Post Election Analysis - History in the Making

Anyone who voted for the first time in Election 2011 certainly found an opportune time to exercise their democratic right.

With the election now in the books the nation is free to ponder the significance (or lack thereof) of the outcome. No matter how you slice it, this is one election that’s bound to be the talk of pundits, political science majors and arm chair politicians for decades to come.

It’s often said that history is written by the victors, but exactly what history says about Canada’s forty-first federal election remains to be seen. The conundrum this time around is how we define who the victors actually are. Different perspectives may produce different findings and the answer may not fully be understood for generations.

Clearly the Harper Conservatives are victorious. After years of planning, strategizing, campaigning (yes, years of campaigning) cajoling and practically begging the people of Canada Mr. Harper finally has the one thing he’s wanted since first elected, a majority. Never the less, for his detractors, this outcome could be seen as a tainted victory based on his limited level of cross-Canada support, his losses in Quebec and the growth of support for the center/left federalist parties (Liberal/NDP combined) after the collapse of the Bloc.

Following the election Mr. Harper, speaking to a partisan crowd, proudly said that the people of Canada had made their decision. Some might argue that with only 40% of voters supporting the Conservative party, in reality the nation actually backed into a Conservative majority accidentally rather than truly choosing it. Tomato / tomato.

Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, promoted this election as necessary to save democracy itself. He may have been fighting the wrong opponent in Mr. Harper. Perhaps the real opponent to democracy in Canada is not the Conservatives, who merely take political advantage of the rules, but Elections Canada who refuse to see that the system isn’t working in its current form.

Elections as they exist today in Canada work fine when you have a two party system. They don’t serve democracy very well at all when 3 or 4 parties are in play.

The evidence speaks for itself. If asked, most Canadians would say that democracy is when a majority of the people choose a government. Not so in Canada where a party, any party, can form a majority government when over half the population doesn’t support them.

As far as democracy is concerned it was indeed at stake in this election and, no matter who came out ahead in the seat count, we all lost on that front. In essence the Harper majority came as a result of unintentional vote splits between the NDP and Liberals in Ontario. In the end these meant a gain of 20 Ontario seats, a dozen more than the 155 needed to claim a majority.

As Thomas Jefferson quite rightly said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve”. We can read into Mr. Jefferson’s statement what we will.

Democracy itself aside, although the night clearly saw a victory for Stephen Harper, many elections have been won in the past and many will be won in the future by various parties. By itself there’s nothing of historic value to the win. Perhaps what the Harper government does with its majority will change the political landscape over time but the win itself is a less than historic event outside Conservative circles. Other outcomes are far more interesting from the historic perspective.

Nobody can argue that the rise of the NDP to official opposition status with more than 100 seats in Parliament is much more noteworthy in the grand scheme of things.

This sudden shift of support says a lot about the now massive gulf between the Right and Left in Canada as a result of the tactics employed by Conservatives over the past several years. It’s a case where 60% of voters in Canada have decided a change is in order. Most of that 60%, especially in Quebec, shrugged off the shackles of conformity and walked through a previously untested Orange door in an attempt to unseat what many see, rightly or wrongly, as a government that’s far too “Republican” for their liking.

Aside from the hard left tilt taken by Canadians, the historic impact of the NDP taking on the official opposition role are not to be ignored. This position will afford them a great deal of benefits they’ve long been denied. Their elevated status will mean an increased budget and far more media attention than the party has ever been able to capture in the past. The official opposition after all has long been considered a “government in waiting”.

In short, this election has catapulted the NDP onto the political stage like never before and, depending on what the party does with their new found status it might, over time, change Canadian politics in unforeseen ways.

If nothing else, the rise of the NDP has dealt massive blow to the aspirations of the Bloc Quebecois, leaving the nation far more united than it’s been in decades. Even if that unity comes as a result of a deep seated dislike for the Harper government.

With a massive drop in their per vote election subsidy as a result of such poor showing in this election and with Mr. Harper’s plan, now that he has a majority, to abolish the vote subsidy (a key funding mechanism for the Bloc) entirely, this election could signal the demise of a political force that’s shaped politics in Canada for a generation.

The Bloc, with just 4 seats and after the resignation of Gilles Duceppe as their charismatic leader has a very uncertain future to be certain.

Just as Canadians might have accidentally backed into a Harper majority, Mr. Harper himself may well have accidentally helped ensure Canadian unity. If so, he accomplished this unintended result by engendering an anti-conservative movement in Quebec that grew far stronger than the deep seated yearning for Quebec nationalism/sovereignty itself.

You can add the Liberal party’s standing to that of the Bloc when questioning the future of organized party politics in Canada. The Liberal’s election results have similarly impacted their funding possibilities and cost them a leader. Going forward they may, from necessity, be forced to consider looking at options for uniting the Left, even at the expense of the historic party brand.

It’s enough to make me wonder what color you get when you combine red and orange.

Although seen by most as a small scale victory, the Green party must also be considered a winner in this election. With Elizabeth May having finally won a seat in the House of Commons the Green Party will have a voice on the national stage for the first time.

It could be argued that a single seat doesn’t mean much but with the environment a top priority for a growing number of voters and ever more important on the world stage, the timing of Ms. May’s entry into Parliament could have far more significance than many might think.

A potential resurgence of young voters and Canada’s penchant for backing the underdog, in addition to the environmental issue itself, could lead to Ms. May’s new found voice resonating with voters over the coming years.

Certainly her approach to politics and original ideas are refreshing. Time will tell if her election is just a blip or a harbinger of things to come, but what’s seen as a minor victory today might one day be recognized as the start of a green revolution in Canadian politics. Only time and the electorate will tell.

Any way you slice it this has been an election like none other Canada has seen. We live in interesting times and they may become a lot more interesting as the days unfold. Just don’t twitter that point to any of your friends until you've cleared it with Elections Canada. You wouldn’t want to break any antiquated laws would you?

Finally, since this is Web-Talk Newfoundland and Labrador, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out the direct impacts of this election on our fair province.

From the Provincial perspective, the clear message telegraphed from Newfoundland (if not Labrador) is that even without the force of will who is Danny Williams, ABC remains a reality. While the Labrador riding elected a Conservative MP, anyone who knows the situation on the ground could easily argue that this was more of a victory for a single man who is highly respected rather than a win for the party itself.

Clearly Newfoundland & Labrador remains less than fertile hunting grounds for the Harper brand of Conservatism and with Quebec rejecting the Conservative brand as well another point comes to the fore. Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador have finally found something they can agree on, their utter dislike of Stephen Harper. Now that's historic!

On a more tangible front, the outcome couldn’t have been more interesting for the Province. Yes, we sent a clear message to the Conservatives that the people do not like Mr. Harper but by electing one Conservative MP it also ensures that the Harper government no longer has an excuse for not offering the cabinet position they’ve told everyone the province has denied itself by not electing someone on the government side.

In fact, with a member in the government caucus and with 2 representatives in the official opposition ranks as well as 4 Liberal members of Parliament, Newfoundland and Labrador has covered all the bases and positioned itself about as well as anyone could have hoped.

As an interesting side note, the message sent to Stephen Harper by the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate was accomplished in spite, rather than with the approval, of the Provincial PC government.

In an effort to shore up support for the federal Conservatives the Dunderdale government trotted out cabinet ministers and caucus members by the bus load. They even went so far as to insert themselves into the election by announcing more than $4 million in funding for one riding, announcing it on election day while the federal candidate was positioned front and center beside the provincial representatives at the media event. Thankfully the voters didn’t take a bite from that apple.

Whether or not the stunt has an impact on Dunderdale’s position going into the October provincial election is a story for another day.

Last but not least, and perhaps most important to some in the Province, is the fact that with a majority in hand, an NL Conservative MP in caucus and a clear rejection by Quebec voters as clear as the nose on his face, there can be no excuse for Mr. Harper to back out of his commitments on the Lower Churchill development.

Time will tell if he does or not.

Election 2011 – Winners and Losers

Disclosure: The author is currently an undecided voter, is not affiliated with any political party and has, in the past, voted for candidates of the blue, red and orange stripe.

On Tuesday Canadians were afforded an opportunity to witness a rare event in Canadian politics, a campaigning politician, a party leader no less, being completely factual and honest on the national stage.

For those of you who might have missed this singular event or who were unfortunate enough to have witnessed the political spin that quickly followed, let me bring you up to speed.

During a one on one interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was asked about the possibility that a party forming government without gaining the most seats during an election.

The Liberal leader’s response was a rather lengthy, though timely civics lesson that went something like this.

“… (paraphrasing) The party winning the most seats will have an opportunity to form government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons. If the leader of that party is not able to gain this confidence he must visit the Governor General and, if the GG decides to approach another leader, should it be me, I would be prepared to…”

“ (direct quote) talk to Mr. Layton and or Mr. Duceppe -- or even Mr. Harper -- and say we have an issue and here's the plan that I want to put before Parliament, uh you know, this is the budget I would bring in and then we take it from there."

Mr. Ignatieff went on to affirm his earlier statements that under such circumstances, should he gain the confidence of the House he would not enter into any sort of formal coalition that would see members of another party sitting in government but would instead cooperate with the other parties as necessary going forward.

While potentially damaging for him politically, Mr. Ignatieff deserves a pat on the back for both is honesty and clear understanding of the Canadian Parliament.

This is precisely the way the system, developed over hundreds of years, is designed to work.

Unfortunately the incessant Conservative demonization of the word “coalition” in attack ad after attack ad, and directly by Mr. Harper, has led to self serving and baseless fear among a Canadian public largely ignorant of the rules of their own democracy.

For many months Mr. Harper and his Conservative party have been demonizing all opposition parties and doing a grave disservice to the Canadian public by misleading them about how their government actually functions.

With the campaign steaming ahead Mr. Harper’s latest message seems predicated on the belief that his party must form a majority or, should they gain a minority, it would lead to an “reckless coalition” seizing power in Ottawa. This is a position that flies in the face of a truly democratic process - a government chosen by the majority of a nation’s citizens.

If, as most of us have been taught, that the majority of the people should choose their government then which is more valid, a Conservative government supported by a minority of the voting public or a working cooperative that represents the choice of a majority of Canadians?

It’s an important question to ask considering that after the last election Mr. Harper formed government even though his members captured less than 40% of voter support.

It’s even more to the point when you factor in the reality that with less than 60% of the public going to the polls, in reality he formed government with the direct support of about 22%, or only 1 in 5, eligible voters.

Mr. Harper’s position is not only self serving but more than just a little presumptive.

Yes, the polls currently favor the Conservatives, but no matter what the polls or pundits might say, there is no guarantee that following the election the Conservatives will form a government at all.

During an election almost anything can happen, so why has the media bought into Conservative spin with story after story about coalitions? Why haven’t they instead asked Mr. Harper some very salient questions?

What will he do if his party fails win enough seats to form a minority, much less a majority government?

After the election, if his party fails to capture the most seats, and the Liberals or NDP form a minority government will he allow that party to govern? If not, and the party is unable to win the confidence of the House, would he, Mr. Harper, force another $300 million dollar election on the public or would he try, if asked by the GG, to work with the other parties to form government?

I ask these questions because I’m wondering if the Conservative’s convenient aversion to “coalitions” applies only to others or to themselves as well.

Since Mr. Harper has made this bogyman a central issue of his campaign it’s only reasonable for the public to know what his position is.

I realize the media is limited to 5 questions a day while following Mr. Harper’s campaign but this subject might be a good one to push. Why hasn’t it been?

A large swath of Canada’s electorate is turning away from their political obligation and becoming more apathetic with each passing campaign cycle. There are many reasons for this, but I believe a primary reason is the well founded belief that nobody can trust anything politicians say, especially during an election campaign. With this in mind, it’s truly sad that when a political leader is willing to speak the unvarnished truth, without spinning it for electoral advantage, he’s attacked and vilified.

In reality the only winners in any election are the 308 individual MPs who gain a seat in Parliament. Some of those will come from the Conservative ranks, others from the NDP, Liberal, Bloc and perhaps even the Green Party. The parties themselves do not win government but must seek the confidence of a majority of those 308 separate winners.

The saddest result of this utter disregard for the truth is that while no political party actually wins or loses the Canadian public most surely stands to lose the most.

Better a Broken Promise than None at All

Mark Twain once said, “Better a broken promise than none at all.”

I wonder about his philosophy.

With a federal election again sullying the picturesque landscape of Newfoundland & Labrador those promises are flying around faster than a poorly discarded grocery bag in a force 5 hurricane.

After decades of living under the thumb of Hydro Quebec (thanks to the now infamous Upper Churchill Power contract) and after being denied access on Quebec’s grid in an effort to market Lower Churchill power, Canada’s political Czars have finally seen fit to “promise” Newfoundland & Labrador a loan guarantee for development of a portion of the Lower Churchill river in partnership with Nova Scotia.

Or have they?

Let me start by apologizing for the length of the following but as much as the various political machines would like everyone to believe this is a simple matter, it most assuredly isn’t, thus the need to use far more than the 50 words or less the leaders of the parties are so expert at casting out.

To begin, just what have Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper actually promised?

After piecing together various comments from both men, their statements differ depending on where they’re campaigning and in which official language being used, here’s the result.

Michael Ignatieff likes the idea of co-operation between provinces and regions but… since he hasn’t seen all the details he’s only willing to say he stands behind the project and would likely support a loan guarantee.

This may be seen by devout Liberals as a promise but it’s a little too ambiguous to truly pass the smell test.

Speaking of undesirable odors, Mr. Ignatieff also said he would like to see the entire Lower Churchill project developed in future, not just the currently planned Muskrat Falls section. His belief is that other provinces, he specifically identified Quebec, should play a part in developing the remaining, and much more valuable, Gull Island portion of the river.

On this point I smell something very fishy indeed and not at all in Newfoundland & Labrador’s favor.

The question then becomes: After the election, should he win, do Michael Ignatieff’s words indicate that he might try to tie a possible loan guarantee to some form of agreement with Quebec on development of the Gull Island generating station?

After living with the fallout of the existing Upper Churchill contract nearly my entire life (with thirty years to go if I live well into my seventies) I have to wonder about statements like that. Remember it was Ottawa’s refusal to defend the Constitutional right of provinces to access markets that played such a big part in the existence of that one sided contract in the first place.

I shudder consider a scenario where Newfoundland and Labrador is locked into an arrangement that only permits hydro development on terms agreeable to Hydro Quebec and the Quebec government.

As for Mr. Harper, he’s said he’ll provide a loan guarantee, or equivalent funding, as long as the development meets certain criteria.

If (and only if) the project meets a test for financial feasibility, regional development value and greenhouse gas reductions will a loan guarantee be put forward.

On the surface those criterion sound perfectly reasonable but what exactly are the measurements of each and what constitutes a pass or a fail?

These non-specific criteria, though mana from Heaven to Conservative followers, are in fact an off ramp a two year old could drive an eighteen wheeler down.

Repeatedly when speaking about his “promise” Mr. Harper has also crowed about how much the project will mean for regional co-operation and for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. He’s even spoken of the virtues of power produced in Newfoundland and Labrador serving as a replacement for dirty power generated in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m quite struck and very concerned by something he has, almost intentionally it seems, not said.

Not once has Mr. Harper made any mention of Newfoundland & Labrador’s intention to sell excess power into the lucrative U.S. market.

The ability to reach those markets is what Quebec has denied to Newfoundland and Labrador for generations and it’s exactly what every politician in Quebec is railing against ever since Mr. Harper’s “promise” hit the news wires.

Could it be that the Harper Conservatives plan to use, as part of his mysterious approval criteria, the caveat that power generated by the Lower Churchill project, with federal assistance, can only be used to benefit Canada as a whole (read: only sold and used within Canada)?

Such a move would, of course, destroy Newfoundland and Labrador’s energy and financial aspirations and would guarantee that any power not purchased in the Atlantic region would inevitably flow to the end of the line, so to speak. Not into the U.S. at all, but into Quebec.

In such a scenario, any energy not required by the region and locked out of the U.S. market would be virtually worthless to everyone, with the exception of Quebec. A move like this would allow Hydro Quebec to scoop that power up at fire sale prices and re-sell it, inside Quebec boundaries of course, thus freeing up more of Hydro Quebec’s own power for sale elsewhere at a staggering profit.

There is no doubt any conditions of this sort would mean the law of supply and demand will benefit Quebec alone, certainly not Newfoundland & Labrador.

Do such scenarios sound a bit too dastardly for Michael Ignatieff or even for Stephen Harper to consider? Perhaps, but a similar approach isn’t without precedent.

A number of years back Ottawa pulled the same stunt when they sold the then bankrupt Come by Chance oil refinery, also situated in Newfoundland & Labrador. The people of the Province wanted the refinery back online and access to the jobs that would come with the sale. Ever the fair bunch that they are the feds agreed to a sale under the condition that beyond what oil would be produced for use in Newfoundland and Labrador, not one single solitary barrel would ever, ever, be sold inside Canada’s border. It never has and never can be.

At that time it was the Irving family screaming and being placated by Ottawa. What’s to stop Hydro Quebec from doing it this time around?

Adding to the mass confusion around these so called “promises” are statements made by characters other than the federal candidates themselves.

Bloc leader, Gilles Duceppe, has called these “promises” a slap in the face for Quebec and said Ottawa is using Quebec tax dollars to help Newfoundland and Labrador unfairly compete with Hydro Quebec.

Quebec Premier, Jean Charest, has said that it isn’t right for Ottawa to subsidize power rates in Newfoundland and Labrador since Ottawa never helped Quebec develop its power grid.

Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is screaming blue murder that Ontario tax dollars are being used to support Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, he says, Ontario wants support from the feds for its projects, the price of which McGuinty will, “…determine later”.

As they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

Suppose for a moment that which ever party forms the next government actually keeps their promise to Newfoundland & Labrador, without locking the Province into a catastrophic agreement, what would that actually mean?

It means that regardless of what Mr. Duceppe, Charest or McGuinty say, a loan guarantee doesn’t actually require money from any federal taxpayers, no matter where they live. It's like a co-signature on a loan, nothing more.

Consider as well that while crying about subsidization more than 70% of the profits of Hydro Quebec (a provincial corporation) are a direct result of locked in 1960’s prices for energy Quebec resells at a monumental profit thanks to the afore mentioned Upper Churchill contract.

Even developed at the kind of lower interest rates a loan guarantee would bring Newfoundland and Labrador's Lower Churchill project could never come anywhere close to producing power as cheaply as Quebec is getting power from the Upper Churchill, so who is subsidizing whom?

Never mind as well that Quebec’s & Ontario’s grids are fully inside their respective Provinces while the proposed transmission system for the Lower Churchill would cross provincial boundaries and travel under the ocean, which is within federal jurisdiction. Ottawa should play a role.

Let’s also ignore the fact that with the borrowing power of both Ontario and Quebec, at least in the past, has been similar to that of the Federal government meaning loan guarantees of any kind would have had little if any benefit to either Province.


Add it all up and it’s one heck of a situation isn’t it?

So far Newfoundland and Labrador has received little more than weak election promises, no contract has been drafted and no passing or failing grades have been given to the project by Ottawa, yet look at the fuss.

If, even after all the concerns I’ve expressed so far, these promises are actually fulfilled in the end, Newfoundland and Labrador will only receive a loan guarantee which actually costs taxpayers nothing, zip, zero.

Well…

It’s here that I have to also admit to being guilty of not letting the truth get in the way of a good lie since I’m willing to wager my substantial penny collection that these “promises” will actually cost taxpayers a great deal, though they shouldn’t.

Just days after the “promises” were made, in order to placate the complainers, agreements have been made on the $2.2 billion dollars (of real taxpayer money) Quebec wants for introducing the HST decades ago.

It’s also been reported that Ottawa will help Quebec with building a new bridge. It’s not yet clear if this will be in the form of a loan guarantee or actual tax dollars but coincidentally the bridge project is valued at almost exactly the same $6 billion dollars or so the Lower Churchill project is expected to come in at.

I can’t wait to see what kind of goodies the Ontario government will milk the situation for over the coming weeks, especially after Mr. McGuinty’s statement that he’ll determine the value of what he wants later.

As I said at the start of this lengthy commentary, nothing is as simple as the political parties would have us believe.

In the end Newfoundland and Labrador may actually end up with nothing from the federal government, not even a simple signature, or perhaps worse, find itself locked into an agreement that destroys its financial future. Either way, you can hang your hat on the fact that Ontario and Quebec will surely benefit from the carrot now being dangled in front of voters in the Province.

As McGuinty, Charest and Duceppe have said in the past few days, this promise will cost a great deal of taxpayer dollars, but they failed to mention that Ontario and Quebec are the provinces that will receive those dollars, not Newfoundland and Labrador.

Based on the numbers being bandied about, by the time this election is over what should have been a free promise to provide a free loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project will assuredly end up costing taxpayers far more than the entire Lower Churchill price tag itself, with not one penny going to the proponents of the project.

So, was Mark Twain correct when he said, “Better a broken promise than none at all.”?

I’m not convinced, but it’s pretty clear Mr. Twain didn’t spend much time in Canada.

How much does a Quebec stadium cost to build these days anway by the way? Hmmmmmm....

What Kind of Shell Game is Stephen Harper Playing?

What kind of shell game is Stephen Harper playing and why are the political elite in Newfoundland and Labrador willingly stepping up to be conned once again?

During the 2006 federal election Stephen Harper promised – in writing – that if elected his party would exclude revenues from non-renewable resources when calculating equalization payments to the Provinces of Canada. The logic being that since those revenues are finite they should be used to allow Provinces to diversify, pay down debt and grow their economies in preparation for the day when the resources run out. They should not be considered on the same footing as other types of revenue.

It was that commitment which paved the way for several Conservative MPs to be elected in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2006, including the now locally infamous Fabian Manning, who would later stand next to Stephen Harper in the House of Commons and laugh, clap and cheer (literally) as Mr. Harper ridiculed Newfoundland and Labrador over the issue claiming the Province wanted to “Have its cake and eat it to…”.

Even after signing a letter to the Provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador to the effect, once elected, Mr. Harper walked away from his commitment.

So much for election promises, even ones in writing with a clear and distinct signature (sure looks like Stephen Harper’s to me).

Fast forward to the 2008 election and, thanks to the broken promise, the Province rallied behind Premier Danny Williams, leaving nothing but scorched earth at the feet of every Conservative MP who dared to stand with Stephen Harper. Not a single Conservative was sent to Ottawa, except that is for Fabian Manning who, after losing his election bid, was rewarded with a Senate Appointment (another broken promise by Harper who said he would not appoint senators). One can only surmise Mr. Manning’s appointment was Harper’s way of thanking Manning for his very public betrayal of constituents and his Province.

During that 2008 campaign every elected member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature participated in the ABC (Anyone But Conservative) campaign that drove the Tories out, including all members of the local PC party. Some even campaigned along side Federal Liberal hopefuls, not the least of which was Newfoundland and Labrador’s new Premier, Kathy Dunderdale.

After the broken promises and public ridiculing that flowed directly from Mr. Harper’s commitment on non-renewable resource revenues, the 2010 election campaign has led to a resurgence in Newfoundland and Labrador, not of local politicians willing to stand up and fight, as was seen in 2008, but of the sort of pre-Danny Williams politicians the Province has been accustomed to for generations. The self serving spineless kind.

No worries about broken promises this time around, no siree. Now they all say "...this time is different".

This time Mr. Harper has said he’ll back a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill hydro project. We don't have a signed agreement and never mind that a few hours before the big announcement on Thursday Mr. Harper told a crowd in Halifax that there was still a lot of details to be worked out and nothing was final, "...this time will be different".

Never the less, Danny Williams is barely out the door and suddenly we find Premier Dunderdale (remember her, she’s the one who walked the campaign trail at the side of a Liberal MP in 2008) is crowing about how great this deal will be for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Fabian Manning (yes, he’s back) has left the senate and is running in his old riding again. In fact former provincial politicians, former Williams' cabinet members no less, are tripping over each other in a scramble to get to the Harper trough in time for feeding.

They’re coming out of the woodwork, but for what?

Do they really believe that Stephen Harper will keep his promise, even after Quebec has publicly said, time and time again, that they do not want Ottawa to help with the development of the Lower Churchill Project?

Just this week Gilles Duceppe called it a slap in the face to Quebec.

I can picture what the next few months will bring, it won’t be only Fabian Manning standing in the House to cheer on Mr. Harper as he belittles NL over this latest commitment, it’ll be all the Conservative MPs the people of Newfoundland and Labrador might be foolish enough to send to Ottawa.

Here we are, barely a week into the 2010 election and, with Williams now out of the picture, the political hacks from Newfoundland and Labrador are once again showing their true colors, looking out for number one.

It’s too bad they can’t show a little intelligence and moral fibre. It might not serve their greed and avarice but it's something that might serve the Province far better.

At this point one can only hope the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador, if not the politicians, are willing to stand by their principles.

Beware the Ides of March (or June or July or...)

Well thank goodness the rest of Canada, excluding Alberta perhaps, has finally begun to figure out what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have known almost from day one.

Stephen Harper is not a national leader, in fact some might say he isn’t fit to run a third world sweat shop, let alone an entire Country.

Newfoundland and Labrador voters unceremoniously booted the Harper Conservatives off the island (sorry about the survivor reference Labrador but it was just too easy) during the last election by denying them a single seat in the Province. Now that the rest of Canada is starting to see the wisdom of that action its beginning to look more and more like the dark days of Stephen Harper will soon be over.

All the signs are there.

The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are consistently trending higher in the polls as the weeks roll on. Mr. Harper himself can’t wait to race from international meeting to international meeting, far preferring life outside Canada to that inside the nation he so poorly leads. For most political junkies nothing underscores the end of a political career like massive travel expenses.

Even Conservative MPs and Ministers, who until recently had their mouths hermetically sealed by the PMO as a right of passage, have now begun to publicly disagree with and freely contradict their soon to be ex-leader. Could anything send a clearer message of Mr. Harper's future in politics?

All is not well at 24 Sussex Drive. Who knows, with any luck the packing may have already begun.

What was it Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier, Danny Williams, said after one broken Harper promise or another?

“He did it to us and he can do it to you (referring to the Canadian public)".

Those words might seem almost prophetic in hindsight, to anyone outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those inside the Province had already recognized what the man is like.

Or perhaps a better Williamsism might be his very public claim that, “I can assure you I’ll be around long enough to see the back of his (Harpers) head”.

It looks like Mr. Williams and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will get their wish sooner rather than later now that Stephen Harper’s true persona is not only recognized in Newfoundland and Labrador but more so across the Country.

Failing to win a majority government the last time out, against a bumbling and ineffective Stephane Dion, certainly didn’t cement Mr. Harper’s support within his party, nor has his penchant for Liberal style spending in an effort to buy Quebec voters (those aren’t side deals folks they're just good politics). Add to this the mounting deficit and a very public attack on the Conservative party’s iconic Grand Poobah, Brian Mulroney, and it isn’t hard to see the writing on the wall for the PM.

Outside the party itself, Mr. Harper’s denial and later miraculous epiphany, thanks to his party’s near death experience, that an economic crisis actually does exist certainly didn’t help his chances of re-election.

His mean spirited and divisive approach to both politics and leadership has manifested itself so often and in such a manner right across the Country that there can be little doubt left about his self inflicted fate.

There are only three questions left for the Conservative party to answer:

Who will replace Mr. Harper?

When is the best time to do the nasty deed of decapitating him? (Figuratively of course, though Mulroney supporters in the party may wish it otherwise)

What approach will least harm the party brand? (In other words should their leader die the death of a thousand cuts or will he be permitted to quietly fall on his own sword?).

It’s all just a matter of time now. Once the decisions are made in some dark, dank and secluded back room of the evil empire it will be done quickly and decisively. If it isn't done, before the next election anyway, the electorate will make the party's decision for it and make them pay a price for their delay.

It’s a sad thing that it's taken so much time for Canadians to understand what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians figured out, and tried to tell them, a long time ago. At least they've finally begun to do so.

Political ideology and ambition aren’t necessarily a bad thing, within moderation, but when it comes to actually running the entire show you can’t survive forever by placing your personal agenda above all else or by pitting one group, one region and one individual against the other.

Sooner or later those who have been wronged or damaged by your actions will reach a certain critical mass where by they begin to outnumber those who have benefited from them. When that happens, the game’s over, as it surely is for Mr. Harper.

For the rest of us, perhaps unfortunately, Mr. Harper's pending political demise means one of two things:

Either the devil we know is better than the one we don’t, or he isn’t.

Only time will answer that question. Let’s all hope the majority of Canadians aren’t as slow to figure it out as they were on this go around.

The Art of Campaign Brainwashing

At the risk of being dismissed as one of Danny Williams’ minions, brainwashed by the NL premier’s ABC (Anything but Conservative) campaign or being all too willing to “drink the kool-aid”, as they say in these parts, I've reached a point where it simply amazes me that the federal Conservatives remain as high as they are in the polls.

In the latest in a series of disgusting comments from the Harper camp, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, during a conference call at the height of the listeriosis outbreak, decided it would be fun to crack a few jokes while all across the Country people were dying of the deadly bacteria.

“This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts," Ritz joked during the call. After being informed that another death had just occurred in PEI Ritz’s only response was to say, "Please tell me it's (Liberal MP) Wayne Easter."

Totally disgusting.

There are those who might be willing to attribute Ritz’s comments to the cold and uncaring nature of a single individual, I might have been one of them myself, were it not for a series of similar incidents coming out of the Harper camp.

When taken in conjunction with other statements and actions by Conservative members recently I believe the crude comments made by Minister Ritz are actually a symptom of a party culture that by its very nature promotes this behavior.

As with any team the rank and file look to their leadership for guidance on how to behave, what direction to take and how to succeed. It is through example that leaders lead best. The action, or lack of action, by Conservative party leader, Stephen Harper, when members of his party have crossed the line sends a strong signal to his followers, intentionally or not, that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

It’s not and Mr. Harper's quiet acceptance of such actions by his followers is not the stand a "strong leader" should be taking.

When a video tape of Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski surfaced showing him drinking and crudely pointing out the differences between himself and “homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails who spread disease…” Mr. Harper felt a public apology was enough to end all discussion of the incident. No further steps were taken against Mr. Lukiswsk and after the apology read to the press by Gerry Ritz last evening the PM now considers this issue put to rest.

I'm sorry Prime Minister but reading a prepared apology is not enough.

It’s not enough for those who have been the target of statements like Lukiwski’s, the families of those who have suffered or died during the deadly listeriosis outbeak or the Father of a slain soldier who was accused by a senior party strategist of invoking his son’s name for political gain.

And an apology isn't enough to show strong and effective leadership to either your followers or to the nation itself.

Every day the perception is mounting, or at least it should be, that there is something seriously rotten at the core of the new Conservative brand, yet somehow they still manage to retain voter support in key ridings. I have to admit to being totally thrown off balance by the situation.

This is a government that has cut funding to arts programs and women’s rights groups. A government that clearly lied about income trusts and fixed election dates. A government that destroyed the court challenges program. A government that on several occasions has abandoned Canadian citizens incarcerated in foreign lands, including one being held illegally at Guantanamo Bay and a government that handled the Maxime Bernier affair, not by addressing the national security concerns it clearly raised, but by desperately trying to sweep the entire matter under the rug.

Yet the polls show they still have more support among voters than any other party.

Isn’t there something wrong with this picture or am I missing something completely?

The Harper government has claimed that, thanks to their efforts, Canada has never been more united than it is today and that the relationship between the provinces and Ottawa is stronger than ever.

The reality is that the people of at least three provinces, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador feel as if they’ve been robbed by Ottawa over natural resource revenues.

Ontario feels it is still not getting its fair share of revenue in the federation, has had the Conservative Finance Minister state publicly that it is the last place on earth anyone would want to invest and its premier has been called the “small man of confederation” by the Conservative government.

Does this sound like a Country that is more united than ever before?

Meanwhile, as the economy is tanking in the U.S. and the impact of the collapsing U.S. economy is beginning to be felt in Canada, the surpluses that used to exist have been spent and are no longer available if needed during a recession. Job losses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors are mounting and all the Prime Minister can say about it is, “The Canadian economy’s fundamentals are strong” or that anyone who loses their job in the pulp and paper industry can simply move to Fort McMurray.

I've never seen a party survive an election campaign in Canada with so many strikes against it yet the Conservatives still remain strong in the polls.

It makes me wonder exactly who is being brainwashed here. If it's those who have been dismissed for taking an anti-Harper stance by supporting ABC or if it's those who still plan to vote for the Harper brand of Conservatism.

UPDATE: 3:23pm

The disgusting attitudes of members of the Conservative movement in Canada are coming in so fast and furiously it's getting hard to stay on top of them. Here's another just hitting the news services.

The Conservatives have issued another apology, this time for comments caught on video Wednesday by an assistant to Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.

Mr. Cannon was campaigning in Maniwaki, Que., Wednesday when a group of protesters from the divided native community of Barriere Lake showed up to outline their demands.

Mr. Cannon listened to their speech and then left, but his constituency assistant continued an exchange with the lead protester, Norman Matchewan.

The exchange was caught on video and broadcast as the lead item Wednesday by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

“If you behave and you're sober and there's no problems and if you don't do a sit down and whatever, I don't care,” said Mr. Cannon's assistant..."

Conservative Reps Flee Reporters after Secret Meeting

Tell me it doesn’t leave you with a dirty taste in their mouth, and the feeling of being unclean, when official representatives of Canada’s governing party secretly plan meetings and then sneak down the back stairs of hotels to avoid the media. In fact, for me, it conjures up thoughts of Watergate and the Nixon era in America.

On Friday information finally surfaced about the affidavit and resulting search warrant used to take documents and computer equipment from Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa.

The affidavit and the warrant that were used by Elections Canada to conduct the three-day search, seeking evidence of alleged election fraud, were unsealed on Friday. Instead of all 700 pages, only 70 pages of material were released to television networks by the Conservative party and Ryan Sparrow, a party spokesman, refused to explain when contacted by The Globe and Mail, why the Conservatives released only a portion of the documents.

According to a CTV report, the portions of the affidavit handed do not reveal much more about the case than was already known, but it does confirm that the search was not related to a lawsuit launched against Elections Canada by the Conservatives. Instead the warrant was related to a so called “In and Out” scheme that allegedly allowed the party to list the cost of national campaign ads as local ads and in doing so claim additional tax refunds while circumventing election spending limits by more than a million dollars during their 2006 campaign.

According to the Globe and Mail, “In releasing the abridged version of the documents to select media, the party hoped to give Mr. Sparrow, campaign organizer Doug Finley and party lawyer Paul Lepsoe a chance to explain the Tory point of view.”

“In the end, the plan went horribly awry.”

“On Saturday Mr. Sparrow called a number of reporters to ask them to come to meetings that had been scheduled for yesterday at the Lord Elgin Hotel in downtown Ottawa saying it "would be worth their while."

“But media outlets not among those invited got wind of the meetings …began to ask what was going on. When one reporter asked in an e-mail about the news conference, Mr. Sparrow replied: "No conference, not sure where you got that from."

“Shortly after, the Liberals found out about the briefings and advised all of the Ottawa press gallery, some of whom were quite miffed to find they had been excluded. When they threatened to show up at the Lord Elgin, despite the lack of an invitation, the meeting was secretly moved to the Sheraton.”

“The first briefing for select television outlets took place but, by then, the excluded reporters found out the new location and began to stake out the hotel. That led the Tories to cancel all subsequent briefings, including the one they had planned with The Globe.”

“Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Finley and Mr. Lepsoe fled from the Sheraton down a back set of stairs.”

I ask you, what has Canada become?

The government of Canada is quickly building a long resume of very questionable and perhaps even illegal activities.

The firing of Canada’s nuclear regulator because she did her job and made the Minister to whom she reported “look bad”.

An audio tape clearly identifying that the Prime Minister was aware of some kind of financial offer to the late MP Chuck Cadman in return for his vote in the House of Commons.

Attempting to blame the military for acting on its own with prisoner exchanges in Afghanistan, the equivalent of accusing them of no longer being under government control.

Ramming through immigration legislation, hidden inside the budget bill, that would allow the Conservative Minister to cherry pick which individuals or “types” of applicants will be reviewed for entry into Canada and which will be denied a chance to enter the Country.

Tabling censorship legislation (though they don’t call it that) which will leave it up to the governing party to decide which television programs or movies are “offensive” and denying much needed tax breaks to those they judge unworthy.

Now we find ourselves witnessing the RCMP and Elections Canada raiding Conservative headquarters. We see a PM claiming the 3 days of removing files and computers was not a raid but a “visit”. And we have party representatives attempting to hand pick which media will cover the story then running down the back stairs of a secret meeting location to escape reporters who want to provide the public with answers.

As one columnist put it recently, “The only difference between Canada and a Banana Republic is Canada’s inability to grow bananas.”

MacKay - Ousted MP Bill Casey May Rejoin Conservative Caucus

The following is from the Halifax Chronicle Herald today. Oh the interesting times we live in!

OTTAWA — Bill Casey may run again for the Conservatives in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, Peter MacKay said Monday.

"I don’t think that decision has been made yet," said the Central Nova MP and defence minister.

"But the riding association will obviously have something to say about that."

Mr. Casey was ejected from the Conservative caucus in June when he voted against budget-enabling legislation that, he says, violates the Atlantic accord that shielded Nova Scotia’s offshore revenue from a federal equalization clawback.

Mr. Casey is sitting as an Independent but he is already the nominated Conservative candidate in the riding, and he has the support of the Tory riding association.

"Our entire association stands right behind Bill," Scott Armstrong, the riding association president, said Monday. "We want to see a resolution of the Atlantic accord so that he can get back into caucus."

Mr. Armstrong is a longtime supporter of Mr. Casey and a key Tory organizer at both the federal and provincial levels.

He said the community is behind Mr. Casey and, as a good Tory, he hopes he never has to choose between campaigning for Mr. Casey or a different Conservative.

It would be unusual for the prime minister to accept a dissident like Mr. Casey back into the fold, and Mr. Armstrong acknowledged that it may not happen.

"That’s what we’d like to see as a local organization," he said. "But that decision will lie with the prime minister."

Don Plett, president of the federal Conservative party, was in Nova Scotia for meetings last week but Mr. Armstrong said there is no pressure from the national party to rush a resolution.

"The election for us, the farther away the better, so we can work through this and hopefully get back in before the writ’s dropped," he said.

For his part, Mr. Casey said he’s not sure if he would re-enter the Tory caucus, although he’d think about it if the federal government reverses itself and honours the Atlantic accord.

"Well, they booted me out, so I don’t know," he said Monday. "And I can’t go back unless they reverse it."

Mr. Casey issued a tongue-in-cheek news release on Monday after the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals each released lists of conditions for their support of the Tory throne speech next month.

"As an Independent Progressive Conservative MP from Nova Scotia, I have only one condition for me to vote in favour of the throne speech," the release said. "Reverse the seven pages of amendments to the Atlantic accord agreements which were imposed on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland without their consent or agreement in the 2007 budget."

The federal Tories say they haven’t violated the Atlantic accord, as the province has the choice of sticking with the accord and an older, less generous equalization scheme, or opting into a richer system that includes an offshore revenue clawback that the accord was designed to remove.