movements, as opposed to conservative movements supporting political parties. Buckley's brand of conservatism was one that stood by its principles and thought for itself -- a stark contrast to the parodic conservatism of the Colbert Report, in which Colbert issues marching orders to the "Nation" and the Nation complies.

Buckley's conservatism was one that would stand against the Republican party when necessary -- Colbert's parodic conservatism would never dream of such an act.

Buckley's conservatism was very close to the "nation and enterprise" conservatism advocated by Canadian conservative patriarch Hugh Segal, wherein the role of the government is to maintain society's institutions at a level that ensures a maximum level of freedom for a country's citizens, and allows the market to function unimpeded enough that it can meet society's needs.

At what many people consider to be a historic low for the GOP, the American conservative movement is said by many to be effectively wandering in the desert. Those intent on rebuilding both the Republican party and American conservatism are in desperate need of an influential new intellectual and spiritual leader -- someone prepared to pull the strands of intellectual and populist conservatism together again to find a new balance for American conservatism.

This exercise remains at the heart of the activities of the National Committee for a New America -- an organization that, if allowed to function as intended, should manage to re-constitute American conservatism just as the Reform party eventually managed to re-constitute Canadian conservatism.

But so long as many American conservatives are unable to tell Stephen Colbert from the genuine article of American conservatives -- Colbert's character seems to implicitly reject any efforts to re-organize American conservatism -- it will be extremely difficult for any genuine intellectual or spiritual leader to emerge.

Then again, one remembers that Preston Manning's efforts to re-constitute Canadian conservatism took sixteen years to come to fruition, and eighteen years to bear political fruit.

The efforts to re-constitute American conservatism may take a long time to culminate, but with any luck, will be successful enough that American conservatives could look back on the Colbert Report and laugh, understanding the joke.


Watch Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner in Entertainment  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

The Case For Canadian Conservatism

Hugh Segal insists Canadian conservatism is unique

When most people think about conservatism they think about Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal would like to add a few figures to the iconography of conservatism -- a few Canadians like sir John A MacDonald, John Diefenbaker or Bill Davis.

In order to do this, Segal understands that he must make the case that Canadian conservatism is unique.

"Canadian conservatism is about Canadian values, not about American values or British values," Segal explained during a recent speech in Regina. "It's shaped by our feeling for community and the rights of local groups to do things in their own way. It's shaped by our strong belief in the Crown as a strong constitution structure that protects our democracy and as such, it's one of the reasons that we have a separate identity in this country from the United States who are such a powerful cultural force."

Unlike in the United States, where conservative politicians can build quick electoral coalitions then drift away from them while in office, Canadian conservatives must keep in touch with the conservative movement.

"The Conservative government in any province or the Conservative government in Ottawa is only successful when it reaches out to embrace all the brands of conservatism," Segal continued. "They all are welcome in the Tory family and this Prime Minister is doing a pretty good job of that in difficult economic times."

Intriguingly, this may have a lot to do with the never-ending American election cycles. In the United States, one third of all Senators -- the more powerful house of the American Congress -- are elected every two years.

This means that American conservative Senators are effectively granted political cover by another looming election. Even if they fail to make good on promises to conservative voters, odds are that there will quickly be another election to distract them. This allows them to quickly rebuild an electoral coalition under the guise of being a conservative.

In order to be successful, Canadian conservatives need to actually govern as conservatives.

But embracing all of the various camps of the conservative movement -- from deep blue conservatives, libertarians, reformers and progressive conservatives -- can sometimes lead to policies that don't appear conservative to people with simplistic views on the concept.

Therein lies the dilemma.

Stephen Harper's gradual program of tax reform -- a program Tom Flanagan has described as "tightening the screws" on government -- is clearly a Conservative policy, even if the stimulus-spending produced deficit obscures this considerably.

Once one gets into the issue of social policy, the matter becomes even more obscure.

"That's really the message. We have a unique brand of conservatism that those people who think that it's all simply American-brand George (W.) Bush conservatism I think got a lesson or got a different view of the kind of moderate brand of conservatism," added Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy director Ken Rasumussen.

"I think there is a debate within conservatism about what it is and of course, Senator Segal represents a strain, certainly the traditional strain, about the moderate brand of conservatism that's necessary to appeal to Canadians and I think that's the message he gave," Rasmussen continued.

Of course, the importance of the moderate, progressive strain of conservatism goes deeper than simply appealing to Canadians. It reflects the importance of respecting Canadian values, which have always been moderate and progressive in nature.

That's the ultimate litmus test for Canadian conservatism: it must be progressive in order to survive. Even if John Diefenbaker didn't fully understand this when he opposed renaming the Conservative party as the Progressive Conservatives, his understanding of this was demonstrated by his policies.

Prelude to Senate Reform?

Reform may be on the horizon for Canadian Senate

When Stephen Harper closed out 2008 by appointing 18 new Senators he was accused of sounding the death knell for his own Senate reform agenda.

Instead, it seems that the move may have been a prelude to some smaller reforms.

Among some of the reforms being considered include a proposal to abolish the $4,000 property ownership requirement, as suggested by Liberal Senator Tommy Banks. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal believes Senate proceedings should be televised. Bert Brown and David Oliver are suggesting reforms to the Senate committee system and possibly even abolishing question period in the Senate (certainly a questionable move).

With 18 new Senators in the ranks, however, Harper and the Conservatives certainly have renewed strength in the Senate to help push through their reform agenda.

But if renewing efforts to institute Senate elections and term limits isn't on the Harper government's immediate agenda, they'd better get on with it.

Alberta's senators in waiting Link Byfield and Betty Unger have been touring the country urging provincial leaders to choose their recommendations for future Senators before any future appointments can be made -- or before the Tories lose office.

Leave No Afghan Behind?

Hugh Segal calls for Afghan collaborators to recieve preferential treatment

As Canadians look ahead to the 2011 withdrawal from Aghanistan, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal is looking ahead to a potential influx of Afghan immigrants to Canada.

Segal is calling on the government of Canada -- whoever that may be in 2011 -- to give Afghans who have helped Canadian forces preferential treatment when considering applications for immmigration.

"It is important for us to signal as a country ...that we understand that a lot of Afghans have taken a lot of risks to help our forces," Segal mused. "It's very important they know we have no intention of leaving them behind."

Segal is reportedly preparing a motion calling on the government to "develop and implement a program to facilitate the settlement in Canada of Afghan nationals who have helped Canada during our engagement in Afghanistan."

Which isn't a bad idea, but it does have two problems with it.

First off, 2011 remains two years off. If a purported American surge in Afghanistan has the same overall positive effects as it had in Iraq, Canada may yet be able to leave a stable Afghanistan behind when if leaves, with little need to absorb a mass of refugees.

Secondly, it's well known that there are, indeed, unsavoury elements in the Afghan government. Afghans who have been involved with former warlords could attempt to use such policies in order to enter Canada. Any Afghans who've been deeply involved with the Afghan heroin trade, for one thing, should certainly be refused entry to Canada under any circumstances.

But for those law-abiding Afghans who've helped Canadian forces and wish to come to Canada at any point in the near future -- not merely post-2011 -- preferential immigration policies aren't merely a good idea, but they're very much in order.

Such policies could even encourage other Afghans to support Canadian efforts in Afghanistan.

It's Alive!

Manning: conservatism alive in Canada

Speaking to the Manning Centre Conference -- something of a CPAC north -- Preston Manning sought to sooth the jittery nerves of many Canadian conservatives by insisting that conservatism isn't dead in Canada.

"Conservatism took a hit in the United States. They lost the election, and you could argue the Republicans lost their way," noted Manning. "In Canada, they won the election — not with a majority, but with a strong minority."

Of course, there is a difference between a conservative party governing -- as currently remains the case in Canada -- and an actual conservative government.

Conservative governance has to be reflected in its policies. And while Hugh Segal recently noted that there is, traditionally, room for flexibility within the Canadian Conservative party, the National Post's Terence Corcoran notes that conservative commentators such as Terence Corcoran disagree with him.

Manning, for one, is under no delusion regarding the debate between market intervention and free market principles taking place within Canadian conservative circles right now, although he believes that Canada will emerge from the current economic crisis favouring less government.

But Manning, for one, also knows that having a conservative party in power doesn't necessarily mean conservative governance. After all, he was able to build his Reform party out of (primarily) western Canadians who judged the then-governing Progressive Conservative party as not conservative enough.

Canadian Alliance party founder and Mike Harris right-hand man Tom Long seem to invoke the political lesson of the 1993 PC collapse when he noted the inherent danger in the Conservative party attempting to push policies that are too far removed from the beliefs of the party faithful.

"Conservatives are often their own worst enemies. We have an internal debate going on in our heads, where we basically self-censor," Long said. "We've tried going out and selling things we don't believe in. How's that working?"

Long, it would seem, is much closer to Terence Corcoran's line of thought -- that the Conservative party needs to pull further to the political right -- as opposed to Hugh Segal's call for moderation, which is actually the camp that Preston Manning has historically fallen into.

That the Manning conference could even manage to put together a conference such as this, and attract speakers from as far off as the British Conservative party, is itself testament to the fact that conservatism, as a political philosophy, is not dead in Canada.

But Canadian conservatives need to re-imagine the ties that bind their diverse movement together. Debates such as the Segal-Manning/Corcoran-Long debate currently unfolding at the conference are going to be important steps toward that.

Missing the Balance

Conservative party not as "balanced" as Hugh Segal insists

Writing in an op/ed in today's Globe and Mail, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal suggests that the Conservative Party of Canada is immune to the identity crisis plaguing many conservatives -- particularly in the United States -- by virtue of its history:

"While some on the left and in the punditocracy assume conservatives have been put under water by Wall Street's collapse and the seeming core incompetence or dishonesty of American financial market players, the opposing truth is that Canadian conservatives have a heritage much richer and more diverse than simple free-market devotion."

Certainly, this may be true.

But it's one thing to have such a heritage. It's entirely another to remain true to it. Segal effectively articulates the nature of that heritage:

"First, our heritage embraces the populist and pro-humanity legacy of Disraeli's 'one nation' Tory democracy - which worked at bridging the gap between the wealthy and the poor. We also can call on the Québécois 'bleu' tradition that is all about communitarian concern for the community and the culture our history reflects. Sir John A.'s 'progressive' conservatism, which sought to move beyond the anti-reform landed gentry to a more dynamic embrace of what the state can and should do in nation-building times is at the core of the Canadian conservative political story."

The problem, unfortunately, is that the Conservative party has failed to maintain that heritage.

Canadians may find it interesting to remember that John A MacDonald -- the father of Canadian Confederation, and long considered the prototypical Canadian conservative -- built the country on the basis of a railroad-building project.

Meanwhile, the Conservative party has never since taken on a national project of the scope of MacDonald's rail-building enterprise. Instead, most of Canada's great national projects -- our healthcare system being foremost among them -- have been undertaken instead by the Liberal party, with the support of the NDP.

While the Conservative party has proven extremely reluctant to follow in MacDonald's footsteps, it has proven itself quite eager to abort other parties' national projects -- such as the Liberal/NDP national daycare program.

What Canadian conservatives have long forgotten is that these national projects don't merely serve the interests of utopian socialism. National projects reinforce these very bleu conservative principles of communitarianism. They unite people and remind them what can be accomplished when an entire country buys in to an initiative and works together to accomplish it.

"That supports, as a foundation does a home, the social outreach, however belated, of R. B. Bennett in response to the Depression; George Drew's progressive social and economic development in Ontario; and the post-Depression social humanity and pro-working people and seniors reforms of prairie populists such 'Bible' Bill Aberhart, Ernest Manning, John Bracken and John Diefenbaker. Leaders such as Bob Stanfield, Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Preston Manning, Bill Davis or Richard Hatfield made a series of progressive and populist changes and proposals on income security, human rights, education, lifting seniors out of poverty, workplace safety and agricultural support that enrich the Tory part of the Conservative Party of today."

Many conservatives had high hopes that the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties to form the modern Conservative Pary of Canada would merge the institutions of the PCs with the populism on which the Reform party was founded.

Instead, what has emerged has been very different. No one who witnessed Bill Casey's expulsion from the Conservative caucus as retaliation for him voting against the Conservative budget -- an act he considered to be in the best interests of his constituents -- could believe that Preston Manning's vision of Canadian politics, conservative or otherwise, is alive and will within the Conservative party.

"And that Tory base is actually strengthened by the anti-establishment Reform tradition of enhanced accountability.

Only for the hard-bitten left ideologue is the credit meltdown an indictment of Tory principles around thrift, prudence, informed risk-taking and earned profit."

Indeed, despite the magnitude of the Conservatives' planned stimulus package, thrift, prudence and informed risk-taking very much do remain at the heart of the plan.

Liberal and NDP politicians would likely be rushing to roll out billions of dollars in grants and loans to the automotive sector, for example, as opposed to requiring them to look in-house for potential solutions and reengineer their business model before recieving any government aid.

But the planned stimulus package has yet to offer anything in terms of a cohesive vision. The kind of deficit spending the government will embark upon over the next couple of years (at least) provides the Conservative party with a splendid opportunity to lead the Canadian people on another national project.

"The fact that our economy is taking on water because a reckless American speedboat produced a 90-foot wave and a hugely destabilizing wake, forcing Canada to take emergency action, neither discredits nor diminishes the solid Tory balance between a private economy that generates employment and wealth for hardworking farmers and business people, along with support for social and public programs, and a coherent elected public authority that pursues an enlightened and modest role for government."

Certainly, this is true.

But few of those taking pleasure in the Conservative party's misfortune -- governing at a time of an externally-caused recession -- are ever going to admit that the source of this recession lies below the 49th parallel. The most dishonest among them will even insist that the American policies that led to this economic collapse are Prime Minister Stephen Harper's own policies despite the lack of mass deregulation of financial markets in Canada.

It doesn't help that the Conservative party is lacking the balance that Segal insists is its greatest virtue. Even if the Conservative party hasn't wholeheartedly embraced the American conservative movement's economic policies, it certainly has embraced economics as the uniting element of conservative philosophies, just as the American conservative movement did.

"This balance is part of our Canadian Tory history. It embraces tradition, supports social and economic progress that is mutually reinforcing and builds legitimacy around the core value of equality of opportunity. Keeping this latter mission front and centre when tackling unemployment, poverty, economic growth and prosperity is not only the right Conservative mission, but the right course for Canada.

Tories are anxious about rapid-fire government intervention that seems more slapdash than well-considered. Moderation, even in the face of crisis, is a Tory virtue. Consulting with cities and provinces before dispatching funds for job-creating projects, as is now being done, makes sense."

It certainly does make sense to consult with provinces, cities and municipalities does make sense.

But the government must be certain to design a stimulus program that refutes parochial interests and embraces initiatives that will bring Canadians closer together.

Upgrading Canada's communication or transportation infrastructure could be just such a project. Public/private partnerships to extend DSL internet into remote parts of the country or start building high-speed rail -- a long-neglected initiative in all of North America -- would make an excellent conservative national project.

"After Bennett's famous radio address in 1935 announcing a series of radical measures to help the poor and the dispossessed, Arthur Meighen, a signal personality of Tory rectitude and continuity, commented that while he was untroubled by the content of the message, he worried that the urgency of radio and its use might itself be unsettling to the public in unsettling times.

Stability and 'steady as you go' determined government, with a tilt toward the practical, humane and visionary, has always typified the Tory brand at its most successful. It is this legacy option that is still very much available to all conservatives - whether they seek to manage an energy-rich province, a national government facing gargantuan pressures or even to retake government in the next Ontario election."

If the Conservative party wants to successfully do any of these things, it will need to embrace the very balance that Segal alludes to, look beyond narrow economic ideology and do what no party in Canada has bothered to do for more than 20 years: formulate a coherent, inspiring vision for the future.

Segal should not count on notions of historical "balance" to see his party through the tough times -- for both itself and the country -- ahead.

When the Conservative party was elected in 2006, it was viewed by many Canadians as a good option amongst poor alternatives. Now it's increasingly being seen as the least worst option amoung uninspiring alternatives.

Under the leadership of Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal party will recieve a second look from many Canadians. Many of them will like what they see.

If Hugh Segal and the Conservative party want to continue governing federally -- let alone defeat the Dalton McGuinty Liberals in Ontario -- they need to come up with a vision that Canadians will be inspired by and buy into.

The "historic balance" of the Conservative party will not be enough.

Harper Taking a Huge Risk

Submitting Senate issue to referendum could have disastrous results

When one plays with fire, they'll inevitably get burned.

This is a simple piece of wisdom, handed down for generations since the discovery of fire, but a piece of simple wisdom that is all too often disregarded.

It always seems like absolute common sense once wildfires are incinerating portions of California, yet there all too often seems to be some child, some where, playing with matches, who simply ought to know better.

With his recent proposal that the government hold a referendum on whether or not to abolish the Senate, NDP leader Jack Layton appears content to play the role of such a child. However, few expected Stephen Harper to be quite so eager to join him.

According to CTV, the Conservative government may back Layton's proposal, which may be tabeled as early as Tuesday. With combined Conservative and NDP support, the bill would pass, leaving the fate of a referendum in the hands of the Senate.

Which is certainly a wily political move. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal was first to propose such a referendum.

"We've had 17 efforts at reforming the Senate since 1900," Segal announced. "All of them have failed."

"The legitimacy of the place is under attack on a pretty regular basis."

Segal makes a strong point. Layton, to a certain extent, echoes it when he describes the Senate as undemocratic and (at least in its current form) obselete. However, referendums can be very dangerous things, and applying a referendum to the Senate may be even more so.

First off, referendums apply the mood of the day to the issue, and potentially in absolute and permanent terms. For example, some political scientists attribute the failure of the Charlottetown Accords (decided via referendum) at least partially to the poor economic conditions of the time. In the view of Harold Clarke, Allan Kornberg and Peter Wearing, Anger toward Brian Mulroney's government over percieved economic mismanagement manifested itself in a public rejection of his government's political centrepiece.

The danger in regards to the Senate intensifies once one considers putting the matter to an yes-or-no, tumbs-up-thumbs-down vote. Not only would such a vote unduly endanger Canada's house of sober second thought, any vote tabulated under these conditions would ignore the variety of public opinion in regards to what to do about the Canadian Senate.

If Stephen Harper wants to join Jack Layton in throwing political caution (as well as some lit embers) to the wind, he'd better be prepared for the consequences. Harper's recent proclivity for politically savvy chess moves aside, this is one that could burn his Senate Reform agenda beyond any and all recognition.

Which, of course, is the risk one takes when playing with matches.

CCPA Passes Gas Regarding Fuel Prices

Left-leaning think tank targets oil companies

The news media is abuzz today over allegations that oil companies are gouging consumers at the pumps.

If many people had to sum their thoughts up on this matter, one way or the other, they could likely do it in two words: quelle suprise!

According to a study released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canadian oil companies may be gouging Canadians by as much as 20 cents per litre. For Canadians enraged by the outrageously skyrocketing price of gasoline, this comes as little surprise. Conversely, Canadians who work in the oil and gas sector will likely be a little more skeptical.

In the sudy, economist Hugh Mackenzie compared the per-barrel price of crude oil to the comparitive value of the American dollar in order to calculate what he considers the "normalized cost" of gasoline (82.8 cents, by his estimation).

Naturally, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute begs to differ. According to Tony Macerollo, increased demand, and the postponed improvements on American refineries (further impacting the relatively low supply of fuel) account for a portion of the price increases.

It should prove no surprise that the CCPA is targeting oil companies. The left-leaning think tank has consistently adoped a beligerent stance toward the petroleum sector. The CCPA has leveled its sights both at the Fort McMurray oilsands, and at foreign investment in Canada's energy sector in general, advocating protectionist measures.

The fact that, historically, Canadian businessmen were so uninterested in western Candian oil reserves that foreign investment as very much a necessity in order to develop these resources, it isn't hard to imagine that the CCPA would politically manipulate its economic studies in order to transform it into a bombshell.

While it is questionable whether or not the CCPA's estimate of profit margins is entirely accurate, even Macerollo admits that they have increased, which will certainly led credence to the CCPA's claims.

There are other questions that could be directed at major oil companies as well: namely, have they done enough to control their own costs before passing them on to the consumer?

These questions aside, controversy over this issue could also prove politically perilous to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. While in opposition, Harper once called on the government to alleviate gas prices by eliminating the GST at the pumps. Given that the taxes levied on gasoline (10 cents by the federal government, and 14.5 cents by provincial governments) stand at an even quarter (25 cents) per litre before provincial and federal sales taxes are added, the government essentially collects an additional .87 cents in taxes per litre.

Does it seem inconsequential on its own? Certainly. Will it add up over time? Absolutely.

Now that Harper is in government, he should certainly take the opportunity to do what he advocated as leader of the opposition. This being said, he didn't do this last year, and probably won't this year.

Is it hypocritical? Perhaps. All the same, the relief of one cent for every litre of gas purchased doesn't seem like such a huge savings at current prices.

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal party has raised the banner of increased regulation of the petroleum sector. "[Oil companies] have a classic oligopoly, and it's important for Ottawa to get its collective head out of the sand," Liberal MP Dan McTeague declared. It's actually unsurprising from a party that remains smug over having never paid a political price for its consfiscatory (in the words of Hugh Segal) National Energy Program.

In some ways, however, the rising price of gasoline could prove to be a blessing in disguise. The higher price of fuel should prove a boon to the climate change-obsessed environmental lobby, as it should convince people to drive less, thus lowering their greenhouse gas emissions. If anyone actually needed an excuse to walk to the corner store for a package of cigarettes or a slurpee, this could prove to be precisely that incentive.

Of course, not all Canadians will be so fortunate. As is often the case, rural Canadians will suffer significantly more than their urban counterparts. For them, walking to the grocery store simply is not an option. Furthermore, for them the purchase of fuel represents an absolute necessity, one that literally fuels their livelihoods.

Whether the defining factor in fuel prices is truly supply and demand, or merely the greed of major oil companies, the solution to the problems posed by rising fuel costs will not be found easily.