Peter Csillag

Canada Day

2008-07-01T17:16:00.002-06:00

Given what a miserable and divisive occasion Confederation was at first, it really is a testament to developed reasoning (or apathy to a forgotten and past) that this day is celebrated in such unity. Cool.

Of "green plans" and campaign strategies

2008-06-20T23:51:00.000-06:00

As details of the Liberal "green plan" emerge, they appear to be the exact sort of "tax shift" up and down bureaucratic thing you'd expect from them. And while their recently unveiled advertisements don't actually explain the plan, they've taken a positive approach to ads and are not (yet) trying to scare people into their "green plan" by citing future environmental catastrophe.

But I have to ask, does anyone else find it odd to see a Liberal ad with the words "lower income taxes" there?

The strategy is obvious at the moment: a positive image to contrast with the negative attack ads that Conservatives are once again running.

The question, however, is whether or not Canadian voters will fall for it. Thoughts anyone?

Business as usual?

2008-06-18T16:38:00.003-06:00

I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to wager that the Liberals will use a message of poor economic mismanagement to try and win over Canadians in the next federal election. Especially in light of Air Canada's well publicized recently announced mass job terminations. When things aren't great, it isn't hard to convince everyone that they're bad. As we know, bad economic conditions are a traditional condition for changing government.

Recent headlines like Air Canada cutting 2,000 jobs, announced this week, will be more material for them to spread. Air Canada cited the cost of fuel and so, provided most job cuts use some such excuse, the opposition would smear that the Conservative government mismanaged the costs we all pay at the pump.

But did they? Despite Air Canada's announcement, rising airline rival WestJet is "business as usual", citing an efficient business model. If memory serves me right, this isn't the only patch of trouble that Air Canada has gone through within the last decade. Quite frankly, Air Canada appears only to be using this as another excuse to cover for their inefficient business model.

The Hockey Night In Canada theme song mess is just a mess

2008-06-16T08:00:00.000-06:00

Canadians don't seem to care much for our poorly designed hospitals that each kill up to 4,000 people each year due to preventable infection outbreaks, but some theme song license fiasco for CBC's Hockey Night In Canada has made headlines for weeks now. But heaven forbid a different tune be heard before a hockey game! Good job, folks.

The CBC offered some $1 million for the song, an offer which was rejected. Why is nobody complaining that a crown corporation is offering $1 million of taxpayer money for a half century old jingle? At least they didn't make a more competitive offer.

But Canadians can't really be to blamed to show such unnecessary interest. After all, what would've happened if this was all over in three minutes? No media hype. Think about it: the song's owner proposes a renewal to which CBC refuses and CTV negotiates - while CBC selects another song. The end. A back page story at most. I'm sure a lot of longtime faithful to Hockey Night In Canada would be annoyed, but hey, there's time to sort it out for a new theme: the season is over for a few months, after all.

The CBC should have buried this instead of having it escalate, but again, that's bureaucracy. Regardless of what the CBC says, this pathetic fiasco was in their best interest. You think it is a wonder that this became such a stretched out and overrated mess? The program has faced some stiff problems in the last few years. It is beginning to face more competition too. This sensationalized fight over a theme song is exactly what the network needed to draw attention back to the program some more.

The united left would be a united waste

2008-06-13T08:00:00.001-06:00

Ever since Ed Stelmach's Progressive "Conservatives" swept over the handful of Albertans who bothered to vote in the last provincial election, the left wing has become desperate enough to consider uniting. There are three key problems I identify with this idea. But alas, David Swann, a Liberal MLA, has recently organized some discussion to unite Alberta's Liberals, NDP, and possibly even some Greens. For those who don't know, David Swann is the sole face of an Alberta Liberal Party that actually tries to accomplish something, as opposed to yammering on and not really doing anything like most of his party seems to do.

The first problem is this: the united left runs on the premise that vote splitting led the Progressive "Conservatives" to great gains in the March 3rd election. Wrong! The PCs didn't win because of a leftward vote-split. Their gains would have been substantially less without vote splitting, but they would've won all the same. They won because of organization and mobilizing voters. Ed Stelmach made his share of mistakes and the PC voting base was frightened that he was going to end the PC dynasty over those mistakes. A united left would organize and mobilize more PC voters.

The second problem is that a united left runs the risk of a policy void. What would they run on? The PCs have become quite the political centrists in recent years. The NDP attracts the left-wing and the (relatively) larger Liberal faction has mostly centrists and those simply looking for a non-PC alternative. They'd merely open the door for a more left party to rise, just as the PCs briefly opened the door for the Wildrose Alliance.

The third problem is that the left is lazy. They would've made better results last time if most Liberal candidates could be contacted and had offices. Most didn't until weeks inward and many never bothered reaching out to voters. Did they know they'd lose? A culture of defeat is poor idea to make a union upon. They hardly have the resources to stay afloat right now as separate parties. Would they have the resources for a larger party? No sir.

The left has always been impractical, which is why this impractical idea hasn't bitten the dust. Yet.

ACTA proposal could defend copyrights at long last

2008-06-11T08:00:00.001-06:00

At the moment it looks like Canada will join ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) which is good news if you appreciate the music and movies you enjoy, and bad news if you take them for granted illegally download their works. It appears that there's still a void of details, but what's been established so far is that border guards and security personnel can become "copyright police" and Internet Service Providers can no longer protect the identities of copyright criminals. The usual moron brigade is now criticizing the government for acting secretly on this, which is typically absurd, because they've announced interest in this since... oh, October of last year.

Again, details are sparse but it seems that you'll have to prove that the content on your iPod (or your other inferior mp3 device) is in fact legitimately purchased. The procedure sounds similar to the way laptops get checked for child pornography randomly when you're traveling. Speaking of which, laptops and cell phones may also be prone to such checks. Criminal charges and the destruction or confiscation of your device may occur, should you be guilty. At the same time, Internet Service Providers may immediately be required to provide the identities of users who illegally download copyrighted content.

Millions of people used the internet as a tool to kill off traditional "Ma and Pa" music stores which played such a large role in the 20th century music scene. Well folks, you can't keep it up much longer. The independent music store was a victim of the internet which is too bad, because they make for a cool environment (the few that are still around mostly still do). Hopefully ACTA guts the illegal piracy scene well enough that independent music and record stores can once again grow in numbers.

But with ACTA, my real question is how in the the heck an officer determines what is and is not copyrighted on a digital devices. Avid multi-genre music collectors like myself use iPods to store hundreds of CDs on the go. It is both convenient and practical. But seriously, how do people prove that everything on the device is purchased? Does a little photo of me grinning with my CD collection count as sufficient? Or do I need to host some police to my residence to inspect my media collection prior to every time I plan on traveling? And there's no possible way that one can produce receipts for everything.

"But officer, I swear, I paid for Black Sabbath's Live At Hammersmith Odeon recording!"

The idea itself is great but a few questions need to be answered and they are, by far, the most important as to how this multi-nation agreement works: how does one prove purchase for all iPod content at the border and exactly how much power do these officers have over little old me?

That's all right now - it sounds like a solid idea. Government secrecy hysterics obviously missed the announcement in October of 2007, so, quite frankly, you can dismiss their cries at the very least.

Why aren't Canadians whining "Obama cheated" now?

2008-06-09T08:00:00.000-06:00

Few things can unite socialist/liberal minded Canadians on international politics than the mis-truth "Bush cheated" regarding the US Presidential election results of 2000. So why aren't they all over Barack Obama's Democratic victory? Like Al Gore, Hillary Clinton had more individual votes than her main opponent but lost when it came to technicalities. But alas, these international democracy gurus of ours are nowhere to be found.

Apparently, the "count every vote" pitch that Canadian left-wingers champion for their American counterparts is swept under the carpet when the victorious one is whom you were cheering for. I have yet to figure out why Barack Obama is so popular in Canada of all places, mind you. He's charismatic and left-wing enough to fit in to Vancouver.

In some ways, the Obama victory in the Democratic primaries is a worse bureaucratic draw than George Bush's victory. At least George Bush still won within the general election system. The Obama victory seemed like a bureaucratic scheme - "you can vote, but your vote only counts as half when you're in a state that would secure the Clinton candidacy, but of course every vote is being counted because we are a democracy after all."

But alas, the ultra-democratic "count every vote" battle cry is seldom heard up north right now. Liberals, both north and south of the border, are fine with ignoring principle if it means your prefered way is secured.

The pinnacle of Liberal integrity: "Cadscam"

2008-06-06T08:00:00.002-06:00

Will you listen to me now? Three months ago, I wrote that the "Cadscam" fiasco was a leftist scheme with no real basis to it ("Cadscam" debunked: A typical leftist scheme, 3/7/08). The media is reporting this week that forensic audio specialists concluded that the Zytaruk tapes at the center of "Cadscam" were doctored.

The fabricated tapes, if you remember, were the basis of an allegation that Conservative affiliates tried to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman to vote to defeat the Liberal government in 2005.

Most Canadians likely knew that this was fabrication against the truth, however. The Zytaruk tapes (named after author Tom Zytaruk, who could've once hoped to earn a yacht's worth from this) were after all, on internet circulation but not to an actual audience. Unless, of course, you consider Liberal blog circles of washed up hippies and esteem-seeking teenagers writing posts for one another's amusement as an actual audience.

This, of course, wouldn't stop the Liberal Party from using the "recordings" in anti-Conservative ads. It actually requires a court injunction to stop them from using proven-as-fabricated recordings to smear their opponents. Pathetic and desperate, are we? Oui, Monsieur Dion and staff?

Chuck Cadman once saved the last Liberal government, back in the days of the Paul Martin "junta" leadership. Cadman's one vote in 2005, when he was an independent, was all that stopped the defeat of the government minority then. All Cadman did was listen to his constituents on how to vote (as every MP is individually supposed to, by the way) and followed through with it. They didn't want an election and he represented them. In the process, he technically gave the Martin government about six more months to function and pull itself together.

The Liberals have repaid the favor by firmly attaching Chuck Cadman's legacy to a fabricated bribery allegation in an attempt to smear their contemporary political rivals.

What has Maxime Bernier taught the Harper government?

2008-06-04T08:00:00.000-06:00

Nobody foresaw the Maxime Bernier resignation affair but perhaps it has taught Stephen Harper's government and strategists a lesson. Actually, I'm quite certain that Maxime Bernier was a calculated risk (a precise gamble) from the start along with many of the ministers this government has had. There is no explanation in the world that would conclude with Maxime Bernier being the top choice for Foreign Affairs based on merit.

None. There are at least a dozen Conservatives in the House of Commons that were more deserving of that portfolio. Stephen Harper's government has lasted this long with positive results and near-majority territory because they are immeasurably careful strategists that know their place in a left-wing nation. I suspect Bernier was an investment in Quebec; any lack of qualification for Foreign Affairs being greatly outweighed by allowing (err...giving) Quebec a top priority cabinet portfolio.

So, what has Stephen Harper's government learned from this for the future? Honestly, I doubt they've learned anything - and I don't mean it insultingly - because there isn't anything to learn. They knew Bernier was a risk in such a position and they knew full well that any severe misstep on his part would be a maximized political fallout gamble given the government's tough stance with the prying media. They couldn't have known that documents would be left behind (nor could they calculate Julie Couillard, how could they?), but they knew that an ill experienced MP with a top job was a risk.

The only real surprise, in any of this, is that it has dragged on as long as it has. How could "government minister dates a lady with a questionable past, leaves secret documents at her place, then resigns over it" make headlines for weeks, and even dip into international news?

There's really only one explanation as to why the affair of this resignation is still making news here and there: boredom. There are multiple solutions to that, like the new Opeth album that comes out this week: Watershed is probably the best music released this year, combining death metal elements with classic rock and even free form jazz elements. The MSM would be way better off reporting on that than stretching the Bernier affair to its limits. Give it a rest already. Or how about that Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff are unable to pay off their leadership campaign debts by the Elections Canada deadline? There's news!

Something isn't right about the Maxime Bernier affair

2008-06-02T08:00:00.001-06:00

Something isn't right about the Maxime Bernier security breach affair, and it doesn't have to do with the plentiful embarrassment for Stephen Harper's government. It has become obvious that Bernier was probably only given his post in order to please Quebec's voters with a top government portfolio. That aside, if you listen to the opposition, you'd think Bernier had sent secure NATO documents to enemy combatants via FedEx.

Bernier had left secure NATO briefing papers at the home of his former girlfriend, Julie Couillard. These documents were so secure and so sensitive that Foreign Affairs didn't even notice their disappearance for more than an entire month. Even if Couillard's ties to the Hells Angels motorcycle club were bad, what could happen? I'm going to be skeptical and suggest that her affiliations aren't really a threat to Canada or NATO allies as far as this "breach" goes.

I also highly doubt that this breach is the first of such kind in recent history. It seems unavoidable that a government minister say at least a few "hush-hush" words about their job to a spouse (or romantic partner as this case may be). People occasionally leave papers behind too. In Bernier's case this is inexcusable, but I'm going to suggest that this has happened before in the past with other ministers - more often than we'd think. Bernier's biggest problem is that it went public.

So why is this making so much news? Who stands to gain from this? What is the one organization that can actually gain from this absolute embarrassment?

Liberals.

"Cadscam" didn't work out and neither did the RCMP raids, not even a resurrected Brian Mulroney scandal, so they're desperate for some actual dirt on the governing Conservatives. They can fearfully spin about hidden agendas in Conservative policies, but they're still short of election-worthiness as far as Canada's concerned.

This whole affair would have died from the public eye with Bernier's replacement and a prompt internal investigation. But no, the Elections Canada deadline for paying off leadership campaign debts for Liberal candidates is fast approaching and a few are far from paying it all off. Am I suggesting that the Bernier affair is still making news in order to distract from Liberals being unable to meet Elections Canada deadlines?

This is a long-shot, but let's see if Elections Canada punishments are overshadowed by a stretched Bernier affair in the news. After all, all desperation is with cause.

Conservatives need Kevin Taft

2008-05-30T08:00:00.000-06:00

You could argue that Kevin Taft is the biggest champion of conservatism in Alberta's legislature. He's second only to Ted Morton. Why? Because Kevin Taft, leader of Alberta's Liberals and leader-of-the-minuscule-opposition in Edmonton, makes it easier for the Progressive "Conservative" government to do what they do.

Kevin Taft is exactly what one needs as the leader of leftist opposition to a right-wing (if only, oh Ed Stelmach) government. He didn't unite them in the election, and instead of uniting them in darker times had gone off to Greece, possibly leaving them Liberals in disarray. I also hear that he's also against David Swann's united left alternative in Alberta, making sure that vote splitting will ensure that Alberta's right-leaning dynasties are not threatened.

Now of course the Ed Stelmach government has leftward streaks, but Kevin Taft - conservative hero - makes it easier by giving the PCs the time they need for Alberta's political right to sort itself out. Think about it: all odds suggested that the Liberals would make massive gains in the provincial election of 2008. They shared public criticism of Stelmach's government, the government had problems, and the platform they issued seemed solid. Unions were throwing their money at massive campaigns to boost Liberal chances in Alberta. But no, Kevin Taft's Liberals took massive losses under such odds to devastate and disenfranchise the leftward fringes in the province. Their disappointment will keep them from Liberal activity for at least a few years!

Face it: Alberta's right needs Kevin Taft. Badly. And now there's talk among Liberals to replace him. If you have the time, get involved in Alberta's Liberal Party and unite behind Kevin Taft. Nothing could satisfy your conservative principles more!

Don't apologize for residential school abuses, apologize for the lack of native policy

2008-05-28T08:00:00.001-06:00

Nothing strikes me as less needed than an apology for Canada's residential schools abuses, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans on June 11th. Apologizing (thus implying responsibility) is not going to make matters any better. It sounds like the right thing to do but really accomplishes nothing than comforting words from an irrelevant source. The problem is that all social problems that our natives face in this country is the direct responsibility of decades of horrible social policy towards them.

Our natives deserve respect for what they've endured in this country, and some empty words are not enough.

To understand why an apology for school abuses is useless, one needs to understand a few things. First of all, natives in this country have been treated as invalids since mis-educated missionaries came from Europe to Christianize them. If you disagree, you obviously haven't read the massive documentation Relations des Jésuites de la Nouvelle-France from the Jesuit missionaries. You need only read a selection, such as the one compiled by S.R. Mealing for Carleton University Press, to understand that native policy has been on a bad foot from the start in this country (from well before we were even a country).

Second of all, and most importantly, one needs to understand the actual nature of abuses and the way things were in our residential schools. I'll refer you to Celia Haig-Brown's Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School for an in-depth look at those that went to such abominable schools. I'll also refer you to Reclaiming Connections: Understanding Residential School Trauma Among Aboriginal People, a resource manual from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. I won't get into it here (there's too much and you're better off with professional resources) but I'll simply say that what happened is racist to a horribly incomprehensible degree and simply disgusting in every sense of the word. There's a lot of literature about these atrocities emerging now, so I'll suggest you look it up.

Thus what it all comes down to is what does the government plan on accomplishing with such an apology? For years, Liberal and now Conservative governments have tinkered by recognizing and apologizing for these past atrocities. First of all, nobody in the House of Commons right now is responsible for residential schools. It happened in the past by a past government. This in turn opens the door to vicarious responsibility and liability, which is troublesome. If the government apologizes for (and thereby assumes responsibility for) native residential school abuses, they're at risk for not recognizing some other racist tragedies in our history (and Canada has quite a few, neatly tucked away under pseudo-multiculturalism).

I'm sure Stephen Harper's heart is in the right place with an apology, as with all those in government who have tried to deal with these past horrors, but nothing is accomplished here. If they want to make amends, they should simply recognize that native social problems are history-long responsibility of Canadian social policies, and the best way to move ahead is to reform policy for natives and Canadians so that we could all put the past behind us, at last.

The Obama enigma is a lesson for Conservatives

2008-05-26T08:00:00.001-06:00

Now that we're clear of an unneeded wasteful federal election plaguing our lawns and tax dollars this spring and summer, perhaps Conservative campaign strategists for the federal party can take a lesson from the fact that Barack Obama is running a successful campaign in the United States. I say this is noteworthy because by all practical reasoning, and I mean no ill to the junior Senator, he couldn't have stood a chance in this campaign. The Obama enigma is really that: an enigma.

Sure, he's charismatic and skilled when it comes to oratory presentations. Liberals both north and south of the border have always taken a liking to that sort of inspirational presentation rather than a meritocracy when choosing their candidates. So, at least, his victory above his other Democrat candidate-would-have-beens is foreseeable. I'm surprised that his oratory skills could crush the Clinton'08 camp, but I'm not surprised that John Edwards and the rest were pummeled early in primaries. The "angry populist" shtick only works in a few areas, after all.

But here's the sort of thing that Stephen Harper's campaign team needs to analyze: Why is the Obama'08 camp not being trailed behind by John McCain's campaign? John McCain has already presumptively won his party's nomination, has a head start, is a seasoned politician, is a military hero, doesn't fit will with those Republicans that opinion polls have been eating for years, and so on. Sure he has troublesome left-wing streaks, but he picks up from moderate Democrats and independents what he loses from Republicans, more or less. The man has a clear advantage over Obama, or so he should.

Yet Barack Obama is a very realistic challenge to John McCain. Despite the fact that the Junior Senator has not won his party's nomination, has divided his party in this nomination, has next to no political experience compared to McCain, and has a political record that possibly makes him more left-wing than any average American... yes, he still manages to pose a threat to the McCain camp. How?

Popular disassociation, perhaps? Is George W. Bush's recent swing of unpopularity (according to polls anyway) enough to damage McCain for being the candidate of the same party? Obviously Republicans aren't in their peak popularity at the moment, but is that enough to swing someone like Barack Obama up to the top?

This is the sort of thing that Conservative strategists ought to tinker with over the summer. If Stephen Harper's government can't consistently poll majority numbers by next fall, I suspect the opposition would swing into election watch. But would they want it with Stephane Dion? Given what a mess they've become in recent years under his type of Liberal leadership. No, I suspect a sort of youthful, charismatic Obama type (which, more or less, is a Trudeau type) could come into their sights.

So, my advice to the strategists: watch and learn, folks.

Heritage Fund measure: the real Progressive "Conservative" legacy

2008-05-23T08:00:00.000-06:00

For a government that has no problem with scoring budget surpluses, you wouldn't expect financial savings to be their undoing. Should a time of economic uncertainty hit Alberta in say a decade or so, you can expect the Progressive "Conservatives" to be as grimly disappointed as Kevin Taft in the 2008 Provincial election. Economic uncertainty quickly undoes governments that can't maintain citizens' average lifestyles in times of hardship. As obvious as it is, that system will go on for some time.

Somebody ought to send Iris Evans a memo about this. The promise of a long-term savings plan by the next budget yields only skepticism on my part, more or less because Ed Stelmach's government isn't really the government envisioned when he was running for party leadership a few years back.

Recently the C.D. Howe Institute, an "independent" think tank established that Alberta's government needs to set aside $15 billion each year for the next five years in order for Albertans to keep up the current benefits.

The fact that such reports exist, particularly that this one is not unique but one of many from various analysts, is a rough sentence for the provincial government in Edmonton. Should economic woes come and they fail to act, these are the things that could be cited as "they had opportunity, too!"

As far as budgets go, this should make the next few years interesting.

Canada gets a voice to the US, imagine that

2008-05-21T08:00:00.000-06:00

Under any normal circumstance, the prospect of Senator Obama taking a lead in the US presidential election projections would raise some worries. Add in the uncertain state of the (dare I say Progressive) Conservative minority in Ottawa and we'd be thinking, "I wonder what living in Austria would be like? I'll try tomorrow at the latest." But this isn't the case at all.

Canada's economic situation and the US economic situation are in a blender right now, or so to speak, and that changes matters. No matter what a possible President Obama could lead the US into (that's only if John McCain's campaign fails), a stiff Canadian backbone would be enough to negotiate with the US. This is assuming we still have a Canadian government with backbone. I could see Stephen Harper and company keeping it up.

The question-marked US economy and Canada's fair outlook as well as natural resources make things look good for us. We're still (read bloody always) dependent on them, but now they need us, so we can negotiate too! Simple as that. If a possible President Obama wants to lead the US to become some global warming fearing welfare state, it wouldn't concern or pressure us. At long last, we wouldn't need to feel pressure!

This all depends on a lot of future events, but regardless of who the next US President is (either Obama or McCain, possibly Clinton) we're in a position to negotiate as a country. Imagine that.

Because the idea of President Obama seems so popular in Canada (I have no idea why, not too many of us vote NDP), it won't be too long before the Obama campaign changes slogans to reflect reality with (future) dependent trading partner Canada, namely, "because the US was Jack Layton free for only so long!"

But right now all we can do is hope that our American neighbors vote and do their democratic duties, whether or not we agree with their choices.

The carbon tax may be a joke but Conservatives need it

2008-05-19T08:00:00.001-06:00

I hope the current flock of Liberal "strategists" stay on for the next federal election, I really do. They seem really keen on promoting Stephane Dion's championed "carbon tax" over the summer. This sense of priorities will serve everyone else well! This is their crippling logic that will give the rest of us time to deal with establishing the political right on the federal level. You know, dealing with the "Red Tory" infestation that wounds so. The Liberals are giving time for this, after all.

This is the summer where Dion could be doing a barbecue blitzkrieg. "Cadscam" was debunked as the socialist conspiracy theory it really is (which I called months ago, but hey) and the party is still disorganized. The barbecue could be used to promote Dion personally, to party members divided while playing the "stab the leader in the back" classic, and to win over uncertain Canadians.

But the barbecue blitzkrieg would be too logical. We're talking about people that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of Frasier. So let's remember what we're dealing with here: the last of the effective strategists probably jumped boat when Paul Martin was clearly the next for succession of the red regime. Hence, Liberals now seem really keen on promoting the carbon tax.

They can't pull it off. There's no way this will elevate Liberals above opposition. Gas prices are high, the economy is uncertain, and people are financially in debt on average. Now they want to tax people for the stuff they use to be heating their homes? This is the time they're promoting it? I suppose this is a lesson that you shouldn't hire strategists with educational backgrounds that consist of phone-in colleges who primarily advertise during commercials between James Bond marathons and monster truck shows on TV.

Think of it as a jeweled gift from the Liberal strategists. While they're busy stalling ground with Canadian voters and stirring the pot with party members, the logical political junkies will be sorting out the Conservative Party of Canada.

Stephen Harper seems like a good political leader but has surrounded himself with "Red Tories" and we know what that means for governance and policy (supporting HRC abuse of subsection 13? Disgusting). At least the Liberals are buying the political right some time to sort before Mulroney 2.0 becomes the official Conservative governing approach.

Gag the unions, leave the rest of us be

2008-05-16T08:00:00.000-06:00

The elections gag proposed by Premier Ed Stelmach is misplaced. I can liken it only to solving a pest problem by napalming the land. In reality, the gag law is an insult to the freedoms which Albertans stand for and thrive in. But, at the very least, the pest problem is gone. The proposition by the Progressive "Conservative" Premier comes in the wake of the Albertans for Change campaign seen in the last provincial election.

Just so we're clear, the Albertans for Change campaign was awesome. Basically, a whole bunch of left-wing nuts backed by the big money of unions tried to sweep a well publicized campaign across our media outlets in an effort to make Alberta vote socialist in 2008. What they ended up doing was raising Ed Stelmach's profile, raising the Progressive "Conservative" profile, and raising the profiles of the left(er) wing alternatives. The end result? One of the largest majorities in Alberta's history. The PCs are out left for some time now, but I'd rather they lead a majority than any of the others (bar the Wildrose Alliance, which was humiliated and decimated in the 2008 provincial election).

It worked for George W. Bush down south and it worked up north for Ed Stelmach's PCs too: have the leftist groups rally with all their money and watch it backfire.

But again, just so we're clear, this is an insult to Albertans because it derails our freedom to raise issues in elections. I don't agree with election issues being set solely by political parties, especially when we're headed towards a two-party (or, worst case, a one party) state. Alberta has always stood up for this, with our courts shooting down restrictions on our freedom of expression - even some imposed on the federal level.

Then again, I don't agree with unions using the forced dues of members for the partisan purposes of the few bureaucrats at their top. That's exploitation, and in a disturbingly disgusting form might I add.

What we need is to gag the unions themselves. They've overstayed their welcome, and are no longer needed given our courteous labour laws, anyway. Done. Problem solved. It would be nice to see exploitative unions not using their forced dues for their own hack activities, but that unfortunately goes along with our current freedoms. That's why the roots of the problem can be hit: by maximizing the individual - which comes with the abolition of workers' unions.

Either way, there's no need for a provincial gag. Just gag the unions and leave the rest of us be!

Conservatives and freedom, so what's happening?

2008-05-14T08:00:00.000-06:00

If you're a legitimate conservative that's also a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, you're not pulling your weight and not voicing your own opinion. Basically speaking, you should start writing letters to the party and voice the need for a change of direction. A few weeks ago, I made a posting titled 'Reasons why legitimate conservatives should remain optimistic' in which I basically tried to ensure conservatives that there was reason to remain hopeful for the Conservative government. If I'd placed the idea into the drafts mode to return to it today, I probably would've deleted it. Quickly. Oh the difference a few weeks make.

Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, supports the Orwellian thought crime enforcement that is section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Liberal MP Keith Martin (yes, a Liberal) is more in tune with freedoms in this country than the Justice Minister and the governing party. Meanwhile, the heap of Reform-style promises to Alberta from the last election are still exactly that - promises. Even after 829 days of Conservatives in office.

In a recent news article titled Harper at 'war' with federal institutions: Dion, (Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News Service, May 11/08) it is noted that Stephane Dion is attacking the government for Reform-rooted libertarian approaches. I don't know if any of Dion's strategy notes were scrambled, fried, and lost in translation but he makes the government sound like a real supporter of freedom, suspicious of the state and trusting the individual.

If only.

The article makes the government sound great, based mostly on Dion's criticisms. I still stand by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, but I'm starting to politically relate to my inner Guns N' Roses fan waiting for the Chinese Democracy album (delayed multiple times, has been in the recording studio for over a decade with still no release date in sight).

Perhaps I'm just better off not thinking about what a majority government would look like?

Why people stand by today's Liberals: your ideas

2008-05-12T08:00:00.001-06:00

This is a lengthy read, but if you're curious as to why Liberals still have a consistent support base, this is valued reading to you. Last Friday I decided to ask you people to weigh in on why you think people stand behind Stephane Dion's Liberals. So here's the run-down of anonymous opinions from my mostly right-wing audience. It seemed like a legitimate question, as to why a disorganized party plagued by infighting and a driving fear of facing voters makes second in popularity right now.

My own view is partly that the Liberals are established and long-standing in this country and thus have a loyalist voting base that is capable of standing by the Liberal brand. The glory of the internet is partly the exchange and development of ideas.

One explanation I received is the catering to massive interest groups. An explanation reads that "Liberals have nurtured so many special interest groups and single issue entities. The taxpayer is now the sole source of funding to these groups, thus, they must back the Liberals to ensure continuation of funding. With the Liberals out of power, no other party is willing to smuggle hundreds of thousands yearly to the thousands of clicks and hangers on. They must ensure the return of the Liberals and thus the return/continuation of their funding. Whether it be the teachers [sic] unions, hundreds of women's groups, thousands of ethnic/cultural organizations or the tens of thousands employed by the poverty industry, they all depend on Liberals funnelling [sic] taxpayers [sic] cash to keep their pockets [sic] full. This is why they and those who feed off them consistently back that one party despite all the damage it does to our society."

I think the the NDP is more notorious for that sort of thing, but the explanation holds strongly for securing interest votes.

This one made sense to me, particularly because of the explanation at the end. I changed the names, assuming they weren't already changed.

"I used to work in Downsview (Toronto). One night I was in the shipping office with 3 people ([Ferdinand] age 33, [Claudius] age 30, and [Madonna] age 27) one from Chile and and the other two from Philippines. [Madonna] said "... I am studying for my citizenship test and would like an explanation of the views of the different parties".
I explained that the Conservatives are who I vote for and gave the reasons for my loyalty to the party then I explained that the Liberals are actually socialists and have certain policies that I cannot agree with because I am [a] Christian who is also a constitutional libertarian. [Madonna] said that she talked to her husband about it before and he said "in studying for the test, I would agree with the Conservative party on most issues".
So, we have [Madonna] on board, then [Ferdinand] speaks up and says he would never vote Conservative because we don't want to let people into the country. Frank then explained that the Liberals are the party of immigrants because "Trudeau let us in and we need to pay Trudeau back"; ... [Claudius] agreed with [Ferdinand] that the Liberals are the only party for the immigrants. I told them that Trudeau is out of power and is in fact dead, and they weren't old enough to have voted for him. That didn't seem to matter.
I asked both of them where they heard that the Conservatives didn't like immigrants, [Ferdinand] said he just grew up knowing this and [Claudius] said he has always thought that as well. I told them that I am Conservative and am married to an immigrant.
I asked them to examine the way they live their lives and see how that fits with how they vote.
[Ferdinand] said he and his family has always voted Liberal and doesn't see any need to change now. [Claudius] was called out to the production floor so I didn't get a final comment from him.

I think that many new Canadians and old Canadians have a party that they vote for and that doesn't change unless something drastic happens. We political junkies sometimes think that everyone examines the issues everyday and comes to rational conclusions based on the latest facts available; when in reality many people just go out and vote for their party come what may.
When pollsters ask who are you going to vote for many people just blindly say Liberal because that is their party, and they are never going to vote Conservative as long as they are being brought up believing that we hate immigrants."

Insightful? I thought so.

This one hit the nail on the head (the good way):

"I have a friend who is a musician. He is an artist, and thus considers himself liberal (not as in the Liberal Party) by nature. His prime concerns are, as he puts it, a) equal rights, b) education, and c) funding for the arts. As such, he sees these three areas as being in the realm of importance of only the Liberal Party. Because of how politics has gotten so mired in corruption and scandal and has become more of a mud-slinging contest than anything else, he has stopped paying attention to politics in general and has decided to park his vote with the one party who seems to be taking care of the things that he feels are important. As I see it -- and I've tried telling this to people in the CPC -- if the CPC wants to attract both those "unsure" voters (who tend to do the most parking) as well as supporters of other parties, they have to rise above the mud-slinging and start venturing into those areas that matter most to the Canadians they have not attracted yet.

If there is one group of people that the CPC has ignored entirely and has never, NEVER gone after, it is the arts and culture community. The Conservatives have pandered to the sports people with tax credits and have been seen as hockey loving, Tim Horton's drinking types, they have ignored much to their own peril a very vocal and active community. Just look at the furor over Bill C-10 and how much press that has gotten. Just look at the furor over the copyright law issues. And this has made a dent, both in the arts communities and in the younger crowd to whom these issues are important.

If the CPC is stuck in the mud, it's about time they stop pandering to the same old people they always do, and start to actual care -- and I mean really give a damn -- about the people who don't fall into their present mode. My own belief is that if the CPC gutted the CBC to do nothing but broadcast Canadian content and took that money and transferred it directly to supporting the arts community, you'd see a wholesale shift in attitudes by the arts community in general. And, as I once wrote to PM Harper, a Conservative government getting the arts community to switch to their side would be the ULTIMATE public relations coup against the Liberals, as the Liberals have always been seen as the voice of the artists and the creative types. That kind of shift in public opinion would make those people who have parked their vote sit up and say, "Hey, they must be doing something right to get the one group in society who has always hated Conservatives to actually support them."

Too bad nobody is listening to me."

This one had a few ideas that nobody touched on:

"As I am a Quebecker, I will start with Quebec. English Quebec in Montreal and the West Island vote Liberal because they are still perceived as the saviours of Canadian federalism. Of course they have had M.P.'s in Parliament for so long from these ridings that they have built up a lot of I-owe-you's and have a number of volunteers for any election.

Secondly, there are a number of immigrants in these areas and, for the same reasons, they tend to vote Liberal. Some groups are beginning to take a look at the Conservatives with their family-oriented policies and (in the case of the Jewish community) anti-terrorist stances.

Elsewhere there is a limit to how many voters Conservatives can reap, because of the progressive nature of Quebec society (except in rural areas) and the history of scepticism [sic] towards any military engagement.

One other factor is applicable across the country (perhaps less so in Alberta) - most teachers, college and university profs are left-leaning, green and anti-war. So they have lots of chances to brainwash their charges. Ditto journalists.

Also, compared to the United States, most people live far from military bases and have no relatives or children in the armed forces. I think Harper would be getting much more credit for his support for [Afghanistan] and Israel if more people have some contact with those fighting for our country.

I don't know how, but if more young people knew of our military history I believe there would be more love of this country and less acceptance of the righteous peacekeeping model of how our soldiers should be deployed.

In Quebec (probably too late now) Radio Canada should be closer to the C.B.C. These two solitudes of broadcasting have left Quebeckers believing that English Canada has no culture and has nothing to offer them. And the rest of Canada has no idea of how unilingual Quebeckers have carved out their own nation (with the help of our money of course)..."

And, of course, I received some short few-liners. One I thought should be more elaborated on is "Harper cannot create a strong team." There were some that questioned the accuracy of polls (which the recent US presidential primaries make a strong case for) and one that said Canadians stand behind Liberals because "most Canadians are stupid."

Thoughtful overall? I thought so.

Note: Emails I've posted are in entirety the property of those who sent them to me, I take no liability for their accuracy or originality. For confidentiality, I've removed the names of senders and have changed names within explanations. Some editing (noted in square brackets and use of ellipsis) was needed to make this selection presentable.

Why do people still stand by Dion's Liberals? No, I'm seriously asking

2008-05-09T08:00:00.001-06:00

Note to readers: Why do you think thousands of voters still stand by Liberals? Are you at all disappointed that Conservatives can't seem to break a stale-mate in the polls with them? Let me know at me@petercsillag.com and I'll have a run-down of anonymous opinions on Monday.

I know that I often question or try to figure out why Stephane Dion's Liberals are still capable of polling 30% support, but that's because it remains a great mystery to me. Recently, Liberals used the question period in the House of Commons to investigate Maxim Bernier's ex-girlfriend, not policy. Meanwhile, the recent carbon tax schemes proposed by Stephane Dion's Liberals are also somewhat reminiscent of a scheme introduced by Joe Clark's minority government back in the day. Joe Clark's government was toppled by an NDP which included Bob Rae, opposed to that tax scheme, yet Bob Rae is part of the Liberals now introducing a similar carbon tax proposal. It doesn't ring the bell of sense at all.

10 things Conservatives need to face, ideally soon

2008-05-07T08:00:00.001-06:00

Although Stephen Harper's Conservatives seem to be running a careful show in Ottawa, they need to overcome ten (count'em, ten) problems before they can move beyond being a minority government. Basically speaking, I really think the governing party needs to overcome the majority of these problems before anything better can happen come the next election.

1. The stereotype of a far right agenda - It still exists and votes are still being lost. Although the minority Conservative government is with accomplishment, don't expect radical capitalism. But some people are and they're voting against it, despite there not being an "it".

2. The stereotype of being "too obedient" to the United States - The whole "tight" relationship had been idealized on both sides, but is only a few decades young for most Canadians. Despite much cultural assimilation, a lot of Canadians have a friendly bitter attitude towards the southern neighbors and are hesitant about any government that's too friendly.

3. The stereotype of catering to corporate interests - This one exists despite there being noticeable action from this government against corporations doing as they please, the stereotype thrives. Proposals to regulate natural "medicines" have their perks but are seen too much as catering to pharmaceutical corporations. This stuff gets misinterpreted and it wounds in the ballot box.

4. The environment - This issue could have been faced early on, but was neglected somewhat in 2006. Generally, the Harper government mis-valued this one and still needs to do damage control quickly.

5. Inspiration from atop - The best way to secure votes is to be inspirational to Canadians. Stephen Harper is inspirational, but in a "look what an ordinary Canadian can accomplish" sort of way. Aside from the neo-socialist/commie flirtation, there may be a need for a few references and ideas from people like Obama and Trudeau when it comes to inspiring the public.

6. Accountability - Albeit not directly related to the government, the bad news brought up by the quarrel of sorts with Elections Canada and the resurrected Brian Mulroney have caused some bad impressions to be given.

7. Privacy Issues - Canadians are concerned about their privacy and security, probably more than the partisan bickering in Ottawa. A successful government needs to address such concerns.

8. The West still wants in! - There's been more talk than action on this one, and all of the Quebec leniencies aren't being taken well, no sir.

9. The 'religious right' stereotype - Enough said.

10. Liberal loyalty - It seems inconceivable that 30% of voters would vote for Stephane Dion's Liberals because they actually think they're performing exceptionally. The opposition has a history and many are loyal to their past achievements. People are voting Liberal because that is what they know, if that makes sense.

If Stephen Harper's Conservatives deal with a majority of these, in addition to our question-marked economy, then the next federal election will be a good one.

A modest explanation for Conservative poll numbers

2008-05-05T08:00:00.002-06:00

There's one very specific reason that the federal government rests in minority status still, and one that can be best explained by the contrasts with popular leaders of the past: Stephen Harper doesn't inspire moat Canadians, to be blunt. The Conservatives have spent most of their governing time thus far enjoying public support in the 30%+range, occasionally waltzing into majority government territory. Some people are content with Conservative poll numbers in recent months, citing the accomplishment of overcoming a Liberal-infested government system and still holding more public support than the other parties. But why doesn't the average Canadian hold public support?

People look to party leaders when deciding public support, and the inspirational ones are the ones that have thrived in Canadian democracy. Stephen Harper is a down-to-earth sort of Prime Minister, the kind that personally seems to fit in as an average Canadian. Most public appearances and speeches are characteristic of exactly that, an ordinary Canadian with no bells or whistles attached. We've finally brought forward a Prime Minister who is ordinary and not an anglo-rooted Quebec native with the right connections!

Canada's political climate favors people who can inspire Canadians to excellence, somebody voters can look up to as a leader who will guide them. It really is pathetic, it really is. Yet this is how popular leaders Pierre Trudeau and even Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney (briefly) won enormous amounts of votes. US Presidential hopeful Obama seems to be popular among Canadians because he seems to cater inspiration.

I can't underline how pathetic it is if you look at it for face value, but that's politics.

Stephen Harper doesn't fit this category of aimless inspiration for change, and neither do Stephane Dion or Jack Layton. They all seem to be ordinary Canadians. This is healthier for a democracy, mind you, but simultaneously unhealthy as far as the endless line of minority governments go.

Canada won't be governed under a majority government until one of the parties becomes so disgraced that voters will flock to the other, or alternatively, somebody inspires the majority.

Alberta invests in a better enviro-image, misses mark

2008-05-02T07:00:00.002-06:00

Given the spending hike in the last budget, I have little problem in philosophy with Ed Stelmach's government blowing $25 million on a campaign to better the image of the (horrible environmental train wreck) oilsands projects in northern Alberta. After all, if there's enough money taken from us to make surpluses yet hike budgets, the least that could be done is to make the province attractive for business. Collecting more taxes than needed is basically robbery on the government's part, so the least they could do is invest some to clean up an image and attract business so some segment of the population benefits in some way. Right?

Money can't undo past wrongs, like the nearly 500 ducks that died a few days ago from landing in a toxic pond. Money can indirectly solve future problems, but not the past. There's no co-existing past and no co-existing future, just a fluid present - and that's where we need work.

The source of protest and annoyance are the environmental catastrophes that the oilsands are causing Alberta's environment and wildlife. The problem with Stelmach's spending is that re-branding doesn't work too well if you have the same product and people don't care for it. No matter how many times Pepsi changes their labels, Coca-Cola is still more popular because they enjoy it more (despite the fact that Coke tastes more sugary and both are grossly unhealthy anyway).

In this case, they can spend all they want but people are still going to be annoyed and upset unless there's more pressure for environmental responsibility. The bad news for Stelmach's government and the oil companies is that environmental lobby groups in the United States are pissed off and very well funded. I have no idea how they came to such prominence, but they have, and so the $25 million image campaign won't help unless the act gets cleaned up too.

A lot of Canadians and environmental groups in the United States don't get worked up and blow enough money to make Alberta's $25 million image investment look minuscule because they're bored and need somewhere to throw money and something to bitch about until something better comes along. That's somewhat of a lie because some do, but you get what I'm saying.

The government can't buy their way out of this one, no sir. They're just going to have to live up to obligations as fellow human beings sharing the environment with everyone else and nature.

Worst of all, until the projects clean up along with the image, we're going to have to put up with hippies and their annoying "green" groups bombarding us with their drivel. Why can't we just bus all the enviro-hippies up there to clean up the mess? Two problems solved with one solution!

... and so reality says to the Ontario government, "eat it!"

2008-04-30T07:48:00.000-06:00

The political equivalent of a swift kick to the groin has descended upon Ontario's governing Liberals (dare I say steel-toed boot?). Major media outlets this week reported on a TD Bank Financial Group report which forecast that Ontario is on the way to achieving "have-not"status, qualifying Ontario as needing to receive equalization payments, meanwhile Newfoundland and Labrador is to achieve "have" status with a $544 million surplus (the first time they've hit "have" status in Canada). If I'm not mistaken, Ontario is (was, ha!) the only province to have never in history held a "have-not" status.

Who here gets to number amongst the chosen few who get to say, "I told you so" this week? Not long ago, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggested Ontario was on the way to "have-not" status and investing there would be a horrible idea. This of course raised tension with Ontario's popular government which, more or less, vehemently disagreed.

I never doubted for a second that Jim Flaherty was wrong about the Ontario prediction. I did, however, agree with Warren Kinsella's online suggestions that picking a bone with Ontario's McGuinty-led government was a really bad idea for the minority federal Conservatives. Actually, I still think that one's going to come back and give a few blows before the next federal election.

I could rub it in for days about what this says about a Liberal-run provincial government and their horrible taxation policies, but I'm going to say that this whole mess says more to do with the flawed nature of equalization payments.

You see, to an extent I'm going to agree with Premier Dalton McGuinty when he inquires why it is that his soon-to-be-have-not status province sends billions more away in equalization payments than it receives from Ottawa. This mess wouldn't be happening if it weren't for equalization payments. Those very billions sent off could have very well been put to good use in Ontario to restrict this mess from ever actually happening. Not that I'd have expected Liberals to put it to good use, but the opportunity was very much there had equalization payments never been in the fold so I can't rule it out.

McGuinty is (probably) the most popular Liberal Premier in Ontario since Mitch Hepburn, so obviously he has a lot to lose here. Basically, the economy issue can still screw the guy if the provincial Tories play it right come the next election. Pointing fingers will only work for so long as Ontario voters feel more with McGuinty's Liberals than with the federal Conservatives (unfortunately true).

Equalization payments are a scam in the socialist framework of Canada, and this whole scenario reveals exactly that. McGuinty's Liberals have a lot riding on this should it blow over, and depending on how it does, so do Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Could Canada have another FLQ?

2008-04-28T08:23:00.000-06:00

Some news outlets reported a recent vandalism of Pierre Trudeau's grave site, in which the words 'FLQ' and 'traitor' in French were spray-painted on the former Prime Minister's tomb. The way you read the articles, especially the international reports, you'd think the Front de Liberation du Quebec - Canada's worst contemporary terrorist group - was waking up again. The only awakening of the FLQ is when our schools review to our schoolchildren that troubled period in Canada's 20th century, all the while ignoring centuries of Canadian history - like the history of New France and French culture, which would exactly explain the direct origin of Quebec separatist culture.

The Trudeau vandalism, which could just the work of some devious French-Canadian teenagers, does raise an interesting idea. What if the FLQ were to step out again? Given that the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois seem to have failed the idea of separatism by democratic formation, the radical separatist (should there still be any under the age of 70) would have few peaceful options aside from ignoring it or writing letters.

That said, a modern FLQ group would be disadvantaged by today's security. Most newer residential areas have grouped mailboxes per street which would narrow a mailbox bomb culprit to either the mail delivery folk or somebody you live with. Security around officials hasn't caught up with the post-9/11 reality, but I suspect it would the moment CSIS raises some red flags.

How would our modern government respond? Would they do a Trudeau-style federalist move and invoke a rebuffed War Measures Act? I suspect not in our age of minority governments, particularly given the harsh debate treatment that history has given Trudeau's use of it. Either that or the government wouldn't want to put up with the headache of today's culture, in which the War Measures Act would probably result in hundreds of "personal discomfort" and "loss of enjoyment of life" lawsuits valued at $50,000 each.

Could Canadians put political apathy and partisan differences aside and swallow a War Measures Act and leave debate for later? Or would it be the striking public opinion divide like the Patriot Act in the United States after 9/11? Unless matters with a modern FLQ were far worse than they were last time, I doubt any of our elected officials would pass it, probably by fear of public backlash.

I doubt the college kid crowd and the others would lend them such support as they did once upon a time. In fact, I don't think Canadians today - in Quebec or elsewhere - would generally seem them as anything but extremists. Then again, the FLQ were of course Marxists wanting Quebec's separatism to also be a socialist revolution, and they wouldn't have a hard time finding socialists in the Ontario/Quebec region if they really tried.

The only real asset they'd have today, compared to when they executed back in our parents's generation, is the age of around the clock television panic and internet hysteria. Terrorism could not exist without an emphasizing mass-media because otherwise nobody would know about it. An international audience and national hysteria could be obtained quicker today than ever before.

Canada is also off the wall in terms of organization and bureaucratic efficiency. According to the Supreme Court, police can't even have drug-sniffing dogs when most needed. Such ridiculousness would only aid an FLQ.

But Quebec isn't today what it was then. The economy is different, the culture has evolved, and thus the issues are different. If the FLQ, hypothetically, were to reactivate, I'd guess it would be very different than their 1963 to 1970 cells/