The Tribute to Paul Martin

I got to watch part of Paul Martin's speech while read the whole transcript and on the whole I thought it was a good speech. While he took some time to take a few swipes at the Conservatives, most of the speech was on his accomplishments, that of the party, the country, and the future ahead. His talk about his success in terms of turning massive deficits into massive surpluses is something worth bringing up since this what initially made him so popular in 2003, yet today is largely forgotten. For all his difficulties as prime-minister, he was definitely a great finance minister, in fact in my opinion the best one Canada has ever seen. It is not those who make the easiest decisions I look up in, but those who face the most difficult circumstances and overcome them as Paul Martin did. While as prime-minister many think he did a poor job, I was glad to hear him focus on some of the achievements be it the new deal with the cities, childcare, and the Kelowna Accord. The common thread here is these were all achieved through teamwork with the provinces and major players. This is what a successful prime-minister just as a successful CEO requires and quite a contrast with our current government who likes to dictate things and not work with others. I also thought it was interesting that the areas he attacked the Conservatives on were all cases of the Conservatives undoing everything the Liberals did. I have sometimes felt Conservative actions were based mainly on undoing every achievement of the Liberals so they can paint themselves as a party of delivering results and the Liberals as ditherers when in fact they weren't. Hopefully Martin's style of leadership will continue under whoever our next Liberal leader is.

Convention Speeches so far

So far from my home I've only watched Howard Dean and Shawn Graham's speech which I both thought were very good. Since it is wet and miserable while it is suppose to be sunny on Saturday, I will taking the train tomorrow to Montreal and using Saturday as my sightseeing day.

Howard Dean

Whatever doubts I had about him speaking, I felt he did a good job. Being a foreigner he had to be careful not too sound too partisan and he did that well. Instead he focused on how the Democrats were successful and similiar strategies the Liberals could use to be successful. I thought his goal of never writing off any voter and reaching out to everyone in every region, even areas you don't expect to win, was something the Liberals should follow. In the last few elections I feel the party has focused too much on its areas it is strong in and often looks down too much on groups that aren't likely to vote Liberal. Instead we need to realize we don't have an automatic right to govern, we need to earn it from Canadians by convincing them we are the best party with the best ideas. Even those who disagree with our vision, we should still respect them while at the same time maintain our principles. I also like his reference to staying true to your principles. As Liberals, most seem to agree that moving to the right to be a Conservative lite party is the wrong way to go, but too many think moving to the left to be an NDP lite party is the way to go. We are successful when we stay true to who we are. By trying to copy other parties, we are saying that our policies were wrong and they were right.

Shawn Graham

I thought he gave a very good speech. It is quite easy to launch attacks against Harper and all he has done wrong, but all this does is convince people not to vote Conservative. To succeed, we need to give people a reason to vote for the Liberals, that is why I was very impressed with his positive tone and appealing to hope rather than fear. I also liked his comment about how he set a goal to make New Brunswick a have province by 2026. We too should set ambitious but realistic goals. The thing both Graham and Dean have in common is they both did what many thought was impossible. When Shawn Graham became New Brunswick Liberal leader, the Tories had over 80% of the sights and a massive lead in the polls, yet in 2003 he came within 18 votes of forming government and in 2006 succeeded. Likewise with Howard Dean, the Democrats were demoralized and reduced to their urban core on the East and West Coast. In a mere span of two years they took back both houses in won in states such as Montana and Virginia, which only two years ago most would have said was impossible to do. If they can do the unthinkable, we can too and that means not just returning to government, but winning seats in Francophone Quebec, in Rural Ontario, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in Alberta, and areas outside the Lower Mainland in BC. A tough challenge, but we should always aim high. I was told by my parents in school, always aim higher than you expect since if you only think you can get a B and aim for a B, you will end up with a C, but if you aim for an A, you will get a B. We should also aim high since if our goal is only to barely win back government we won't. We will succeed though if we reach out to all parts of Canada and stop writing off regions that are difficult to win.

Today was the policy session and only a handful of the 135 policies actually got passed although considering how many were virtually identical to another, that was probably a good thing. Some I agree with, others I don't, however my biggest disappointment was how few people showed up for this part. Choosing a new leader is not the only thing that matters, having strong policies also matters and it is too bad that more Liberals didn't show up for this. We also should not be afraid to debate issues and sometimes disagree with other members of the party. That is how we will get the best policies. Unfortunately the only policy that had any debate was on gun control and this was more about how the policy might make winning in rural areas more difficult rather than the merit of the policy. Still I am impressed with the depth policies each leadership candidate has developed and hope those are emphasized come next election.

My Endorsement of Stephane Dion Recap

This week, the Liberals will choose their next leader and hopefully the next prime-minister. Unfortunately since I lived in Vancouver at the time and was unsure of where I would land my job, I did not stand as a delegate, although I voted in the DSM. I was thinking of joining the Laurier club to get free observer status, but joining the club was too expensive. Since the DSM my opinion of Stephane Dion has only improved and I am even more convinced he is the best choice for the leader. Before saying why I think he is the best choice, I will look at his opponents.

Michael Ignatieff: He is smart person and has some good ideas, but he is clearly still in academic mode, not political mode. His gaffe proneness could be fatal in a campaign as well as I don't think the fact he has lived outside of Canada for 30 years will go over well and having no political experience is generally not a good thing. I will vote for him if he wins and possibly even campaign for him, but I feel our chances of beating Harper are not very good.

Bob Rae: He is the best debater amongst the bunch and if anyone could deliver a knock out punch against Harper it is Rae. I don't have a problem with many of his policies although after seeing the damage Glen Clark did to BC, I have developed a strong NDP phobia including those who were once NDPers. I see choosing Bob Rae as a roll of the dice. If he can make the election about Stephen Harper he can win, but if it is about Rae I still worry about his record in Ontario. While most polls say it is not an issue, I am concerned that 5 weeks of being barraged with negative attack ads reminding people of the high taxes, deficits, and Rae Days could change things just as in 2004, re-emphasizing Harper's hidden agenda over and over again did. It might not work, but I am not willing to take that risk. If he wins I certainly won't vote Tory, but how active I will be in the next election really depends on his platform and the team surrounding him. Here I plan to take a wait and see approach should he win.

Gerard Kennedy: He is without doubt my second choice and if I were a delegate and Dion were defeated on an earlier ballot, I would go over to him. He is youthful and has a strong grassroots appeal that can re-energize the Liberal party. His popularity as education minister in Ontario and roots in the West make him the best candidate to gain seats in both those regions. But his biggest liability is his weak French and lack of support in Quebec. Without gaining seats in Quebec, it will be a major handicap and make winning the next election that much tougher. While it is possible to do, I believe we need someone who can gain seats in every region so if we falter in one we have something to fall back on. He has a bright future in the party and will someday be ready to be leader, but now is not the best time.

Stephane Dion: This now brings me to why I believe Stephane Dion should be the next Liberal leader and next prime-minister of Canada. Stephane Dion has the most experience of all the candidates at the federal level and no matter what some say, experience matters. Running a five week campaign is no easy task and doing it at the federal level is very different than at the provincial level. Stephane Dion has proven he has what it takes to succeed in a five week campaign. Stephane Dion is a leader willing to tackle the challenges we face. After a nail biter in the 1995 Quebec referendum, Dion introduced the Clarity Act to ensure never again would the separtists try and take Quebec out of Canada through an ambiguous question. Everybody said it would blow up in his face, but Stephane Dion ignored their criticisms and stuck to his guns and he succeeded. With the environment which is a pressing issue and one where the Tories are vulnerable, I believe Dion can succeed here. He is a uniter, which is absolutely essential if we wish to win the next election. Unlike Ignatieff or Rae, almost all Liberals I've spoken to like Dion even if they are not supporting them. We cannot afford to have Liberals sitting out the next election because they don't like the leader and with Dion, there will be few of them. He is even liked by many NDP and Conservative voters and has the ability to draw votes from BOTH parties, not just one. Now some may point out a few weakenesses, which I will address here. Some say Stephane Dion's English is too weak. In reality he simply has a strong accent, but his English is better than Chretien's so if it didn't hurt Chretien, it certainly won't hurt Dion. Some say we cannot afford to have another leader from Quebec. I agree it is never good to focus on one region, but I don't not see Dion as a highly regionalistic candidate. In fact I see him as someone who understands all of Canada well and the fact he supporters from coast to coast shows this. I am proud to say I supported Stephane Dion at the DSM and I hope all Liberal delegates even if he is not their first choice will consider giving him a second look. In summary I look forward to seeing Stephane Dion become Canada's next prime-minister.

Whats at Stake in next week's Alberta race

As Jim Dinning rightfully pointed out after coming in first on the first ballot, but still falling short of 50%, this is not just a battle between three men, this is a battle over the future of Alberta. A battle between those who look forward to the future and those who look to the past. The reason I choose Jim Dinning as my first choice was I was impressed by the leadership he showed during hard times in turning Alberta's finances around. This takes leadership and is not an easy thing to do. I am also naturally attracted to people from the business world since many of the skills required to be a successful businessman are required in politics such as leadership, teamwork, innovation, and cooperation. While Jim Dinning is my first choice, Ed Stelmach would be a very close second choice. Both are good choices and I would encourage all moderate Albertans to go for their preference as their first choice and then the other moderate as their second choice. I have been impressed by Ed Stelmach's ability to unite people from across the province and political spectrum. Which leads me to the most extreme and divise of them all, Ted Morton. Ted Morton's Alberta and Canada is not the type I support. He is well to the right of any leader any province has ever had in Canadian history. If you don't believe me I suggest you read this
Jim Dinning does an excellent job of outlining the dangers Ted Morton poses not just to Alberta but Canada as a whole. I don't think anyone could have said it better. While some may say I should butt out, I should note most of my family lives in Alberta so I do have a reason to be concerned. Also I am a proud Canadian who will fight tooth and nail against anyone who wishes to weaken this great country. Ted Morton plays to all the negative stereotypes too many Canadians associate with Alberta, which I know to be utterly false. Albertans are pro-free enterprise, want smaller government, but are also generous and tolerant, not narrow minded and mean spirited like Ted Morton and his crowd. For those who call Jim Dinning a Liberal, I should remind them he was finance minister who made major spending cuts and supported privatization of several crown corporations, so he is no left winger or left-leaning liberal. Rather he is a progressive conservative as opposed to a right wing ideologue. For those who say Alberta is a conservative province, I say yes but a moderate one. Steve West is right when he said most Albertans are a little right of centre, but not on the far right. I should also remind those who support Morton that Montana which borders the most conservative parts of Alberta elected a Democrat in the most recent senate elections so even conservative areas have their limits. In addition almost all their seat losses in 2004 were to parties to the left of the PCs and in the cities. 44% voted for parties to the left of the PCs, while only 10% voted for parties to the right of them, so that should really tell you something about where Albertans really stand.

Hopefully after December 2nd, Ted Morton will lose and even better go join the Alberta Alliance where he really belongs.

Results of By-Elections

Repentigny

No surprise here that the Bloc Quebecois massively won. This is probably the safest Bloc riding in Quebec so anything other than a massive Bloc win would have been a disappointment for the Bloc. I was a bit surprised that the Tories managed to hold their ground since January because almost every poll has shown they have fallen massively in Quebec, although no poll has been taken since Harper agreed to recognize Quebec as a nation, so I wonder what I effect that had. It will be interesting if the party chooses Kennedy, how Quebecers will react to him opposing calling Quebec a nation. I was disappointed to see the Liberals finish in fourth, but hopefully this serves as a wake up call, that we need to do more in Quebec in terms of re-building.

London North Centre

This one was less certain, but still as expected Liberal Glen Pearson was elected. Considering his work at the food bank and 29 years as a firefighter, I clearly feel he was the best choice compared to Megan Walker knowing for her smear tactics and Diane Haskett who has ties to the Republicans and religious right. The Green Party came up short, but their strong showing should no doubt be a strong message to all parties to take the environment seriously. In fact all three mainstream parties saw their share of the popular vote fall, most likely to the Green Party, which suggests they don't just appeal to left wing voters, but to voters across the political spectrum. It was certainly a big slap on the wrist for the Tories, although considering the gap between them and the Liberals was the same as last January, I don't know that it really means a huge amount. If anything the results suggest that if an election were called today, the seats won would be very similiar to last January. The big question is whether this represents a major rise for the Green Party, or was simply a by-election vote for Elizabeth May, that will disappear come next election.

On two final notes, Ralph Goodale has endorsed Bob Rae. While I have great respect for Ralph Goodale, this won't change my view one bit. I believe and continue to believe that Stephane Dion is the best choice to lead the party and tomorrow I will outline why I think all Liberals who are serious about winning the next election should go for Dion.

In Alberta Jim Dinning has upped his attacks against Morton. Although he does sound a bit like Paul Martin in his attacks, I think his attacks are bang on. A Ted Morton win would mean the end of the Progressive Conservatives and a sharp break from the centre-right policies of Lougheed, Getty, and Klein replaced by the hard-right policies advocated by the Alberta Alliance.

Odds and Ends

A couple major of events have happened in the past few days

Alberta Leadership Race

Ed Stelmach has picked up the support of Lyle Oberg and Dave Hancock so it looks like he has some momentum. As I've said earlier, if he can come in second on the next ballot, he should be able to pull it off since he is most likely the second choice for both Morton and Dinning supporters. Although I still continue to have Dinning as my second choice, I do think Ed Stelmach might just be the best choice in terms of uniting the party. Though I would be happy with either him or Dinning, but definitely not Morton, that guy is scary.

Tom Axworthy on government's role

I was quite interested to read about Tom Axworthy's view on how bigger government generally doesn't work. I support the ultimate goals of the type of Canada the Liberals want to create, but feel the parties relies too much on government and not enough on individuals. I hope we return to the philosophy we practiced in the mid 90s as government only areas where the market fails, not trying to solve every problem as regretfully too many Liberals advocate. Leave the big government advocates to the NDP.

Limiting federal spending power

This seems to be a major bombshell that Rae has called for Harper to be defeated over. While I don't think it would be wise to defeat the government now, I do think the government's shelf life shouldn't be much longer. At the very least any legislation introduced now likely won't pass before the next election. I understand people's concerns about the feds interferring in provincial jurisdiction, but if we are a united country, we do need common standards from coast to coast. What I think needs to change is the attitude of pitting one province against another for political gain. We need to work cooperatively with the provinces to achieve our goals. Even though I oppose creating any further national programs, this should be up to the voters to decide based on who they elect; the federal government shouldn't be handcuffed through some constitutional amendment.

Mike Chong Resigns from Tory Cabinet

As tempting as this would be to attack Harper as pushing moderates out, I believe this is a case where no matter what position Harper took he was bound to lose one cabinet minister. Issues of national unity cut across partisan lines and ideological lines so no surprise. And since he plans to remain a Conservative party MP, I suspect this is similiar to Joe Comuzzi's resignation over SSM and the late Robin Cook's resignation over Britain's participation in the Iraq War. If anybody has benefitted from this debacle it is the Bloc Quebecois since not only are the Tories divided, but so are the Liberal leadership candidates.

Women's Liberal caucus released Pink Book

I support some proposals, while oppose other. The important thing here is that those who believe in a more hands off government approach are not less supportive of women's rights necessarily they just believe in going about it in a different way. Free Market Libertarians and Socialist on women's rights both have the same goals, just different means on how they want to achieve them. However social conservatives do not share the same goals so I have more problem with their approach than the socialist one. The sad part is there are few non-political women's groups since most tend to be highly political and often favouring one ideology, so I think the Liberals should have also met with a random selection of average women who are not politically active in order to get a better feel for their concerns rather than relying on interest groups who often have a certain agenda. Still there is some good ideas that I would hate to say not implemented.

Private Emergency Centre to open in BC

It looks like BC will be opening its first private emergency centre. While some will make a big issue out of this I should note Quebec already has one, although since those doctors completely opted out of medicare, whereas in BC they haven't, BC's one might violate the Canada Health Act. I am all for such clinics so long as they are in separate private facilities, get absolutely no government subsidy, and are required to pay all taxes both corporate and property. I also think there should be restrictions on doctors working in the private system either by requiring doctors to work in one or the other, or requiring all doctors to spend at least 40 hours a week in the public system before they can go to the private system.

BC hit with a massive snowstorm

Okay, this is not political, but I must say it looks like I left Vancouver just at the right time. After all I avoided the boil water advisory and now in a city that is suppose to be getting heavy snowstorms, it is in the teens and people are out golfing while where it is normally still in teens it is snowing and cold.

Tomorrow's By-elections Whats at Stake

Tomorrow, we will have two by-elections one in Repentigny, which is just east of Montreal and the other in London North Centre. In the case of Repentigny, this is a safe Bloc Quebecois riding so the Bloc should easily hold this. The real question will be who comes in second, while it be the Tories or Liberals.

The other one in London North Centre is most likely to stay Liberal, but it is not a sure thing. The NDP has virtually no chance of winning so the real question is how will they place. The Green Party is running their leader Elizabeth May and although unlikely there is a small chance she could pull off a win. This would be huge if she did since this would totally change the dynamics of the next election much the way Deborah Gray's by-election win for the Reform Party in 1989 did. If the Greens do win, that means they get to be in the next leadership debate. This could have consequences for all parties. As they are perceived by many as being on the left this could hurt the NDP. Since they are roughly the same as the Liberals on social and economic policy but stronger on the environment this could take away their best weapon against the Tories, but also take many Liberal votes away. Likewise it could hurt the Tories just as much as 1/3 of Tories have the Green Party as their second choice and with their weak performance on the environment, you could see many Tories who are dissatisfied with the Tories on the environment, but not comfortable with going Liberal going Green. There is also the Tories who got 29% in the last federal election. I cannot see them going any higher, but if it turns into a four way race, that might be enough to take the riding assuming all the losses are from the Liberals and NDP. However, there are two reasons why I think a Tory win is unlikely.
1. By-elections are usually a referendum on the current government so those opposed to the government are generally more likely to show up than those who support it.
2. Diane Haskett is a strong social conservative who got in trouble with the Ontario Human Rights Commission when London's mayor, so her views might sell well in the neighbouring rural ridings, but she is probably too conservative for London.

My hope is that the Liberal candidate Glen Pearson wins. Besides his remarkable contributions to the community, I believe this is the only effective way of sending a clear message to Harper. The Green Party would only have one seat so without a caucus and official party status they couldn't do much. On the other hand a Liberal win would send a message to Harper that Londoners are not happy with his performance to date. As attractive as the Greens might be, I still believe the Liberals are the right choice for London North Centre.

Update on Alberta Results

Well the Alberta results are in and Jim Dinning has a slim first place lead with only 30%, Ted Morton in a close second at 26%, and Ed Stelmach in third at 15%. The remaining candidates will all be dropped off and so far Dave Hancock has gone over to Ed Stelmach while Gary MacPherson has endorsed Jim Dinning. So it looks like next week we will be finding out both Canada's possible (or I would say likely) next prime-minister and Alberta's next premier. This is off course assuming Alberta doesn't go to a third ballot, which if I were Ed Stelmach, I would be hoping for that since he pretty much needs it to go to a third ballot to win. Obviously I am still hoping for Jim Dinning, but Ed Stelmach is a good choice too. Both are moderates who want to move Alberta forward and deal with the challenges of the future such as environmental sustainability, education, health care, and maintaining strong fiscal discipline. Ted Morton on the other hand wants to fight past battles such as repealing SSM, trashing the Charter, and building firewalls around Alberta. Ted Morton would really give Alberta a bad image in the rest of Canada, at the same time he just might be what the Alberta Liberals need if they want to win. I still think he would beat the Alberta Liberals, but if they were willing to change their name and get a more populist leader, I think he could be beaten. My suggestion is if Morton wins, call themselves the Alberta Moderates.

That being said I don't think Ted Morton will win for two reasons
1. The Cold weather likely hurt turnout and since Morton voters are more motivated that is probably why they did better than expected.
2. People can still join the Alberta PCs including members of other parties so I think the thought of Morton winning might terrify enough Liberals, NDP, and Greens to join the PCs to stop him.

Now I should note I oppose people from other parties joining parties to influence the outcome, but when one considers Morton's support has come largely from the Alberta Alliance, this goes both ways. Even though there is no way of telling what someone's views are when they sign up, I do think there should be a cutoff well before the first ballot, one should have to sign up themselves not by someone else, and should prohibit anyone who is a member of another provincial party from signing up.

Alberta PC Race

Well today, Alberta's PC party chooses its next leader and depending on whether someone wins on the first ballot or not, we could find out who is Alberta's next premier. With Alberta being nearly a one party state, this is probably more like a general election now than the real general election. In fact many people from other parties and even unions have been signing up members en masse simply to choose who they like best. If I lived in Alberta, (besides the fact I am a former federal progressive Conservative) I would have signed up as well. As for Ralph Klein's legacy, there will be those who trash it or those who praise it. I believe Ralph Klein will go down as premier who made the tough but necessary decisions to turn Alberta around and this was when oil prices were much lower than today and no one foresaw them rising to their current levels. Although I didn't like some of his off the cuff remarks, at the same time, it made him seem like an ordinary person, not some type of political elite, which I think people related to. I also feel that he should have only run for three terms. His final term was undoubtedly his worse as he become arrogant and lost his original touch that originally made him so popular. Still on the whole, unlike many Liberals, I believe Ralph Klein was a good premier and Alberta should be thankful for him. I wish him and his family the best in their retirement. On the leaders here is my summary below.

Jim Dinning

He would be my first pick for Alberta leader. As finance minister he made the tough decisions that helped turn Alberta's finances around and thanks to his efforts Alberta is in very good economic shape. He is also a visionary who understands the importance of key investments in post-secondary education and a clean environment. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue and a successful businessman. Some Tories are angry at the fact he donated to Paul Martin, but this was a corporate decision and since there was no viable opposition party at that point, it made smart business sense to donate to the Liberal frontrunner. Some also say he is too similiar to Paul Martin, but I see this as a plus. Paul Martin's biggest problem is he didn't know how to handle a minority government, something Dinning likely won't have to deal with.

Ted Morton

If there is anyone in the Alberta PC leadership race, I don't want to see win, it is Ted Morton. The conservative ideologues love the guy, but the rest cringe at the thought of him being premier. Having one ideologue federally is bad enough, having an even more extreme one provincially would be a disaster for all non-conservative ideologues in Alberta. Rather than focusing on the issues that matter to the future of Alberta, he is all about building firewalls around Alberta and promoting a socially conservative agenda that likely is unconstitutional. While he would no doubt end the need for the Alberta Alliance, he would probably kill the PCs in Edmonton and even cost them seats in Calgary. Despite the fact Alberta is the most Conservative province in Canada, it is not a Texas of the north, but rather an Ohio or Pennsylvania of the North while the Rest of Canada is more liberal than any US state. His extreme right wing views have largely been discredited. Given the fact the Alberta PCs lost more seats to the Liberals than Alberta Alliance, I would make more sense to move towards the centre rather than far right. And the fact idiots like Rob Anders endorse him is probably another reason he should be rejected. Also the fact the only MLA supporting him comes from the Alberta Alliance as opposed to the Alberta PCs really says something. After seeing the federal PCs hijacked by the Canadian Alliance, I don't wish to see this happen to any of the provincial PCs.

Lyle Oberg

Another one I don't like. It is not so much his ideology I abhore, but simply he seems to be the type that is good at creating enemies. In fact he is probably the only one who would help both the Alberta Liberals and Alberta Alliance. Troublemakers like Oberg who go around angering people are not the type the Alberta PCs need to help united Albertans.

Ed Stelmach

Although I don't know too much about him, I am generally pleased with what I see. He seems quite moderate despite being from Rural Alberta and seems well liked and respected by his party. All the ministries he held, he handled them quite well. So while nothing to get excited about, the fact he seems competent in most areas is probably a good thing.

Dave Hancock

He would probably be my second choice and is likely the reddest of all the candidates. His focus on education and future prosperity are definitely policies I like and I also like the fact he has plans in dealing with responsible and sustainable development of the tar sands. Being from Edmonton, he is probably the best to regain many of the lost Edmonton Seats.

Mark Norris

Don't know a lot about him and have heard mixed reviews on him. Reading his page, his plans sound reasonably good, although I wasn't too happy about his comments about Alberta separating and hope that he will work constructively with the federal government and other provinces. Not my first choice, but definitely someone I could live with if I lived in Alberta. Although the fact he lost his seat last provincial election means his chances of winning are pretty slim.

Victor Doerksen

Don't know much about him to really say one way or another. His plans seem rather vague and although they sound good, I am always skeptical of those who deliberately leave their plans vague over those with more precise plans.

Gary MacPherson

Never really heard much about the guy. Is a quadrapelegic so definitely admire the challenges he has had to overcome. His platform is very vague so cannot comment without knowing more.

Overall, my hope is for Jim Dinning to become Alberta's next premier, but if not him, Dave Hancock would clearly be my second choice. I think with the exception of Lyle Oberg and Ted Morton, any of the others seem, from what I know, as decent candidates. Lyle Oberg is a complete idiot, but he doesn't scare me like Ted Morton does. Ted Morton is the worse choice of them all and if it were between him and Oberg on the final ballot I would have to go for Oberg. However, if either of those two were to win and I for some reason or another happen to live in Alberta come next election, I will vote Liberal like I do federally. And considering how many former federal PCs have either switched or are becoming disillusioned with the Harper government, I think the party would be wise to stay away from the hard-right and divisive type candidates.

Harper's move on the Quebec Nation

When I heard this morning before heading off to work, that the Bloc Quebecois had brought forward a motion asking the house to recognize Quebec as a nation, I know this would be a disaster for both the Conservatives and Liberals as this is a divisive issue in both parties. Therefore, I do agree with Harper's statements that Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense, but not political sense, which interestingly enough is what Stephane Dion had earlier said despite voting against the Liberal Party of Canada Quebec Wing motion. I think this is a divisive issue that only seeks to divide Canadians much as the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord did so it is best to stay away from this topic and focus on issues that unite Canadians. But being backed into a corner, I will admit it is the right moment. Ironically enough Brandon who is a big Harper backer disagrees with him here while I agree on this issue.

As for its effect, it throws Michael Ignatieff a lifeline and I almost wonder if that is what Harper wanted since due to his gaffe proneness he might figure he is the easiest to beat. Also his falling numbers in Quebec mean he could lose all 10 seats, so this might have been his last ditch to try and shore up support in Quebec. I think the Liberals handled the issue right too. I am pleased the Liberals not just on this issue, but on other ones have been willing to support the Conservatives when right, but oppose them when wrong. It gives them more credibility than just blind partisanship.

Tories Sliding Poll Numbers

Now that SES has come out with a poll confirming the Tories are sliding, I think it is pretty safe to say the two parties are closed to tie despite the Liberals being leaderless. The SES numbers are 34% Conservatives and 32% Liberals. My view is that people haven't so much forgiven the Liberals as many of those who previously voted Liberal but voted Conservative in 2006 realize that the Liberals for all their faults still did a better job than the Conservatives. I am not ready to pop open the champagne bottles yet since a lot can happen between now and the next election, but I feel the Liberals have a better chance than the Tories of winning the next election. If the Tories wish to displace the Liberals as the natural governing party in the 21st century, they need to be less ideological and more pragmatic and that won't happen as long as Harper or someone from the Alliance wing leads the party. Harper hasn't made a lot of radical changes, but almost every area he has touched, the decisions have been highly ideological, which leads me to believe a Harper government for any length of time would be bad for Canada. Also the fact he runs it as a one man show is another major mistake as they are many strong members of caucus who could make up for Harper's deficiencies, but his control freak attitude ensures he gets his way. The sooner he is gone as leader the better for Canada and the better for the Conservative Party I might add. Even though I am not a Conservative right now I would rather have two good choices, than be stuck with one party by default.

Garth Turner's Troubling news

While today we finally found out what Garth Turner's troubling news is. While it wasn't the bombshell I was hoping for on Harper having some scary Hidden Agenda, it does re-confirm some of my suspicions that Harper has little tolerance for dissent and he wants to rid the party of Red Tories. The fact no reason was given for his expulsion in the letter sent to him, the democratic will of his riding association was overriden and he is permanantely banned (at least as long as Harper is leader)from running under the Conservative banner, gives me a strong suspicion it was over his willingness to challenge the social conservatives and the leader. While the party has several social moderates, none of them have had the courage to call social conservatives what they are. I believe conservatives who care about the future of economic conservatism in Canada should take social conservatives head on with the same force they take on socialists. Having a different opinion on an issue is one thing, but believing in discrimination or less rights for those from other groups is not just a different opinion, it is clearly unacceptable for the 21st century. However, beyond this displays a disturbing pattern of the party meddling in riding associations who choose candidates that don't fall lockstep with the leader. In Tobique-Mactaquac, Adam Richardson who was the Canadian Alliance candidate in 2000, but switched to the PCs after Harpers' comment about Atlantic Canada being a culture of defeatism was denied from seeking the nomination with no explanation given. On the other hand Rob Anders was acclaimed and the nomination cancelled. I can only guess Harper doesn't want his ideological soulmates being challenged, while he wants to keep out those who are moderate and will speak out when the party drifts too far to the right. This is all speculation, but I have been seeing a very disturbing pattern. It was this type of attitude that convinced me I was no longer welcome in the Conservative tent whereas despite my disagreements with many Liberals on many policies, no one has questioned my commitment to Liberalism and no one has told me I am too right wing for the party. The only good news is hopefully Harper will be defeated in the next election and the next leader will be a moderate. This means that we as Canadians will actually have two good choices rather than several lousy ones.

Ontario Municipal Elections

Being new to Ontario I cannot say I have followed municipal politics too closely and since I haven't lived in the province for six months I don't believe I was eligible to vote either and I didn't. I was glad to see Hazel McCallion in Mississauga re-elected. An 85 year old still going strong as mayor is no doubt impressive. I was also pleased to see former Liberal MP Gary Carr become Halton regional chair and even Carolyn Parrish win (despite my distaste for some of her comments, I at least liked her strong independence streak). I was though disappointed that David Miller won again in a landslide here in Toronto. Despite his NDP affiliations, my concern was his lack of fiscal accountability. The debt of Toronto has grown under his watch and yet he has done nothing to deal with it. Instead he is relying on the province and feds to bail him out. I believe all governments should live within their means and sometimes that means making difficult choices much as the Liberals did in the mid 90s and much as the BC Liberals did in my former province 4-5 years ago. Unfortunately there was no viable alternative. Jane Pittfield who was supposedly the Conservative candidate called for building another underground subway line, which would likely put Toronto in further debt, while former Liberal party president Stephen Ledrew who seemed like the best choice really had no chance at winning. Hopefully city council and the mayor will start to show some fiscal responsibility by making the hard choices now and then once things are turned around making all the big promises. What those on the left sometimes forget is that while making cutbacks is never easy, you are better to make them now than later. Once the budget is balanced and a surplus is achieved one can spend on all the important priorities. One just has to look at the federal Liberals who by balancing the budget were able to turn Canada's finances around and were able to fund many things as well as give major tax breaks that one could only dream about doing in 1993. It would be nice if Toronto had a municipal government with the same foresight.

Lest We Forget

My take on the US election

Now that we have a very clear picture how the election results have turned out, here is my take:

House of Representatives

I was quite pleased to see the Democrats take the House. Not so much that I was inspired them, but like many Americans felt, I was so sick of the Republicans that I felt they needed a good hard slap on the wrist. It turns out many Americans agree and according to the exit polls the Iraq War and corruption were the two big issues that took down the GOP in the House. It appears the Republicans are becoming a more Southern dominated party and will be even more right wing as most of the losses were in the Great Lakes and Northeast, but they also had some in the Midwest and Rockies which generally lean Republican. By the same token, most of the Democrat wins were on the right of the party so this should be interesting as the party was dominated by big city Liberals up until now. On the plus side, this will make them a bigger tent party, which is what they need to do to successfully capture independent votes, but on the down side this could lead to a lot of infighting which could hurt the party in 2008. I am cautiously optimistic, but I don't expect any radical changes, but rather expect this will slow the Bush's right wing agenda down. As much as I don't like the Republicans, I do hope the Democrats reach out and try and seek as much consensus, although I don't expect the Bush administration to be very conciliatory

Senate

I was far less certain about the Democrats taking Senate, but now it appears to be a near certainty and this is definitely a big blow to the Republicans as they needed to lose 40% of their seats up for re-election. More interestingly, 4 of the six losses were in states Bush won in 2004 including normally safe ones like Montana. I was pleased to see DeWine and Santorum get handidly defeated. I was disappointed to see Lincoln Chaffee lose since he was one of the few moderates left in the Republicans, however considering he had a 62% approval rating in Rhode Island, he probably lost more due to party affiliation than dissatisfaction with him. Two independents, Sanders and Liebermann were elected who will both caucus with the Democrats. I think this will be a good thing as Sanders is very left wing while Liebermann is on the right of the Democrats so it can show the party can reach out to both hard core Liberals and Centre-right Democrats. Missouri and Montana were both interesting races. In the case of Montana, it looks like Tester would actually take it, but in the end only squeaked by, still it looks like he isn't too liberal for Montana as the campaign ad said. On the other hand I was initially almost positive the Republicans would hold Missouri, but James Carville on CNN kept on saying the urban precincts were coming in late which probably explains why the Democrats overcame an early 10 point deficit to take Missouri. Virginia is still not yet called, but with all but three precincts in and an 8,000 vote lead, it is pretty much a near certainty the Democrats will take this one. I was though disappointed Harold Ford Jr. was unable to win Tennessee as this was a vicious campaign, but at least he put up a spirited fight.

Governor Races

The Democrats also made gains here. Massachusetts elected only the second Black governor of any US state and by a large margin despite going Republican in 2002. Canadian born Jennifer Granholm was re-elected in Michigan, so pleased to see a former fellow Canadian win even if she was only three when she moved to the United States. I also think Arnold Schwartznegger's win in a very liberal state should be a clear sign of where Republicans and Conservatives here in Canada need to go. He actually adopted tough environmental standards, was socially moderate, yet still a strong economic conservative. Hopefully the next leader of the Republicans fits this mold, but considering their base is mostly from the religious right I have my doubts.

Ballot Measures

These were also interesting to watch. Just as the Republicans used Gay Marriage bans as a way to bring out their base, I wonder if the minimum wage raise questions helped bring out more Democrat voters. These all passed, but ironically by the largest margins in the red states as opposed to swing states so I get the impression it is not so much left vs. right, but the Blue States are economically conservative and socially liberal while the Red States seem very right wing on social issues, but less so economic issues. I was glad to see the anti-abortion measure go down in defeat in South Dakota and stem cell research to pass in Missouri. In addition to this it appears Arizona will be the first state to vote against a same sex marriage ban, while in Virginia, Colorado, and South Dakota the same-sex marriage bans had over 40% vote against them. While I would rather have them defeated they fact they are no longer passing by overwhelming margins anymore maybe suggests the religious right is losing its clout even if only slightly.

Affects and Canada-US Relations

For Canadians expecting a radical change in direction, I hate to disappoint you, but it won't happen. The Democrats may be less hawkish on Iraq, but a pullout won't happen right away. On trade issues the Democrats have a tendency to be somewhat more protectionist, although they are better on border security issues since more come from areas closer to the border. That being said I am hopeful this is not an abbration, but a turning point against neo-conservatism. Still it took 40 years to pull the US as far right as it has so it will take many years to swing back in the other direction. I do hope that the Conservatives in Canada take note of this and realize conquer and divide tactics and hard right policies eventually catch up with one and considering Canada is more liberal, Harper doesn't have to go nearly as far right as Bush did to face a backlash if it isn't already starting to happen.

Rummy Gone and Dems poised to take senate

Rumsfeld has finally stepped down and all I can say is good riddance. This guy was the worst amongst the worst in the Bush administration so I am relieved he is finally go although I don't expect his replacement to be much better.

The Democrats have won both Missouri and Montana and will almost certainly take Virginia so it looks like my prediction on the senate was a bit off. To make matters more impressive, only 15 Republicans were up for re-election, so that means the Democrats had to knock off 40% of the incumbents to re-take the senate, so definitely impressive here. I am also pleased to see that the ban on same-sex marriage appears to have failed in Arizona, while passed with less than 60% in conservative states such as Virginia, Colorado, and South Dakota, so maybe people are finally turning against the religious right.

Live blogging on US Election

First Polls Close

Things are looking good for the Democrats as two congressional Republican seats in Kenutcky show the Democrats leading. Unfortunately the Same-sex marriage ban has passed in Virginia, but that was no surprise. I think the final numbers will be a better indicator. If over 35% vote against it, I think that is at least a sign that opposition to Same-sex marriage is softening. I'll be back later

Ohio, West Virginia, and South Carolina Polls Close

Ohio elects a Democrat governor after the Republican administration was rocked by scandals. It will be interesting to see what effect this will have on other races in the state. Robert Byrd was re-elected. I might have voted Libertarian if I lived in this state or Green as Robert Byrd is a big time protectionist and his Byrd Amendment was not good for Canada. I'll be back when something major happens.



15 more states close

Olympia Snowe wins in Maine, while no surprise Ted Kennedy wins in Massachusetts. That guy Ted Kennedy has been senator for ever, has he ever had a private sector job. Olympia Snowe is moderate compared to most Republicans, still unlike BC Tory, I would not endorse her, since her support of the Iraq War is a big issue for me and I refuse to support anyone who supports it strongly.

In Virginia senate race, the Democrats have pulled ahead so looking good here, but too early to tell.

First Republican Defeat, Hotsettler defeated!! Hopefully more to come. Interestingly enough he is a Conservative Democrat, so this should be interesting. Although I don't like his viewpoints on social issues, I have argued the Democrats need to stick to the centre and not drift too far to the left.

Massachusetts goes Democrat statewide and elects only the second Black governor in US history.

Democrats hold New Jersey senate. So far so good.

Democrats gain Ohio Senate. Probably the most predictable due to the taint of the Republican brand over state issues as opposed to national. This reminds me of BC during the 90s when the unpopularity of the provincial NDP hurt the NDP federally in BC.

9:00 EST more states come in

Casey Jr defeats Rick Santorum, second pick up in the senate. Whoa!!

Hilary Clinton re-elected, big surprise, yeah right.

Joe Liebermann re-elected as senator, so we have two independent senators. In the case of Vermont, Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialists so he will definitely support the Democrats against Bush. As for Liebermann, he said he would caucus with the Democrats, but I am not happy about his support of the Iraq War. I thought though it was a mistake to push him out. However, if the Democrats get 50 seats in the senate or 49 they should ask Liebermann to rejoin and even invite Sanders to join the Democrats.

Jennifer Granhom is re-elected in Michigan. Although I don't know much about her, it is nice to see a Canadian born win as governor and also from Vancouver like myself. However, she has lived in the United States since age three, so grew up as an American.

Democrats hold Maryland, which was one of the few Democrat seats at risk. This one interestingly have a black Republican in order to help reach out to the black community who traditionally haven't gone Republican in large numbers. This means the Democrats at least hold their senate seats.

Northrup of Kentucky of the Republicans defeated, the second defeat and third pick-up

Third Democrat senate pick-up in Rhode Island, Lincoln Chaffee is defeated. While I am happy for a Democrat pick-up, if I had to choose one Republican I liked it was him since he was a moderate. He was the lone Republican supporter to vote against giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq, supports SSM, opposes privatizing social security, opposed the Bush tax cuts, pro-choice, and even spoiled his ballot in 2004.

Another Democrat pick-up in Indiana. Looking better. Maybe the Democrats will even take the Senate.

Got an update on Lincoln Chaffee's defeat was more due to party than him. According to exit polls, He had a 62% approval but his party weighed him down too much. Even his opponent spent most of his time attacking Bush rather than Chaffee.

10:00 PM EST

Orrin Hatch re-elected, too bad, but no surprise.

Bass is defeated in New Hampshire for Congress, so another pick-up for the Democrats and several other Republicans are trailing.

Two more defeats: Weldon in Pennsylvania is defeated and Padgett is defeated in Ohio. Lets keep it going.

Republicans hold the governorship in Florida, although ironically the governor skipped a rally when Bush was there. Obviously this shows how unpopular Bush is.

7th Republican defeat and in North Carolina!!

In Foley's district, the Republican has conceded defeat, so lets put it at eight now even though CNN hasn't called this one yet.

Another Democrat Pick-up in Pennsylvania, now the ninth, six more to go and this is without any results in the West yet.

The West Reports in

The tenth pickup for the Democrats in Connecticut.

Nothing yet on whether Arnold wins or not, although despite being a Liberal, I actually like Arnold Schwartznegger.

On the environment he has shown leadership unlike Bush/Harper and he is generally moderate on social issues although opposes gay marriage (but politicians will only start supporting it when the public does, lets remember most Liberals opposed SSM in the 90s, so be patient here). I am not sure how I would have voted in California, but that is perhaps the only state I might have gone Republican and just the thought of having to vote Republican is sickening, but I realize you can never blindly paint any party as bad or good.

Four more Democrat pick-ups, in Arizona, in Florida, Indiana, and New York so only one more needed for the Democrats to take Congress.


Now I know the networks won't make this projection yet, but I feel comfortable enough to say the Democrats will take Congress when considering how many close ones are still left.

While the senate is still too close to call.

DEMOCRATS WIN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE!!

This is great. I am going to sign off for this evening. I will have more on this tomorrow evening after I come home from work. If I find out the senate results before going to bed, I will post.

What I expect from the US elections

I know many liberals are excited about the possibility of the Democrats taking over congress and maybe the senate. With the exceptions of a few RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) such as Lincoln Chaffee, I absolutely despise the party and hope their extreme views never find their way north of the Canada/US border. That being said although the Democrats are preferable, I think liberal minded Canadians need to face the reality that the United States is far more conservative than we are and that it will take years to make the United States as liberal as Canada. Therefore my expectations are very tempered. The most I hope for is that the Democrats can take one of the two houses and at least keep in check some of the more extreme policies. However, at the end of the day, besides foreign policy, trade, and environment which have global implications, issues such as gay marriage, death penalty, gun laws, and health care systems are domestic policies that are ultimately up to the American people decide. I just don't want those type of policies finding their way into Canadian politics. As I have eluded to in earlier posts, really close relations with the United States are just not going to happen without alienating voters in one country, so we need to strengthen our ties with Asia and Europe. We need to continue to work cooperatively with the United States where possible, but also understand we will disagree quite often. We need to understand we are not the same people or culture, we are different so we need to expect things will be done differently. That is why my only hope is that the United States is at least not quite as right wing as it has been. Certainly the Democrats taking both houses would send a strong message to Bush, but I think the changes you would see would be quite minor as all they could really do is hold up the more regressive pieces of legislation.

Besides the only good thing about Bush winning in 2004, was it made me even prouder to be a Canadian as I know Canada does have to put with those regressive policies. We cannot change the United States, but we can learn from the mistakes and ensure we don't follow that direction. And sometimes just knowing you are right and are setting a good example is the best one can do since we as Canadians cannot change the world, but we can be an example to others.

US Midterm Predictions

Okay, I don't follow American politics as closely as I due Canadian politics, but I will see how good my predictions are here. Unlike Canada where there is strict party discipline, this is less the case in the United States so national trends won't always apply in each congressional district or senate race, and likely will play little factor in the gubenatorial races.

House

Democrats will retake it, but by a narrow margin. The Democrats have a pretty substantial lead in the polls and considering every seat is up for grabs, it will require a last minute shift to the Republicans to prevent the Democrats from taking it. However, they won't win with the majority they are hoping for due to three reasons
1. The Republican base generally have a higher level of voter turnout than the Democrat Base
2. Incumbents don't get defeated very often since unlike Canada there is far less party discipline so one can vote for a Republican representative even if they hate Bush provided that representative is willing to break party ranks frequently
3. The congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered in favour of the Republicans, so the Democrats need about a 5% lead to just tie things up.

Senate

The Republicans will narrowly hold it, but by a narrower margin. Since only 1/3 of senate seats are up for re-election there needs to be a much larger swing to switch the senate over to the Democrats. In addition each state gets two senators so this favours the Republicans since smaller states for the most part (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions) generally go Republican while larger states (Texas is the exception) generally go Democrat. In the polls California would have 70 times as much weight as Wyoming, however in senate elections they have equal weight.

As for who I hope will win, well considering my political views, I think any regular reader of this blog can probably guess who I am hoping for, but since I don't believe in interferring in other's business and don't appreciate Americans commenting on our elections, I won't say until after the polls close. For any Americans reading this blog, my advice is go out and vote, no matter who you support.

Harper's Skipped EU meeting

Harper for whatever reason has decided to cancel and Canada-EU summit in Helsinki while going to a NATO summit only a mere 30 minutes plane ride away in Riga, Latvia two days later. His reason is he fears having one fewer vote in a minority government, but even after the NDP agreed to pair the votes and the Liberals promised not to hold any votes, he still refused. Now I'll leave the Harper bashing on this for others, but I believe that Canada needs to do more not less to strengthen our relations with the European Union.

The European Union has more people and a larger GDP than the United States and will along with China and India be a major force to deal with in the 21st century. More importantly, Europe shares many common values with Canada be it our social safety net, support for multilateralism, democracy and freedom, socially progressive policies, and a free market with government intervention to temper its excesses. With so much in common, the EU could be a strong ally of Canada in promoting our values globally. While I don't think Canadian membership in the EU would be appropriate at the moment (as a few Liberals bloggers have suggested), I do support closer ties and working more cooperatively with the EU on issues of our common interests. Stronger relations with the EU doesn't have to mean weaker Canada-US relations, which seem to be the only relations Harper cares about. In fact as a small country who can be respected by both, we can play a role in bridging the trans-Atlantic divide. While the Bush administration may care less for Europe, I believe many Americans would respect Canada having a strong relation with EU and value our ability to bridge the divide. In addition having 87% of our trade with one country is bad policy. Any successful country will have diversified trade since if you put your eggs in one basket, when that country goes into a recession so does its main trading partner. So we should not just strengthen our cooperation on the environment, but also increase trade with Europe. I would even support establishing a free mobility pact for those under 30 so as Canadians and Europeans can experience each other's culture. On the environment, there is a strong demand for green products so greater trade with Europe could create a market for selling green products made in Canada.

Off course rather than look for new partners, Harper doesn't want to deal with the EU because he might be embarassed by his disastrous environmental plan. I also get the impression he only cares about Canada's relation with the United States and could care less about our relations with everyone else. I support good Canada/US relations, but not at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately his indifference to the EU is a loss to all Canadians.

Saddam's Guilty Verdict

Today Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. I am not the least bit saddened by this, since he was a vicious dictator who deserves to be held account for his atrocities. Still there are a few things that should have been done differently. The scheduling of the verdict two days before US midterm elections as well as using a Kangaroo court greatly reduces the legitimacy of the trial. My view is that it should be up to the Iraqi people, not the Americans to decide Saddam's punishment and therefore the trial should have only commenced once the United States and all of its allies pulled out of Iraq.

This also does not change my position on the death penalty or war in Iraq. I oppose the death penalty not because it is cruel and inhumane to sadistic murders, but because one can never be 100% sure and if you accidently kill an innocent person, you cannot bring them back, whereas you can release a wrongly convicted person from jail. I also still oppose the Iraq War since while getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing, the costs involved in it far outweighed the benefits. Consider, likely over 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died because of the war and close to 3,000 allied soldiers have been killed. Infrastructure has been destroyed and the country is in virtual chaos all just to get one bad man. Clearly it wasn't worth it in my view. It would be nice if we weren't faced with a horrible choice between leaving a brutal sadistic dictator kill who kills his own citizens, versus a bloody war which would kill even more people, but since we are faced with such a choice, we should take the one that causes the least harm. In addition I oppose the principle of pre-emptive strikes and regime change since such policy sets a dangerous precedent that could easily be abused and lead to constant wars and the law of the jungle like we had before World War II. I don't wish to return to such type a world. The way to rid the world of brutal dictators is to work towards raising the standards of living of people globally and as people's standards of living rise, they will demand more freedom and eventually overthrow their governments much like what happened in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and 90s. That is the best way to see regime change, not how it was done in Iraq.

Busy political week in a busy work week

This has been a busy week in Toronto for me as I start a new job and still have more work involved in moving in. At the same time it has been a busy political week, which unfortunately due to time constraints I have been unable to blog much on. So here is my take on a number of major issues of the day.

Norman Spector's Comments on Belinda - I find them absolutely disgusting and vile and if I happen to be one of only 10% of men who don't think she is a bitch, then I am proud to be part of that 10%, although I suspect the number is much higher than that. Although Norman Spector has the right to say whatever he wants, if he has any decency he would apologize, but if he wishes to look like a complete jerk, he can choose not to, but he shouldn't expect much respect from others.

Brison's Baring - Although generally liberal on this issue, I don't think it is the most appropriate move for a politician. For an athlete, musician, or actor/actress fine, but I certainly would never advocate a politician doing this, but really, I honestly don't care. However, I certainly won't by buying the calendar.

Canadian Wheat Board Report - I think the Conservatives should have been more open and consulted with a wider range of groups, but I do agree with the idea of a dual marketing system. Compared to most Liberals, I am very pro free enterprise, partly because I believe the market in most, but not all cases, works, but also I am person who has a strong drive to succeed without government help and believe governments should not stand in the way of those who wish to succeed on their own. I am all for maintaining the Wheat Board, but one should be able to opt out. Finally as someone now living in Ontario, but with family in Alberta, I don't think it is right I can sell wheat on the free market, but my family in Alberta cannot without facing fines or prison time. I also don't buy the argument the CWB would collapse since the Australian Wheat Board, Ontario Wheat Board, and Manitoba Pork have all survived under a dual marketing system so why can't the CWB. The arguments sound too eerily similiar to the fears presented in 1988 during the free trade debate, which all never materialized. However, even if support the Tories here, I find their views in other areas too regressive to consider voting for them under their current leadership.

Jack Layton's Environmental Initiative - Kudos to Layton for doing something constructive. While I feel this was motivated more by politics since the NDP needs to at least get something done if they want progressive voters to stay with them, otherwise they become useless and progressive voters will likely return to the Liberals. Likewise Harper needs a strong NDP to stay in power since his ceiling in support is likely in the high 30s. That being said, the clean air act absolutely stunk so anything to improve it is a good step. I just hope the opposition on committee can radically alter the bill.

Income Trust Taxes - This caught me by surprise and although I do have my concerns, it was regretably inevitable. Since too many corporations were trying to use this to avoid paying taxes, it was going to happen eventually no matter who was in power. Off course as someone who is in the financial sector I never like to see major drops in the TSX, but the losses in stocks is likely smaller than the loss in government revenue if this loophole wasn't closed. Even as someone in the financial sector, I do believe corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. Rather than letting some off tax free, I think across the board corporate tax cut and income splitting for pensioners is the way to go, although I think the corporate tax cuts should have been larger. If some corporations are exploting tax loopholes, it is only a matter of time, before others do.

Quebec Nation - Seeing how divisive this issue has been, I believe the best solution would be to defer the motion to a later session once the Liberals have a majority government. This will hurt the party no matter what position they take so lets put it off until we have a majority and do it well in advance of any election. In addition it will allow for more reflection and discussion so we can have a resolution that is acceptable to both Quebecers and English Canadians alike.