CBC's the National Puff Ball Immigration Piece

As Guidy Mamann of the immigration law firm Mamann & Associates notes the immigration minister is not required by law to process applications as they come in.

“In an interview last week with CTV’s Mike Duffy, Finley confirmed that our backlog now stands at about 925,000 applications. The government maintains that the Minister needs these powers to cherry pick applicants who are needed here on a priority basis. She was asked by Duffy, if under the present system, the department was able to fast track, say a welder who was desperately needed in Fort McMurray. Finley answered “The way the law stands now we have to process the oldest application first. If that person is number 600,000 in line we’ve got a lot of applications to get through before that”.

This is simply not true. Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet “may make any regulation ... relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals” including “selection criteria, the weight, if any to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria… the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year” etc. In fact, in the case of Vaziri v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Federal Court held in September 2006 that our current legislation “authorize[s] the Minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of PR applicants” without even a
regulation being passed. Accordingly, Finley has more than enough power under
our current legislation to make virtually any changes that she wants subject to
the Charter.”

In other words, Conservative changes to immigration act are largely redundant. Which begs the question why all the hoopla? One theory is that the Conservatives deliberately tired to force the Liberals into an election by stirring up various immigrant groups. The theory I favor though is that the Conservatives look to be trying to solve a problem that they made worse by initially cutting staff at embassies and consulates. Of course, the media, the CBC in particular, have overstated the problem and confused the issue by implying that there is but one long waiting list instead of several long waiting lists and many short ones. After all, how long someone takes to get processed does not depend upon how many people are applying to immigrant to Canada world wide but how many are applying at a particular location. It may take someone in Warsaw 1.8 years to be processed, but someone in Bogotá over 16 years.

In addition to making factual errors, the CBC sets up a false dilemma. The piece gives the impression that there but two competing visions. Either Canada treats would immigrants as mere replacement parts, or Canada is so dumb as to allow and 86 year old to immigrant to Canada. Pace the CBC, allowing an 86 year old to immigrant to Canada is not evidence of our humanitarian tradition, but evidence of a political corruption. As for the Tories, forget skilled workers, what they are most interested in is allowing enough unskilled or semiskilled guest workers in to do such things as undermine a burgeoning labour movement in the oil sands. In so doing they aim to payoff another constituency – big business. Indeed, looking past the oil fields you would certainly never know from watching the CBC peace that following are the types of jobs, according to what is on the government website, Alberta is hopping to fill through immigration: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. Of course, neither the Tories nor the Alberta government particularly wants these kinds of workers to stay around forever. Given how successful Europe’s guest worker programs have been in creating an underclass and fostering xenophobia and racism, the Conservatives eager to expand the number of “temporary workers”. Maybe CBC should do a piece about just how successful Turkish guest workers have made out in Germany.

Both the politicians and the CBC seem to have lost site what the primary purpose of immigration is. It is not means of paying off various constituencies and it is not a litmus test for whether one is dough headed bleeding heart. Immigration is the only available means Canada has by which to tackle a demographic crisis and to make up for a birth rate that is well below replacement levels. The problem is that average immigrant to Canada is no younger than the average Canadian. The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another. Now Canada is not as bad off as Europe. Professor Charles Kupchan notes, "today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1." If Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050! Not only will there be a long and sustained pension crisis, but since the European population is on track to shrink quite rapidly, for that reason alone, prospects for economic growth do not look good. Despite a having a high immigration rate by European standards (Germany has highest percentage of foreign born residents in Europe), according to a UN report at its current pace the German population will drop by 10 million. Italy, which has a much lower immigration rate, will loose 15 million. However, the demographic situation Canada is indeed dire. The country must get younger if it is be able to sustain the same level of social services as the baby boom generation ages and moves into old age.

So how about this for a vision of what our immigration system should designed to do. By allowing upwards 400,000 – 500,000 young, skilled, multi lingual, educated immigrants a year Canada hopes to 1) advert a looming demographic crunch and 2) come to posses the most educated, diverse, connected and skilled workforce in the world. This will certainly mean greatly increasing the number of immigration officers in second world countries, such as Brazil, with large pools of young educated workers who speak English (It is unacceptable that in a country of 185 million interviews are only conducted in Brasilia and Sao Paulo and not in other cities, most notably Rio). It may also mean limiting family unification to spouses and dependents under 18, regiging of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth, and may mean focusing the attention of immigration staff strictly to the task at hand by only allowing people to apply for refugee status while in Canada, but if that is what it takes that is ok. Canada’s future well being is more important that any narrow political agenda.

Carbon Tax: Bad Idea

As the price of food and fuel steadily climb, the Liberals are “seriously considering” making things worse by introducing a regressive carbon tax. This is a terrible idea both politically and otherwise. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080428.DION28/TPStory/National
The Liberals are not going to win an election with a new tax as the cornerstone of their campaign. Stick with a cap and trade system.

There is no such thing as “revenue neutral” carbon tax and that is way Gordon Campbell, who despite what people in Toronto might think is only slightly more progressive than Mike Harris, likes it so much. (Gordan Campbell cut the minimum wage for Christ sakes people.) It is a way of shifting more of the tax burden onto lower income earners. Students, for example, do not pay much if anything in the way of income taxes. They are going to see there costs of living shoot up dramatically.

As for the Liberals most recent blather about the economy, it is nice to see them waking up to the fact that the Conservatives want to limit the ability of Federal government to expand social services. However, the Liberals need to offer an alternative vision, complete with concrete policies that will benefit all Canadians. The longer the Liberals go without re-embracing universality the more academic, hypothetical and distant such warnings become.

Conservative Out and Out In and Out Lies

1) The Conservatives claimed not have a copy of the warrant and then magically released the warrant they did not have to the selected media types before the warrant was released.

2) Although the Conservatives say they are only suing elections Canada for the 700,000 plus in rebates they are entitled to, one of the purposes of the suit is disguise the fact that 11 Conservative MPs and 6 failed Conservative candidates received $421,731.88 in rebates.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/april/28/rebates/&c=2

3) Some of the ads had no tag lines. So all the noise the Conservatives are making about what separates a national ad from a local ad is the tag line is a red herring.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080428.welectionQP0428/BNStory/National/home

4) Pierre Poilievre admitted that the Conservatives altered invoices. On Politics with Don Newman, Poilievre likened to situation to a party receiving a bill at a restaurant that is not separated into individual bills. What the Conservatives did he says was they teased out what each candidate owed, GST and all. Why Leblanc did not call him on this I do not know. It was not a “good analogy”. If I wanted to receive a tax deduction, it would be bad enough if I tried submit some scribbling on napkin as proof I had lunch at such and such a place. If I want to deduct it, I need to ask the server to print me off my own bill. This would not be a problem for an Earls server nor would it have been a problem for Retail Media. However, it would be damn right criminal if I faked the restaurants bill, letterhead and all, and presented this as the real thing and that is what the Conservatives did in at least one case. In number of other cases they submitted “invoices” that contained the same spelling mistake.

In and Out scandal: The Crux of The Matter

There is no clause that prohibits local ads from being identical to national ads. However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether the local candidates incurred the said expenses. Elections Canada, rightly, balked at the notion that money that was transferred to local ridings and then immediately transferred back constituted a local “expense”. After all, suppose my brother transferred money into my business account and I immediately transferred it back out. It would be a pretty neat trick if I was able to claim the act of transferring that money back into my brother’s account as legitimate business expense, but alas Revenue Canada would not kindly to such a ploy on behalf. Conservatives thought Elections Canada would be more gullible. As to the accusation of exceeding election spending limits, if my brother was to transfer money into my business account and then I immediately transferred the money out, I could not then declare the money transfer as a business expense even if my brother went on to spend that money on materials that if had I purchased myself I would have been able to deduct as business expense. I did not make the purchase. My brother’s business is not mine and neither is a national party’s business the business of the local candidate. The Elections Act treats the two as different.

National Post on the “In and Out” Scheme

The National Post all but conceded that the Conservatives broke the election law, but they could not leave it at that.

“In the mean time, it needs to be said that this is a useless and undemocratic law. Like most of our campaign finance laws, it is based on the false premise that severely restricting how much politicians may raise and spend to get elected will take the influence of Big Money out of our elections and create a level playing field for all parties and candidates.

There is little evidence that such limits produce the benefits claimed for them. Indeed, in the United States, which has the most expensive elections in the world, for every free-spending campaign that wins thanks to its ability to saturate the airwaves there are almost two more that lose.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=461930

Not only is this nonsense, the candidates that raise and spend the most money have a far better chance of winning, it is also irrelevant. The issue at hand is the influence of Big Money and whether there is a perfect correlation between a candidate outspending his opponent and winning. In the States the problem is both parties are heavily indebted to big money. A lack of party discipline, the ridiculously stupid bicameral system in the States partly explains why the US is the only Western country without universal health care or mandated vacation time and big money explains the rest.

“What is required to make elections "fair" is transparency -- letting voters see who is contributing to which campaigns, and how much."

Good one. The National Post wants one and all to believe that even though corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars each US election cycle that this buys them no influence.

Conservative Immigration Reforms Redundant

Putting quota on the number of refugee applications and on the number of grandparents and parents that can be sponsored, may free up some time to process skilled worker applications and in this respect the Conservative immigration “reforms” have been welcomed by some. However, as Guidy Mamann of the immigration law firm Mamann & Associates notes the immigration minister already has such powers to fast track. (HT Red Tory)

“In an interview last week with CTV’s Mike Duffy, Finley confirmed that our backlog now stands at about 925,000 applications. The government maintains that the Minister needs these powers to cherry pick applicants who are needed here on a priority basis. She was asked by Duffy, if under the present system, the department was able to fast track, say a welder who was desperately needed in Fort McMurray. Finley answered “The way the law stands now we have to process the oldest application first. If that person is number 600,000 in line we’ve got a lot of applications to get through before that”.

This is simply not true. Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet “may make any regulation ... relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals” including “selection criteria, the weight, if any to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria… the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year” etc. In fact, in the case of Vaziri v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Federal Court held in September 2006 that our current legislation “authorize[s] the Minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of PR applicants” without even a regulation being passed. Accordingly, Finley has more than enough power under our current legislation to make virtually any changes that she wants subject to the Charter.”

So what are the Conservatives really up to? The legislation is just a smoke screen. The evidence suggests that the Conservatives real aim is to allow more unskilled or semiskilled guest workers in inorder to do such things as undermine a burgeoning labour movement in the oil sands and for that they need cover. After all, it goes without saying that short sighted crony capitalism is recipe for disaster. There is ample evidence that armies of disenfranchised workers, whether they be illegal or guest, are a great way to, create an underclass, suppress wages, encourage black marketing, increase xenophobia and racism.

Rather than pandering to various immigrant groups and pretending that allowing someone to sponsor their grandparents or a criminal adult son (e.g., Robert Dziekanski) with no money, skills, education or ability to speak French or English is not ridiculously stupid policy that should scrapped ASAP, the Liberals need to sketch out a vision for what the party aims to accomplish by targeting skilled immigrants. The vision I hope that the Liberals would put forth is this. By allowing upwards 400,000 – 500,000 young, skilled, multi lingual, educated immigrants a year Canada hopes to 1) advert a looming demographic crunch and 2) come to posses the most educated, diverse and skilled workforce in the world. In order to make this vision a reality the following is likley necessary.

1) Only allow people to apply for refugee status while in Canada. Canada can search out refugees in times of crisis.

2) Limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18

3) Re gig the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth

4) Greatly increase the number of immigration officers in second world countries, such as Brazil, with large pools of young educated workers who speak English. (It is unacceptable that in a country of 185 million that interviews are only conduced in Brasilia and Sao Paulo and not in other cities, most notably Rio)

The Moral Majority is a Myth: The Liberals must not pander to Social Conservatives if they want to win

Thomas Frank has it ass backwards. What the Republican Party got right was not in convincing working class Americans to vote against their economic self interest. Rather it was in convincing the Democratic Party that it needed to “triangulate” itself into ideological no man’s land in order to win. As Princeton’s Larry Bartels has demonstrated, http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:yivC-gX3DSMJ:www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf+Larry+Bartels&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca the white working class has not abandoned the Democratic Party. Indeed, they voted for Kerry in stronger numbers than they did JFK or Hubert Humphrey. Nor do the worker class voters place more attention to social issues than economic issues; the opposite it overwhelming true. Working class voters place far more of emphasis on economic issues than do any other segment of voters. Indeed, the higher up the economic ladder one goes the more emphasis voters place on social issues and the less on economic ones. In 2004 well to do placed 10 times as much importance on social issues than did the working class.

Little wonder then why white rural worker class voters overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Obama. She gives them a lot more meat and potatoes then he does. Conversely the much more socially liberal Obama plays much better with urban well off then she does. If the Democrats are going to win the next election, they need to combine the strength of both. They need to become more socially liberal and more fiscally liberal.

What holds true for the Democrats holds doubly true for the Liberals in Canada. There is not a large segment of affluent evangelicals standing in the Liberals way the way there is for the Democrats in the States. The Liberals need to return to 1968. They need to offer universal social programs (e.g., universal dental care and Pharmacare) and social liberalism (e.g., legalized marijuana, euthanasia and perhaps even prostitution) on steroids. This is what won them every province, save Alberta, in1968. They need to be reminded how wrong a cynical Liberal's forecast was when he said the Liberal slogan for the 1968 election should be the following. "For abortion, homosexuality and easy divorce - vote Liberal!"

Immigration: the Liberals lack Vision and Coherent Policy

I hope Liberals have the good sense not go to polls over changes to the Immigration and Refugee Act. The Liberals lack a compelling vision and their messaging is ineffective, ineffectual, scattered and times pathetic. The source of the problem is that Liberals deluded themselves into believing yet again that coherent policy is not needed. So long as a piece of legislation targets enough constituencies it is a political winner. Policy be damned.

The problem is that if you brining down the government on this issue you should have a compelling vision and policy that embodies the principles set forth in this vision. If the government is brought down over this it is not going to limited to immigrant community. Furthermore even to the extent that is issue mainly of issue to various ethnic groups, the Liberals do not have the resources, governmental or otherwise, to narrow cast. They are not going to be able to use the public purse, the way the Conservatives repeatedly and shamelessly do, to run an expensive ad campaign promoting something that has not become law yet.

The immigration issue is in a microcosm of what is wrong with the Liberal party. Gone is Trudeau’s grand liberal vision with its commitment to liberty equality and fraternity. It has been replaced strategy of targeting and feeding various component parts while letting the body politic starve for sustenance and substance. The history of Canada’s 39th government to date has been the story of Conservatives trying to undermine these Liberal networks and niche markets. This has turned the Liberals, once the champions of change, into the defenders of the status quo and the Conservatives into the agents of change. Needless to say, it is truly pathetic to see Canada’s so called Liberal party, in opposition no less, assumes such a role.

Stephen Taylor's aburd contention that the NRA champion Civil Rights

Look Stephen even in the US no one speaks about gun control as a civil rights issue. Whether it be the Civil Rights Act or what have you. Furthermore, “civil rights” are spoken of as having transcended national boundaries. They are part of the common heritage of the West. The Second amendment, however, is unique to the US. We in Canada do not have anything like it.

>>>> You falsely infer equivalency.

Really. Let me quote your own words back to you. “Heston is dwarfed by MLK as a civil rights leader, but a civil rights leader the NRA leader still was”

What would you put him on the same level as a Philip Randolph?

It is perverse to liken the fight to be able to drink from the same water fountain and the fight to be able to pack heat. But not only do you make such a perverse comparison you demand others make it as well. According to you, Canadian news agencies, and again there is no right to bare arms in this country, should accept the premises of the Michigan Militia, that gun laws are as discriminatory as Jim Crow.

Math for Laytonites

Last election the NDP took 7.5% of the popular vote in Quebec. Now polls consistently show the NDP at around 12% in Quebec. In other words, the NDP is up 4 to 5% in province with about a quarter of Canada’s voters. However, recent polls put the NDP below what they were in 2006 and hardly any poll since 2006 has showed the NDP rising above what the obtained in 2006. Ergo the NDP is bleeding voters elsewhere. This is certainly the case in greater Toronto. The NDP is loosing support both to the Liberals and the Greens there.

Toronto Center and Willowdale were not flukes; they are the future. The NDP is going to take it on the chin in the 905 and 416. If there was an election this spring chances are Layton might keep his seat, albeit barely, but Chow, Marston, Charlton and Nash will loose their seats.

The party needs to change focus.

1) The NDP party brass is delusional if they think they can A) utter the following and not be damaged by it and B) think it is actually a sound “gameplan”. “Damaging Harper and the Conservatives on ethical issues like the Cadman mess mainly helps the Grits, and that’s not in our gameplan.” It may be too late to do anything now but, if possible revive the Cadman thing in committee.

2) Stop talking about the economy. Does Layton honestly believe that Globe and Mail, and Can west global are going to give them a fair airing? I hope to god not and by the way this is not 1988.

3) Go back to its rural Western roots and focus on taking back voters that had abandoned them for the Reform Party in 1993 and then have gone on to vote Conservative. It still polls far better in BC and Sask than it ever has in Ontario, especially Toronto. They should also look to be fighting it out with the Conservatives to pick up the Liberal votes that have slowly been bleeding away over the years to both themselves and the Conservatives in Northern Ontario.

4) Look to Europe. The NDP used to try to import socially democratic ideas from Europe. What the hell happened? What little is left of that tradition is hardly stressed. Layton spends just as much time talking about the “weaponization of space”, as if foreign policy was somehow their bread and butter, as the party’s pharmacare plan.

Clarity of message and easy to understand policy is all important. 5 examples come readily to mind. Some are already part of the NDP platform.

A) National minimum wage

B) A national pharmacare program based upon the one currently available in the UK

C) 4 weeks paid vacation for all Canadians

D) dental care as part of health care

E) Universal Day Care for kids aged 1-5

5) Dump Layton; replace him with Muclair or even better Joe Comartin

Bill C-10 and Censorship

There is no better way of nipping would be Canadian productions in the bud. Without any objective standards as to what would contravene public decency, Canadian producers, who are already working on razor thin budgets will self censor or even not bother. After all, not only do they have to worry about catering to the whims of the current minister they have to worry about whims of future ministers. Tax credits may be retroactively taken away.

Stephen Taylor: Gun Rights and Civil Rights at Bottom it is all about Rights

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000980.html

Talk about a false sense of equivalency. Charlton, “from my cold dead hands”, Heston was no Martin Luther King. Plowing ahead with a NRA meeting in Denver shortly after the Columbine was affront to decency; it was no one’s dream. Describing such an action as "controversial" is being polite. It is about on par with saying thanks Charly I will take that now.

Layton's failed Toronto Plan

Layton can strut around and proclaim himself the second coming Christ all he wants. So long as Liberals refuse to bring down the government, the NDP’s vote is entirely academic and everyone knows that Jack’s act is nothing but fake bravado. Indeed, forget what Layton says his party’s record of voting against the government. Look at what the NDP are doing in committee and it clear that they focusing on the Liberals and not the Conservatives — just ask to the party strategists. “Damaging Harper and the Conservatives on ethical issues like the Cadman mess mainly helps the Grits, and that’s not in our gameplan.”

So how is the attack the Liberals first strategy working for the NDP? Not well. The NDP have lost their way. The NDP dreams of replacing the Liberals as the official opposition. Never mind the fact this goal is pie in the sky nonsense, the NDP have decided that best way achieving this goal is emulate, to a degree that would make Tommy Douglas role over in his grave, the sad sack Liberal party. The cause of social democracy de damned. In other words, a historical reversal has happened. Whereas the NDP used to be content to let the Liberals steal their policies, if it meant advancing the cause of social democracy, the NDP now seeks to copy the current Liberal party’s ideological incoherence.

Not surprisingly, NDP voters within the 416 and 905, the only region of the country in which NDP and Liberals actually compete, are moving back to the party that actually stands a chance of “getting results” for people during the next election. To make matters worse for the NDP, the emergence of the Green party has seen the urban environmental vote move from the NDP to the Green party. If there was an election this spring chances are Layton will keep his seat, albeit barely, but Chow, Marston, Charlton and Nash will loose their seats.

Of course, the NDP’s troubles are not limited to Toronto region. In BC Dawn Black, Penny and Bell would be in a world of hurt if there was an election called this spring.

It should be dawning on the NDP party brass that the party the best chance to grow the party is not in the 416 and 905. The NDP has to go back to its Western roots and focus on taking back voters that had abandoned them for the Reform Party in 1993 and then gone on to vote Conservative. It still polls far better in BC and Sask than it ever has in Ontario, especially Toronto. They should also look to be fighting it out with the Conservatives to pick up the Liberal votes that have slowly been bleeding away over the years to both themselves and the Conservatives in Northern Ontario. Lastly, they should be looking to pick up Bloc voters in Quebec. Yes Outremont was a Liberal seat, but it was Bloc vote that gave the NDP the victory and not erstwhile Liberal voters.

Immigration in Canada is a Success story the Conservatives Hope to End

Listening to the Conservatives you would think that past governments – Liberal ones anyway -- have horribly bungled the immigration issue. This is simply not true. Canada is rare among Western countries in that there is no large segment of society is calling on the government to close the doors to immigration. As a result, there is no Canadian Le Pen, Joerg Haider or SVP. Indeed, the main Conservative criticism thus far is that Canada is not processing the large number of people wanting to immigrate to Canada fast enough. Faced with a looming demographic crunch, European politicians must be asking themselves why they are not as lucky.

Still there are problems. Canada lets in far more refugees and humanitarian cases than it needs to and should, rules governing family unification are ridiculously stupid, the points system favors older immigrants over younger ones, the government needs to do a better job ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized and yes skilled worker applications need to be processed faster.

Conservative reforms might help, but no one really knows and that is the problem. Rather than tackling the more nettlesome issues head on the Conservatives have thrown out the rules and have instead said they make them up as the go along. It is hard to imagine a worse way of approaching the issue. The cure is promises to be far worse than what currently ails the patient.

Incidentally, the only thing that will speed up the rate at which current applications, some 926,000, are processed is to increase the number immigration officials and Conservatives have been cutting the number of officials and not adding more. Cherry picking a small segment of those already in line is hardly what your average Canadian imagines when they hear the Conservatives claim that they are going to reduce the current backlog, but that is all that Conservatives are doing.

Even more troublesome than the Conservative’s just trust us approach to immigration is their willingness to let in more guest workers. There is ample evidence that armies of disenfranchised workers, whether they be illegal or guest, are a recipe of disaster. It is great way to, create an underclass, suppress wages, encourage black marketing, increase xenophobia and racism.

Immigration and The Ghost of the Reform Party

Liberals trotted out the 1988 Reform Platform on immigration in attempt to tar the Conservatives.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/409009

So just what did the document say?

"Immigrants should possess the human capital necessary to adjust quickly and independently to the needs of Canadian society and the job market,"

The cruel irony of Canada’s immigration system is and has been for some time that while many immigrants have good enough educational and professional credentials get them admitted into the country in the first place, many professional bodies are much more discriminating. Canada’s immigrant communities are right to be mad about this. It is not unreasonable to believe that if someone is accepted into Canada because they are a doctor, say, that the path to them practicing medicine not be overly stringent and years in making. The government must to a better job of coordinating with various professional bodies.

"radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be."

Oh yes the loathsome coded messages that Reform party used to send out.

"immigration should be essentially economic in nature."

Of course it should be. However, such is the fear of offending someone that no one, not even the Conservatives, dared point out the ridiculousness of Dalton McGuinty’s comments on immigration. No skills, no English or French, no money, no entry. It should be that simple and it is that simple for people applying as a skilled worker.

Alas far too much credence is given to “family unification” in Canada. Robert Dziekanski is a great case in point. Given that no body wants to speak ill of Dziekanski least it be misconstrued that they are saying that his death was anything other than tragic, the press has been loath to point out just how patently absurd it is that Robert Dziekanski was ever allowed to immigrant to Canada in the first place. Dziekanski had a violent criminal record, had spent time in jail, did not speak French or English, had a spotty job history, and had no accredited skills to speak of. It bad enough that in Canada one can sponsor one’s grandparents it mind blowing that one can sponsor a violent criminal.

Family unification process in Canada is political boondoggle and is something the Liberals should be embarrassed about.

All that being said, I do not think it fair to tar the Conservatives with the Reform brush. It is no longer 1988. However, the Conservatives have left themselves wide open to this line of attack and really deserve to take it on the chin. Allowing the Minister of Immigration to override the rules of game opens the system up to all kinds of abuse. Worse, it undermines what has made the whole points system such a success. Namely, the system allows would be immigrant to get a clear idea as to whether they qualify as a skilled immigrant and gives them confidence that should they score more than 67 points and pay their $550, a large amount a many countries, that they are in. Leaving open the possibility that they could meet all the necessary requirements, but still be denied is not going to help Canada attract the best of the best. These people have other options and are going to go where they are assured of getting in.

I should say this is in closing. Of course, it is all fine and dandy to say the Conservatives are anxious to let in people capable of filling various kinds of jobs. However, the fact that the Conservatives continue to cut the service and staff at Canadian embassies and consulates speaks louder. There needs to be a bigger presence in places such as Rio, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Cairo, Nairobi, Kiev, Mumbai etc. Furthermore, if Canada wants more nurses or oil workers or engineers, or what have you, it is going to have to go to the universities and training centers and go get them.

Gun Deaths in Canada and the Gun Registry

Listening to some conservatives you would think the case against Gun Registry was open and shut: it does no good at all full stop.

However is the evidence consistent with such a stance? Hardly. Judge for yourself.

The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mh-sm/pdf/suicid_e.pdf

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06-2/rr06-2.pdf

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/perhlth66a.htm?sdi=suicide

The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.

The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0209XIE/2004000/t001_en.htm There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.

The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06-2/rr06-2.pdf

The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2006006.pdf The number of homicides as a percentage of the number attempted homicides has increased. http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf In other words, the attempted homicide rate has fallen even further than the homicide rate.

Conservative Cogito

In order to confront critics, who accused him and other Conservative MPs, aka the Blue Meanies, of lacking substance, Peter Van Loan came up with his own version of Descartes' famous Cogito. "I am angry, therefore I am" said Van Loan.

Dion as Waldo vs Stephen Harper (AKA) Angry Dad and the Blue Meanies

VS

Brain Dead Animal

It speaks volumes about the blogging torries that this tool is one of their most read bloggers. Kate McMillan: "The Nazis Didn't Carry Out The Holocaust. The German state did that.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008328.html

Most people would say that if someone of sound mind deliberately runs over an innocent person and kills them that they are guilty of vehicular homicide, but not Kate. According to Kate, the fault lies with the car and the car alone.

Yes sir conservatives are all about taking personal responsibility.

Perhaps we can make partial sense of Kate said. Maybe she was saying that there were insufficient constitutional safeguards in Germany at the time and no tradition in Germany of respect for the rule of law.

Conservatives are all about constitutional safeguards and needless to say have a long history of supporting an independent judiciary. “It’s the stupid charter” “"Well, the heck with the courts." “Activist judges” "If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be for us conservatives out there a way to put checks and balances in there."

Political Poverty of the Liberal Platform

Global warming is not the winner everyone has made it out to be. Saying that one is concerned about the global warming has and will continue to garner at best a "that's nice" response from the public and worst “yeah right” response. The Liberal environmental record is poor, their policies only vaguely understood and for those people for whom the environment truly is the most important issue they are going to vote, drum roll please, Green.

The only thing the Liberals have going for them as far as the environmental file is concerned is that Dion’s cap and trade proposal is a good one. That said, it hard to see the public being overly excited about such and idea.

The Liberal pledge to fight poverty is similarly politically ill-conceived. People are not going to get overly excited about a grab bag of repackaged Martin policies that 95% of the Canadians do not have the time nor, energy to seek to understand.

Once you get past poverty and the environmental you have the baron repackaged wasteland that is the rest of the Liberal platform.

All is not lost for the Liberals though; they just have to understand what the Conservatives did going into the 2005/2006 campaign. The Conservatives trotted out easy to understand policies that took aim at broad spectrum of voters. Whatever else one may think about them, the GST cut and their promise give parents with $100 a month for every kid under 6 were both politically brilliant.

The Liberals do not have a choice but to copy such a program. They simply lack the money, grassroots support and media presence to target sub groups of voters the way the Conservatives can. As an opposition party they do not have the power to control the agenda the way they once did. They are going to have to develop 3 or 4 simple, easy to understand policies that are aimed at a broad cross section of society if not everyone.

Now, the Liberals have let it be known that they would like to hold off announcing policy until after an election was called. I found such a line believable in the summer. I certainly do not now. The cupboard is bare and the party is stalling. Either that or they are even more badly led than anyone thought. Holding back policy is no way of improving fund raising numbers that are not magically going to get better on their own. It is also no way to keep sinking party moral up, the media interested in anything other than infighting and the public at all interested in the Liberal’s very existence.

Layton has to Go

Although I have been impressed with the NDP’s call for a national minimum wage, a national pharmacare program, their call for the senate to be abolished and their stance on Afghanistan, it is time for Layton to go. The NDP is stalled in the polls and have been since Harper was elected. More importantly the NDP do not seem to realize that their fortunes are tied to the Liberals and that their willingness to sacrifice their principles in hopes of political gain gives them a smaller voice. Finally, the NDP needs to be rescued from its own confused, wordy and jumbled messaging that is made all the worse by Layton’s frenetic style of delivery.

Of all the parties out there, the NDP can least afford to waste time trying pander to every single constituency. It gets but a fraction of media attention the other parties do. The party simply does not have the money or the media attention that would allow them to spend all their time and effort trying to target various subgroups and taking shots at the other parties. Talk of seniors, students, families, natives, Liberals, Conservatives Elizabeth May, George Bush… needs to be abandoned and replaced with how this or that policy benefits all Canadians. Everything else is extraneous noise. Naturally this means recommitting the party to universality, paring down the message, and abandoning the special interest stink that has enveloped the party like pig pen for a long as the party has abandoned any talk of class. A la what the NDP did the 60s, hold up what various European have achieved should serve as a model. Clarity of message and easy to understand policy is all important. 5 examples come readily to mind.

National minimum wage

A national pharmacare program based upon the one currently available in the UK

4 weeks paid vacation for all Canadians

dental care as part of health care

Universal Day Care for kids aged 1-5

Electoral reform and the war in Afghanistan is also possible subjects of discussion, but by in large the party should focus basically all of its time talking about a few core issues and hitting them again and again and again.

Liberals are in Big Trouble in BC

Leaving Quarda aside, the Liberals are in real trouble in BC. North Vancouver, Richmond, Newton North Delta are all on the razor's edge, Keith Martin will be in for a fight in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca and West Vancouver is as good as gone. If the election was held today I say the Liberals would loose 4 of the aforementioned 5. I think Martin would hold onto his seat. One problem is Dion's English. His accent is strong and his ability to express himself in English is not nearly what it is in French and well that does seem to be a problem in Toronto it certainly is here. Another problem is that Vancouver is a fiscally conservative city, with a very fiscally conservative media. This is not a town of Red Tories. This is not Toronto. There is no Toronto Star. There is the Vancouver Sun and the Fraser Institute. Luckily for the Liberals it is also socially liberal city. By and large SSM played very well here and there is strong support for drug reform of all kinds. If the Liberals are serious about holding onto what they have in BC and perhaps even picking up a seat or two, they need to develop some policies that will appeal to libertarians. Right now the cupboard is bare.

Harper's suit Threatens Blogsphere: Harper's lawyers argue that only the MSM has protection when quoting Hansard

Harper suit is premised on a sharp distinction between “news” organizations and everyone else. Harper is in effect saying that the Liberals are not free to quote from Hansard because they are not a “news” organization. Protection does not apply to them. However, the implication of this is that bloggers too are not protected when quoting from Hansard. If the Liberals could be sued for quoting what Ignatieff said in the House, and Harper suite takes aim at just that, then so could I or any other blogger. http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/harper-lawsuit.pdf

If the Liberals where smart they would take aim at just such a sharp distinction and encourage people to quote the offending passages on face book and on their blogs and anywhere they can think of. A false distinction between the news media and everyone else can only damage freedom of speech. Protection from libel must apply to all who quote Hansard.

Update

MPs can not be sued for what they say in the House, but MPs can not use this privilege to insulate themselves against libel by simply quoting what they said in the House. That is why Ken Dryden read out what he said in the House word for word. News organizations, on the other hand, are free to quote what was said in the House without fear of libel. Where this relates back to the matter at hand is the Liberals are asserting that the two articles in question were “news” articles and as such protected from libel. Where this relates back to the blogsephere is if judge concludes that these articles, even though they bare a healthy family resemblance to any news article out there on the subject, are not news, then it is but a hop skip and jump to the saying that any blogger that happens to quote Ignatieff's words is also open to libel.

"Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?”: Martin and Liberals should Sue

I see the Conservative lawsuit boils down to the two headlines on the Liberal website and how could it not. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080313.wcadman14/BNStory/National/home Everything else was simply repeating what was said in the House. Harper could no more sue the Liberals for reporting what was said in the House then it could sue the Globe and Mail for reporting the same. Now, I would mention what those two headlines were, but you know I might get sued. Then again if they did sue me I would have my 15 minutes of fame that I have always desired. I might even get on TV. The possibilities are endless. So, here goes it.

1) “Harper knew of Conservative Bribery”

2) “Harper Must Come Clean About Allegations of Conservative Bribery”

Seriously that is some pretty thin gruel. If I was feeling stubborn enough and I searched through the thousands of News headlines relating to Gomery and Dingwall affairs I could come up with some similarly salacious headlines used to draw readers in but then upon reading turn out to be nothing but a badly constructed reference. Anyway, I got to thinking. Although it is true that such headlines of the type the Liberals have on their site are plentiful enough, one simply does not come across headlines such as the following everyday.

1) "The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography?"

2) "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?”

And one certainly simply does not come across anything like the following in the body of any news story.

"Today, Martin says he's against child pornography. But his voting record proves
otherwise,"

I think the Liberals should sue. After all, the Conservatives never apologized. Indeed, Harper had this to say about the headline.

CTV Asked about the 'taste' of the headline, Harper said: "What's in bad
taste is the Liberal Party's record on child pornography.”

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1087594937300_83004137/?hub=TopStories Think of the fun the Liberals could have in discovery. Oh the joy!

In closing out, I got to thinking about something else. Will Harper say outside of the comfy confines of the House that the tape was altered? I am sure Mr. Zytaruk wants to know. Maybe someone in the meantime could take the Harper tape to Mr. Dash.

Some thoughts on Cherniak's be Good Bloggers Post

Cherniaks comments are in red. My responses are in black. His entire post can be found here.

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-are-you-doing-to-help.html

>>>> Liberals in Ottawa tell us we're not ready for an election yet.

I agree. The Liberals would get killed if an election was held today.

>>>> What does that mean? Nobody except the decision makers can be sure.

Bullocks! The reasons are as clear as day. The Liberals have no platform to speak of, have dismal fund raising numbers, have nothing in the bank at the riding level, have a leader who still struggles mightily with English, they have not moved up in the polls in 2 years and they punted away the only wedge issue, viz., Afghanistan, that might have worked for them. How you managed to argue against those calling an election without pointing this out is amazing.

>>>>> However, as I argued yesterday, I don't think that should matter to a grassroots Liberal.
It sure as hell should.

>>>>> Instead of asking why we aren't ready, all grassroots Liberals - including bloggers - should ask themselves what they have done to make us ready.

Jason the bloggers are simply pointing out the obvious. The Liberal Party can not continue on like this; their credibility is being undermined daily. That means that however threadbare their platform and however many their problems if the party will not commit to change, then it might as well go now. Things are not going to get any better, indeed only worse. Alternatively the party will have to commit to, at a minimum, a policy convention this summer.

>>>> Let me give you an analogy. There are some Liberal caucus members who like to whisper to media. Many of us bloggers have questioned their judgement about complaining in public. We recognize that it does no good for caucus to question the direction of the Liberal Party. Why is it any different for bloggers?

This strikes me akin to saying the following. There are players on the Canucks who are not shy about publicly criticizing their teammates and management. It is widely recognized that this hurts the team. Why is it any different when Canucks fans criticize management and players alike? The fans criticisms do nothing to help the team win.

Dion’s Environmental Delusion

The environment, i.e., the issue of global warming, will not determine the next election. The Conservatives have muddied the waters, the Liberal track record is poor, and quite frankly this is not the burning issue that many make it out to be. The changes are gradual enough and the effects not injurious in the way an economic downturn or health care cuts would be. The very notion of Dion building a platform around the issue of global warming, especially when he will not consider anything as meaty and concert as a carbon tax, is patently absurd.

The Liberals need to create a so called “wedge issue”, a la SSM by proposing legislation that will divide the public. (To describe SSM as a wedge issue prior to 2003 is to abuse the term. Sure there was mixed feelings about SSM prior to the 2003 Ontario Court decision, but it was hardly on the political radar the way it was after Chrétien’s decision not to challenge the ruling.) In the past I have mentioned two such possible wedge issues, viz., marijuana legalization and legalized euthanasia and have said the former has far more potential, but is also much more dangerous. A carbon tax would also fit the bill.

The other thing the Liberals need to do is they need to get back to their socially democratic roots based on a strong commitment to universality. The type of small potatoes grab bag hopelessly diffuse pc special interest liberalism now on offer is uninspiring to say the least. The Liberals need to commit to two or three policies that would further the cause of social democracy in Canada and be an expression of the party’s renewed commitment to universality. In the past I suggested that Liberals commit to giving all Canadians, as is the norm throughout the rest of the Western world, a minimum of 4 weeks of vacation a year. I also recommended that they propose including dental care as part of heath care and introducing a pharmacare program, a la what is available in Britain. To make the latter two seem more economically palatable the Liberals could propose raising the GST back up to 7%. Finally, the Liberals could again revisit the issue of Child Care. The problem is they fumbled the ball the last time around and they seem unwilling to commit to a truly universal system. Peace meal childcare does not address the problem and so does not stand any hope of being a political winner.

The Conservative Lawsuit: Very Clever

There is more than enough evidence on the Harper tape to conclude that Harper sanctioned something that was illegal. However there is not enough evidence to prove that Harper new of the alleged life insurance offer. In fact, Harper said he did not know the details. The Liberals got greedy.

Harper is thus well positioned to win a such a libel suit, should it be allowed to go forward, well all the while being guilty as sin. It should be noted that, should the Conservatives fishing expedition fail, none of the individuals named in the suite are in any danger whatsoever. They did not write the offending article in question and while their quoted words might be libelous if said outside the House the fact remains that they said them in the House.

This new approach is a better tact for the Conservatives than trying to deny the allegations while refusing to attack the integrity of either Donna Cadman, or her late husband. Indeed without outright accusing Donna Cadman of lying, the Conservatives can not very well cite the words of Chuck Cadman as dispositive. After all, if Donna Cadman is telling the truth, either Chuck Cadman lied to CTV or he lied to his wife.

Update, I have looked at the two offending posts again. I changed my mind. I do not think the there is no there for Harper to win a label suit. That said, there is not a enough for the criminal charges to stick.

Whither Liberalism; the Dion Disaster

Dion has been an unmediated disaster. The party has not moved in the polls since he began as leader and the fundraising numbers are dire. Worse, there is no reason to believe that things will get any better. His English still causes him trouble, he is not getting any more charismatic and the only issue he had a chance to fight the next election on and win, viz., Afghanistan, he chose to punt on. He leads a party that is scared of its own shadow and which had long ago “triangulated” its way in ideological no man’s land. Just what does the Liberal party stand for? The Liberals do not even talk a good game anymore.

What little direction Dion has given the party has not been good. There are plenty of remnants of the Martin era. However, nothing remains of Trudeau’s commitment to universality and federalism and Dion seems more willing to embrace “social taboos” than to challenge them. In its place Dion has decided to pursue ill advised alliances with the Green Party and aboriginal nationalists, and has given plenty of lip service to Martin’s hair brained Atlantic Accord. Once a party that championed a united pluralistic Canada, the Liberal party has become the dupe of provincial and special interest groups who have no regard whatsoever with the national interest. Dion does have his principles though. He may not have any qualms about ruining forever what is left of the Liberal brand, but he is willing to implement one of the most loathed tools in the traditional liberal arsenal, viz. affirmative action, to achieve a higher number of female candidates at the expense the party’s already fractured unity.

Only a miracle and a renewed commitment to social democracy, universality and full blooded social liberalism can save the Liberals now.

The Liberals Should Wait to the Fall to Force an Election

Dion is going to try to equate the Conservatives and Republicans. That being the case, it is clear that the fall is the best time to go. The Liberals should try to force an election as close to the US election as possible without coming after. They could then piggyback on what the Democrats are saying. Moreover, by having the two elections closer together you will give Canadians a sense that they can really stick it to Bush by voting down his Canadian surrogate. Of course, I said the same thing back in 2004.

Mike Huckabee congratulates Canada on preserving its "National Igloo"

Rick Mercer talks to Mike Huckabee:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/14/huckabee-congratulates-canada-on-preserving-its-national-igloo-2/

The Marc Emery Case: Liberal Cowardice Conservative Collusion

It is a crime to sell marijuana seeds in Canada; that is why Emery can be shipped off to the States to face charges. People have been charged with such a crime in Canada before and one person, Ian Hunter, was even convicted in 2000. Hunter was ordered to pay $200. Under US law Emery is facing a minimum of 10 years and could get life.

The other thing that makes it possible for the US to request that he be set down is that despite the fact that Emery has paid over a half a million in taxes for what he told revenue Canada was "selling marijuana seeds" he has not been charged under Canadian law. If he was facing charges in Canada and no one doubts that he is guilty of such a crime, he can not be extradited to the States. That is why various activists have been trying force the government to charge him under Canadian law. They employ an argument many conservatives like to employ. If Emery did the crime, he should pay the $200 fine.

As for the money laundering charges, they are a joke. One only lauders money to disguise one's ill gotten gains, Emery has never disguised the amount of money comming in and where he has gotten it. As already mentioned, he told revenue Canada he made the money "selling marijuana seeds". If that is not enough, giving money to various marijuana legalization campaigns could only ever be money if Emery got all or part of the "laundered" money back. Emery never got any “laundered” money back. The money laudering charges are not going to stick.

Stephane Dion is willing to stand up to Omar Khadar, but is unwilling to lift a finger to prevent Canadian from being extradited to the US to face a minimum of 10 years for a crime that has been not been prosecuted in Canada for 7 years and that only ever warranted a $200 fine. This is typical Liberal bad faith. Naturally the Conservatives are over joyed. When “activist” judges are unwilling to hand down no more than a $200 fine and activist cops are unwilling to arrest seed sellers, rendition to the US is apparently a live option. The Canadian justice system be damned.

Liberals for Legalization: Calling for the help of other bloggers

Many Liberal bloggers support the legalization of marijuana, but the true numbers remain hidden from public few. This could change if bloggers were able to indicate their support by placing an icon on their site. I do not have the technical expertise to do this. However, I am sure some other bloggers have this ability. All I can do is to suggest what such a logo should say, viz., "Liberals for legalization". The same goes for progressive bloggers – “progressives against prohibition”.

McGunity Van Loan Pissing Contest: The Conservatives have strategy and Liberals Don’t

The biggest ridings in Ontario and indeed in the country are all in suburban Toronto. However, it is far from clear way the Conservatives would want to seed the field to the Liberals -- at least in the short term. Far from being the Liberal fortress that urban Toronto is Suburban Toronto and the rest of the 905 have been an area of growth for the Conservatives. They picked up 4 seats in 905 in the 2006 election and margins of Conservative victory increased in every riding that they had previously held.

You can be sure that the Conservatives' motives for getting into a pissing contest with Dalton Mcguinty are far from capricious. The Conservatives are aiming to do two things. One, they want to play to their “Western” base and two they want to reassure Quebec and the Maritimes that things will not get out of hand --- hence the small man of Confederation reference. Most people understand this. What they do not understand why this strategy is likely to work. You see one of the long simmering sources of “Western” alienation is the perception that Ottawa, for reasons relating to Quebec, is unwilling to recognize the region’s growing economic and democratic clout. The Conservatives are not so much trying to reduce “Western” alienation as trying to stoke it. The Conservatives are betting that the Liberals will defend the status quo and so far the Liberals have done just that. During the next election the Conservatives will mention how the Liberals are content to continue short changing the “West”. It is no accident that the Conservatives are proposing to give the same number of seats to the BC and Alberta as Quebec has. On the other side of the ledger Ontario’s huge rate of growth in absolute terms is bound to scare the bejesus out of Quebec and the Maritime premiers and by short changing Ontario the Conservatives are signaling to these provinces that they recognize these concerns and are willing to do something about it.

The Conservative fall back position is to say to Ontarians that while Ontario might be shortchanged in comparison to BC and Alberta and Quebec, it nevertheless gains more seats under the new system then it would under the old system. (It is should be noted that in absolute terms this is true; Ontario will gain more seats in absolute terms; after all, the new system adds more seats than the older system. However in the long term such a system will see the gap between what percentage of the population of Canada lives in Ontario and what percentage of MPs are from Ontario grow faster than under the current system.)

If the Liberals were smart, they would surprise the Conservatives and say that the 4 largest provinces should all be held to the same standard and cash in in Ontario. The problem is the Liberals are tactical dummies and they do not know the first thing about strategy. Indeed, as Canada’s 3 largest cities grow, their suburbs and not just the urban cores are becoming more liberal. What is more, the Liberals still have better relations with new Canadians than any other party and most Canadians are in Canada three largest cities. These areas are the biggest potential for long term Liberal growth; the more seats they are given the better. So what are Liberals doing? They are busy worrying about what Harper’s chew toy (Charest) has to say.

Focus on Emission Intensity and Not Bali or Kyoto

Time and time again Harper has outmaneuvered Dion on the environmental file. Given the fact that Conservative plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, this is really quite something. The problem is instead of focusing on Harper’s lack of a plan the Liberals have stupidly focused on Kyoto and now Bali.

Kyoto: Canada was not going to meet the 2012 Kyoto targets without buying emission credits and that was just was not sell domestically. There is no use going to war over something that is glaringly false. That was just the half off it. So long as Kyoto was the focus, the question arose as to why Canada is not going to meet its targets and this allowed the Conservatives to offer up Liberal inaction as the reason why. As for Bali, Dion has again let Harper outmaneuver him. He has allowed Harper to turn the issue into whether such a deal is workable and fair. The problem for the Liberals is however unpopular the general thrust of Harper’s stance is with the public, Harper is not wrong in everything he says and many Canadians, call them Rex Murphy Canadians, will be appreciative of such tough talk. Harper, for example, is right about the following. Without an accord that binds all major emitters to the same standards, the chances of such an accord actually making a dent in the problem and even holding together over time are not good. It does not matter a lick that industrialized countries per capita emissions are much higher. It does not matter that the developed nations are responsible for most of emissions thus far. The past means nothing; the only thing that matters in the dog eat dog world of international affairs is what happens going forward. What is more the developed world is holding most of the aces. There are parts of the developed world that are going to be hit hard by global warming, but global warming is going to have a far bigger impact on the undeveloped world and the undeveloped world does not have the same ability to deal with it. (While it might be sacrilegious to say this, Canada is one of the few countries that could actually benefit from global warming.)

In order to fully capitalize on the issue the Liberals have to switch from talking about international treaties designed to deal with the problem of global warming to how the various parties plan to reduce carbon emissions at national level going forward. The Liberals have a plan, the semblance of a plan anyway, and the Conservatives have a potential political piñata known as intensity based emissions. Do not give Harper the opportunity to speak hard truths about the treaty process. In politics, the long game goes to those who manage to force their opponents continually trade in half truths or worse; Truth is a turtle, a lie a rabbit. Force Harper into defending his undefendable intensity based emissions plan. The longer the focus stays there, the better. If the focus is left there for a month or more, environmentalists, academics, pundits and yes bloggers will devour the Conservative party’s credibility on the issue like so many scavengers and insects picking clean a carcass. Moreover, if the Liberals are successfully able to reveal the Conservatives intensity based plan as such much hot air, the Conservatives will appear insincere whenever they try to talk tough on Bali.

Canada’s Weird and Less then Wonderful Immigration System

Canada’s immigration system is a mess. The country allows in too many refugees, and the rules that guide who one can sponsor outside of one’s immediate family are puzzling to say the least. For example, one can sponsor one’s parents or absurdly grandparents but a not an adult sibling or adult child. All in all, the ability to sponsor older adults is far too easy.

The skilled worker category is equally puzzling. It is weighted, accidently I am sure, in such a way as to favor older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old. All this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population. Canada needs immigrants and probably needs more than we are already letting in. However, the average age of immigrant to Canada is 37; this is the same age of the average native born Canadian resident.

Now, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 28 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.

By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.

That is why I say that instead of offering just 5 points for completing a graduate degree in Canada an applicant should be given 16 points. Taking a graduate degree in Canada should place a foreigner on the road to becoming a Canadian citizen.

The CBC’s At Issue Panel Nails It: The Liberal Party is a Mess and Dion Has Been a Disaster So Far

The CBC’s At Issue panel nailed it on Thursday. http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/at_issue_whither_the_liberals.html

Andrew Coyne: “I am not sure anybody knows [what the Liberal party stands for] least of all the Liberals.”

Gordan Gibson: “They [The Liberal Party] have got to develop policy and they haven’t.”

Russo: “What the Liberal party has become is a party of nostalgia.”

Hebert: “Sometimes a rebirth [the 2006 Liberal leadership convention] is a stillbirth.”


The Liberal Party is a party without a soul, without courage, without direction, and without policy. Above all else, the party is hopelessly conservative.

The center point on the political spectrum is not achieved by splitting the difference between what the NDP say and the Conservatives say. What lies between the two is not fertile ground, but rather a desolate no mans land. The Liberal party brass does not seem to realize this. They love pasting together Conservative and NDP talking points to create a shit mix. Afghanistan is a great case in point. Talking points are not starting points. They are an end points. They must flow from a coherent position

Worse, the Liberals approach is entirely passive when it should be active. They should not seek to occupy the political center but to define what is central to being Canadian and let the Conservatives position themselves on the right of that vision and the NDP on the left. This is a daunting task, but it has done before. What we think of Canada is really the Liberal vision of the country under Trudeau and Pearson.

The Liberals need to again duplicate Trudeau and Pearson approach circa 63 through 68. They have to attract those on the left by proposing universal social programs and they need to bring libertarians under their tent by pursuing socially liberal ends. Finally, they have to tie this too approaches together using pragmatic Red Tory language.

The $64,000 question is what polices to pursue.

Libertarians

Legalize Euthanasia
Legalize marijuana
Long term legalize prostitution

Social Democrats

Universal Pharmacare program
4 weeks vacation for all Canadians
Universal dental care
Universal Child care

Long term preconditions for success

Deal with under representation of the cities in the House of Commons

Introduce mandatory voting; As long as seniors vote in much greater numbers than young people, Canadian politics will be stuck in the past

Abandon special interest politics

Many Americans Can not Afford Fruits and Veggies

This is depressing. I wonder what the numbers are like for Canada. Anyway, this should give personal responsibility crowd food for thought. The problem is more complex that saying that people should get more excersize and eat more fruits and veggies. That takes time and money and that is luxury many of the poor do not have. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20071122/hl_hsn/manyamericanscantaffordtoeatright

Harper Screws Ontario’s 905

There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Morever, there is but one riding, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011 and by 2011 there will be nearly 145,000 people per 905 riding. The growth rate in the 905 is a staggering 13.5%; the growth rate for the other is virtually non existent. The population Canadians 6 smallest provinces and its 3 territories increased by a mere 25,000 between 2001 and 2006; in other words, given current growth rates there will be half as many people per riding as in the 905. Is this fair? Of course not. And it is ridiculous to think that a mere 10 seats for all of Ontario will not come close to solving the problem.

Ontario Deserves 67 More Seats

Some believe that the regions need more say and an “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. Harper seems to be of that mind.

The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the Federal riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously only has 1 MP. In other words, a vote in Oak Ridges Markham has less the 5th the value of a vote cast in riding of Charlottetown. Harper’s planned increase in the number of seats does not go nearly far enough. The government would have to add a lot more than just 22 seats to insure that no province is overrepresented and no province underrepresented.

Of course no government would ever dare take away seats from a particular province or region and even if they were so bold there are constitutional hurdles. For example no province can have less MPs than senators. This means that it more or less impossible for PEI and the territories to be anything other than outliers. They would still be over represented.

However, if the government would commit to an MP for every 70,000 people, things would be more or less equal everywhere else. Such a commitment to fairness would see Ontario gain 67 seats, Quebec 32, BC 23, Alberta 19, and Manitoba, Nova Scotia 2 each. All told, 145 seats should be added, most of those in urban areas and nearly half in Ontario.

However, even if Ontario, BC and Alberta and Quebec were to given their proper allotment of House of Commons Seats, there is still no need for the Senate. Whatever regional concerns a population of a lesser populated province might have are taken care of by the very fact that live in a such a province. This becomes readily apparent when instead of looking at what province has more clout, as if that makes any sense whatsoever, one instead compares how much clout various populations have. Indeed, the 135,851 in PEI have, for example, a million times the political clout of the 169, 642 people in the Federal riding of Oak Ridges Markham. Indeed, not only do the 135,581 people in PEI have the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, and provincial representation, but they have also have 4 MPs to Oak Ridges Markham one MP. Giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the Triple E Senate model for instance, as 12.1 million Ontarians is grossly undemocratic.

All told, what should happen is the government should add those 145 extra seats. Fairness requires it. The government should then seek to abolish the Senate to pay for such an expansion. The current senate serves no purpose and reformed senate is an affront to democracy. The provinces abolished their senates. Federal government should follow in their footsteps. Let Canada would then join the club unicameral states. Canada would be in good company. New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal are all unicameral.

Marijuana: RCMP Think of the Children

Vancouver Province looked at marijuana legalization this weekend. They printed and interview with Larry Campbell (Pro legalization) http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=cdf9aed6-718c-4991-8328-2475bfda76e6&k=66062&p=3 and the RCMP’s Scott Rintoul (Drug warrior) http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=289e097f-b282-426f-bec1-5c265c7f8024&p=2

Campbell’s opinions are well known, Rintoul’s plain stupid.


Province: Sgt. Scott Rintoul mans the RCMP's drug-awareness bureau in B.C. Well-acquainted with the arguments for legalizing marijuana, he challenges the legal-pot advocates to consider one important point -- our children.

"It has to be our priority. They're our future," Rintoul says.

Yes, let us think of the children, i.e., teenagers. Tell them just what just Rintoul said. Those that do not burst out laughing, will certainly roll their eyes. I am dead serious. Walk into, for example, a grade 11 or 12 law class and try out that line on them.

"The majority does not smoke marijuana [or] drink [or] use
ecstasy."

Granted Vancouver is not Moscow or Prague, but to suggest there are more people who do not drink then who do is ridiculous. There are more vegetarians than teetolers.

"Marijuana is an addictive drug.

Yeah what are the symptoms? Be specific. Maybe a headache and irritability for chronic users, but that would be grounds for banning caffeine tobacco too.

We do have people in the city of Vancouver who are suffering a dependency on cannabis [who] are going through treatment, yet you never hear that. Ten or 20 per cent of marijuana users have a problem with cannabis.

Oh yes “psychological dependency”. Anything where routine and repetition are involved could lead to “psychological dependency”. There are people with obsessive compulsive disorder who are psychologically dependent on hand soap, but that is hardly a reason to bane hand soap. Many scholars have argued that the term is politically motivated and was designed to obscure the fact that marijuana is not physically addictive the way, say alcohol and heroin can be. Whatever the term’s origins, it is certainly employed by the drug warriors to serve political ends.

Indeed, the number of people seeking treatment for marijuana dependence in the States is indeed decently large, but the vast majority according to most studies (70% and above) are there because they were given a choice when charged with possession: “Treatment” or jail. In true Orwellian fashion, the US government turns around and uses the number of people it forces in “treatment” as proof of the dangers of marijuana.

As for Canada, the numbers are not large, but of the 6300 people in Ontario (population 12.1 million and anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million users) seeking help for marijuana dependency in 2005, most reported being coerced into treatment and not being there of their own violation. Most were male single, under age 20 and in high school. Legal system involvement and school- or family-based pressure to enter treatment were the commonly reported cause of their seeking treatment. It should also be noted that only 13% of people seeking help drug treatment in Ontario in 2005 were marijuana users even though the number of marijuana users dwarfs the number of heroin and cocaine users. In other words, the figures Rintoul sites are utter fiction.

"[Pot advocates] are trying to legitimize something for perhaps an adult or a young professional -- and I think that's wrong at the expense of young people."

Translated: Rintoul is saying that he can not offer any kind of argument for why an “adult” or “young professional” should not be allowed to consume marijuana, but my god think of the children. Listening to Rintoul you would think that the senate committee, that recommended legalization, said that they saw no reason why children as young as 6 be permitted to purchase marijuana.

Rintoul also argues that a black market in marijuana would still exist if it were legal, since growers would try to avoid paying tax on it.

Yeah and there is a huge black market in home made wine and moonshine. Look, people will still grow it for their own consumption and there will still be smuggling so long as it is illegal in the States. However, no one is going to be buying pot from the local hood when they could go purchase it legally from a liquor store. The main reason is quality control. If it was legal and regulated, people would know exactly what they were getting, they would know that it was not laced with anything and just how strong it is etc.

No Quotation Marks No Quote: Steve, Hack, Janke it is just that Simple

This was the Toronto Star's headline today. "PM to Cities: Drop Dead"

As Red Tory pointed out the above was in reference to a 1975 headline. http://redtory.blogspot.com/2007/11/leave-it-to-beaver.html#links Just to note, Red did get a little carried away though. Half the blogsphere was not born in 1975.

"Any barely sentient person should be aware that the deliberately provocative headline in the Toronto Star (and faithfully repurposed for the web by the good folks at National Newswatch) was quite obviously a direct knock-off of the infamous headline “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD” that was run by the Daily News in 1975 regarding the bankruptcy of New York City government and the refusal of President Gerald Ford to provide financial assistance."

Naturally Tory Hack Angry, and what Conservative is not?, in the great White North lost his pretty little head. http://stevejanke.com/archives/246088.php

"Actually, attributing words to someone that we never actually said could be grounds for legal action if those words cast that person in a poor light."

This was the headline: PM to Cities: Drop Dead http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/clip_image2001.jpg
Do you see quotes? I do not see any quotes. Therefore the Star was not attributing any specific words to Harper. It is just that simple. If they were attributing a quote to Harper this is how it would have read: PM to Cities: "Drop Dead"

A Triple E Senate is a Intellectual and undemocratic Abortion

The name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, reveal one of the reasons why we have a senate in the first place. The purpose of having a House of Lords was to check and balance out the will of common people. One of the main purposes of the Canadian senate and the US senate, which were both modeled after the British system, was to do the same.

The other purpose of the senate in both the US and Canada, of course, was to provide regional representation. Smaller states and Provinces wanted their interests protected before agreeing to form a Federation. For example, the Southern States wanted to make sure the Northern States, were most Americans lived in and live now, would not be able to abolish slavery. Yes the US senate has done a lot of good over the years.

Some believe that the regions need more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously only has 1 MP. In other words, a vote in Oak Ridges Markham has less the 5th the value of a vote cast in Charlottetown. Assuming that no government would ever dare take away seats from a particular province or region, the government would have to add a ton more seats to make it have way equal. If the government would commit to an MP for every 70,000 people the new numbers would break down as follows. Ontario would gain 67 seats, Quebec 32, BC 23, Alberta 19, and Manitoba, Nova Scotia 2 each. All total, a 145 seats should be added, most of those in urban areas. Even then there would still be outliers. PEI, and the territories would still be over represented. The second reason is that comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. It is comparing apples to oranges. The people living in Canada’s less populated provinces (hello again PEI) have a mechanism assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called province jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 169, 642 residents of Oak Ridges Markham. All in all, comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while given 169, 642 Oak Ridges Markham one MP is bad enough as it is. Giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12.1 million Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic.

Needless to say, if push comes to shove, abolishing the senate is far more preferable to senate Reform. No province has a second chamber, most abolished them, and they are doing just fine. Furthermore there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states. New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal are all unicameral.

Harper's Belgium Today

The mind boggles if Harper was to ever get a majority. This is man once said that Belgium should serve as a model for Canada. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1098202831918_93612031/?hub=Canada It is hard to think Harper was uninformed when he made the comment. One thing Harper is not is uninformed. His priorities and values are just out of whack. Before the 1995 referendum Harper made his feelings felt about how much he thinks of united and strong Canada.

“Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion.”

Anyway, this is Belgium today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/murray/20071106.html

I would love to see the Senate Abolished, but ...

I would love to see the senate abolished. However, despite the fact that the Bloc favor the senate’s abolition, Quebec is showing every sign that it is willing to use the issue to hold the rest of the country to ransom. I believe I speak for most “western” Canadians in saying that if Quebec thinks they can extract special concessions in return of abolishing an “ineffective” institution they are 1) sadly mistaken and 2) they can go fuck themselves. As for NDP's Musclair, if he wants to see the NDP loose every seat West of Winnipeg, save Vancouver East, he should keep on musing how Quebec should be guaranteed 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in return for abolishing the senate.

However that is not the worst of it. I am afraid with the help of a soulless Liberal party the Conservatives may succeed in reforming the senate. That would be the worst of all possible words.

US Dollar

If the US dollar continues to tank against other major currencies, things could real bad real soon. Oil is traded in US dollars. That is the main reason why Oil will soon reach $100 a barrel. It is not that oil has become that much more expensive over the last couple of months, it is just that the US dollar is tanking. At some point in time, the world’s major oil producers will insist on being paid in Euros and not dollars. If and when that happens, the value of the US currency will plummet and the cost of Canadian goods will skyrocket.

Update:

Thomas Walkom, one of Canada's best columnists, has a good article on the dollars decline. http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/274630

Senate Question

It is becoming clear that there will be showdown over the senate. The NDP want the issue put to a referendum and Conservatives are going to make that a reality. Moreover, the choice will not between abolishing the senate and keeping as is but rather abolishing the senate and “reforming” it. In other words, implicit in the very wording of the question will the current senate’s illegitimacy. Politically, there will be nothing the hapless Liberals to do to overturn this binary logic.

Having established the illegitimacy of current senate in the form of the referendum question, Harper will thereafter argue that he is justified in going ahead with his plan to reform the senate in a piece meal fashion – senate reform being one of two acceptable options.

Just to recall, under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out an 8 year term. The problem is people already in the senate would be free to serve until the age of 75. The result the of such nonsense should such a bill reach the senate and pass would be either to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power.

So the issue will stand heading into the referendum. The question will be Reform Harper's mess or cut bait and abolish the senate. The obvious reluctance of the provinces to do anything right now will not matter. If Harper wins the next election and there is no reason to believe the hapless Dion will be able to beat him, the Provinces will have no choice but tackle the issue of senate Reform. As Harper likes to say, God bless Canada. We will need all the help we can get.

Liberals Need to Start Rolling Out Policy

The Liberals have been in a state of policy paralysis ever since they lost the last election. This would be bad enough if the party was united, ably led and doing well financially and at the polls, but the party has been stuck at 30% for almost two years, Conservatives have raised five times as much money as the Liberals this year and Dion lacks charisma, struggles with English and maintaining party discipline, and has proved to be tactical neophyte prone to gaffes (e.g., musing about raising the GST). That said, the fact that the Liberals are in such disarray at least garners the party some press. There is certainly nothing else worth writing about.

So what do? The Liberals need to start rolling out policy and may even have to go as far as calling a policy convention. Until they start rolling out some new policies the media will continue to write about Dion’s many short comings, the Liberals lack of unity, the party will remain stuck in the polls and the fund raising numbers will remain poor.

If the Liberals hold such a convention and it is as dull and unproductive as the last, I will be the first one calling for Dion’s ouster.

Harper, Warner and the 2006 AIDS Conference in Toronto

“Conservative officials have been actively resisting Warner's emphasis on housing, health care and cities issues, he said, even blocking him from participating in a Star forum on poverty earlier this year and pointedly removing from his campaign literature a reference to the 2006 international conference on AIDS in Toronto – which Warner attended but Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not. ....

Plett [Conservative party president] didn't argue with Warner's characterization of the dispute.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/272579

This is the offending passage

“and am proud to have been a delegate to the XVIth International AIDS Conference held in Toronto in August 2006.”

http://www.markwarner.ca/

Why would the Conservatives ask Warner to remove this passage? Well one could argue that the Conservatives did not want to draw attention to the fact that Stephen Harper did not attend. Of course that would not be much of an explanation because such a response would only beg the question as to why Harper did not attend in the first place.

Harper is no Red Tory and the Mark Warner Case Proves It

The reasons why Harper rejected Mark Warner http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/272579 are spelled out in June 2003 paper, entitled Rediscovering the Right Agenda.

“conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions. On a wide range of public-policy questions, including foreign affairs and defence, criminal justice and corrections, family and child care, and healthcare and social services, social values are increasingly the really big issues. Take taxation, for example. There are real limits to tax-cutting if conservatives cannot dispute anything about how or why a government actually does what it does. If conservatives accept all legislated social liberalism with balanced budgets and corporate grants - as do some in the business community - then there really are no differences between a conservative and a Paul
Martin.

…..

Third, rebalancing means there will be changes to the composition of the conservative coalition. We may not have all the same people we have had in the past. The new liberal corporatist agenda will appeal to some in the business community. We may lose some old "conservatives," Red Tories like the David Orchards or the Joe Clarks. This is not all bad. A more coherent coalition can take strong positions it
wouldn't otherwise be able to take - as the Alliance alone was able to do during
the Iraq war.”

http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

As for Warner's processed roots in the Progressive Conservative party, Harper was always quite clear that he regarded the Progressive Conservative party as a “second Liberal Party”.

As to Warner's attempts to address issues relating to social housing, access to education and issues related to poverty, make no mistake Harper has no time for such issues and is not afraid to say so. To wit:

"These [federal government] proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of 'child poverty' and for more business subsidies in the name of 'cultural identity'. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects. ..."

http://www.canadians.org/wordwarriors/2006/jan-10.html

Harper’s unwillingness to attend the AIDS conference in Toronto is a pretty good sign that he regards such conferences and Warner's interest in them as so much “social liberalism” and he wants nothing to do with them.

The case of Mark Warner should serve as a wake up call to chattering classes. Harper is no Red Tory. There is not one policy proposal in the Rediscovering the Right agenda that Harper has not adopted and he is only dropped one, viz., ssm, and that was only after a three year loosing battle.