The New Conservative Coalition

I read with interest this article, from the Toronto Star (of all places!), on the conservative base that propelled Stephen Harper to his majority government.  Normally, I don’t place much stock in the Toronto Star, but Susan Delacourt ocassionally has some ok things to say.

I would love to get my hands on the raw data behind the Ipsos-Reid mega poll that took place on Election Day (rumour has it that it was a poll of 36,000 people with a margin of error of sub 1%), but in his remarks to the Canadian Political Science Association at Wilfred Laurier University.  Probably the most interesting comment was Darrell Bricker (of Ipsos-Reid) was when he said :

“Brian Mulroney’s Tory coalition was never united on values, . . . never got along,” Bricker said. “It was an impossible coalition to hold together .  But Harper now has a coalition that is possible to hold together because they’re united by values, not just by geography or just by hatred of the Liberal party.”

I have to say that this statement is profound to say the least.   In many regards, the Harper Conservatives are more ideologically narrow than the Mulrouney Conservatives, and yet I always wonder why in the polling consistency, they have never gone below 28% in the last five+ years.   The conservative base has largely held strong and firm (even in spite of appointing senators, deficit spending, etc), because it is a coalition of taxpayers that share similar values.   In the past, conservatives were largely defined by their alienation from the Liberals and Ottawa (Quebec Nationalists and the blowback from NEP are prime examples of this); however the stability of this coalition was always tested.

Now…with a coalition of values that stretches from coast to coast to coast has become the new base, and while that base may not have the potential of the 1984 Mulrouney sweep (51% of the popular vote), it is definitely more stable.  How else do you explain the commonality between aboriginals who want further economic development, new immigrants in the GTA that have an entrepreneurial spirit, and rural Canadians that tend to want government to be not so much in their faces?

There are some issues with this conservative coalition to consider.   If the pandering to Quebec Nationalists is no more, there may also be a reality that a conservative government may in the future, may drift away from a reliance on “Western alienation.”  If the coalition of taxpayer values is a true and stable phenomenon, then there may be, in the future, less regional reliance on old grievances.    Of course, Western Canada tends to be more entrepenurial and less government reliance oriented (at least when you consider the government debt per capita ratios) so it may naturally conservative for some time.

What to make of the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister announced today his cabinet, and for the most part, I think that it's pretty good.   He's got a strong team in Baird at Foreign Affairs,  Clement to Treasury, and Flaherty remains at Finance.  In many regards, it's a steady as she goes approach.

I was pleased to see Joe Oliver get the Natural Resources ministry - as a former head of one of Canada's capital markets organizations, he will be able to strengthen Canada's marketability as a commodity superpower.   I'm not sure what to make of Julian Fantino's appointment to Associate Minister of Defence (procurement) - I guess the F35 procurement file drops on his desk.  

I have to say that I was disappointed in seeing Bev Oda remain at International Co-Operation.  She might be compotent as a Minister, but her political smarts is severly lacking.   I think she will be pretty non-existent.   I also wish that Chris Alexander would have gotten a Minister of State, but perhaps a Parliamentary Secretary position is in the works.  My feeling is that he would be a world class Foriegn Minister with a bit of time and experience in Parliament.. 


Indian and Northern Affairs is now been changed to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.  As a non-aboriginal person, I think this is a good idea, although there are some that are not in favour of this.

Finally, there is the appointment of three defeated candidates to the Senate.  Personally, I am of mixed feelings about this - on one hand, with a clear majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister can pretty much run his legislative agenda, including Senate reform.  On the other hand, it does have the optics of patronage.   Hopefully, the Prime Minister will be able to introduce the Senate term limits legislation in the fall, and this will all be moot.

The Nuances of the Abortion Debate

So...go figure...I’m going to dive head first into one of the most divisive debates that exists in Canada.   Full disclosure, I am personally prolife, but I also recognize that carte-blanche restrictions on abortion is about as useful as prohibition on alcohol.  The reality is that the premature termination of pregnancies has been around for nearly 2500 years.   

Pragmatically speaking, some degree of on-demand abortion is here to stay.  I believe that the majority of the Canadian public does not like the idea of abortion, but they also would not to see a woman’s right to choose to be banned.   I also realize (speaking for myself) that as a male, I can’t really ever appreciate the complexity and the moral questions that females face on this topic.    This debate is definitely prone to very, very emotionally charged rhetoric, and it is my sincere hope that at some point, we as a nation can have a rational discourse about this issue.

So...why post about this topic?  There are several reasons.  One of the stems from a conversation with someone who has some insights into the social conservatives within the Conservative caucus.    Afterwards, I had another conversation with someone who is somewhat active in the pro-life movement.   Then there is the Abacus Data poll  which suggests that the debate over this issue contains lots of shades of grey.   Finally, in 2013, I believe that this will be a flashpoint year as this is the 25^th Anniversary of R vs. Morgentaler.

I don’t think I am the type of person that will be an advocate for prolifers; but as a matter of public policy (which I think a federal government will have to address at some point in time), I am interested in how we got to this point with this issue in our political discourse.    So...here goes:

1)      Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this was when abortion was integrated into the criminal code in 1969.  What’s fascinating about this was that the sponsor of the bill was then justice minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in 1967.    Bill C-150, amongst other things, decriminalized homosexuality but it also enshrined the legality of abortion (section 251 of the criminal code).  However, amendments of the criminal code were such that:

a.       Abortions could only be done in a hospital, and

b.       They could only be done after the approval of the hospital’s Theraputic Abortion Committee (TAC) after consideration of the woman’s health.

2)      As a result of this, there became a patchwork approach to how abortions could be conducted.  A woman’s doctor could only refer to the TAC, or in some cases a doctor of a hospital would would refer to the TAC.  Some TACs were rubber stamping these requests, while others would grill the woman.
3)      Enter Henry Morgentaler.  I won’t get into his advocacy of choice issues, but essentially, he felt that abortions could be conducted outside hospitals and instead in standalone abortion clinics,  and in direct contravention of the Criminal Code that required TAC approval(s).
4)      In 1982, the British North America Act, 1867 was repatriated to become the Constitution Act, 1982.  The first thirty five sections of the Constitution Act form the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   Section 7 of the Charter deals with the critical language of “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
5)      In 1986, the Supreme Court heard the arguments by Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott suggesting that the Criminal Code provisions from 1969 were against the Charter with respect to abortion.  The doctors had been running an abortion clinic in Ontario for some time.  The Ontario Court of Appeal had previously sided with the government, and subsequently the doctors appealed to the High Court.
6)      On January 28, 1988, the High Court struck down the 1969 legislation, by a 5-2 decision on the grounds that The entire section 251 of the Criminal Code (how abortions should be conducted) violated Section 7 of the Charter, and that “The evidence discloses that there is no justification for the requirement that all therapeutic abortions take place in hospitals eligible under the Criminal Code. In this sense, the delays which result from the hospital requirement are unnecessary and, consequently, in this respect, the administrative structure for therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair and offends the principles of fundamental justice.” (page 115)
7)      So...while the High Court affirms a woman’s right to choose and strikes down the hospital TAC structure as unconstitutional, the ruling does not address whether Section 7 of the Charter contains a right to abortion.    I think this is critical as the court only struck down the previous application of how abortions could be conducted and not the greater issue of whether there is constitutional and charter permissibility of restrictions on abortions.   
8)      In 1988, near the end of the first Brian Mulrouney mandate, a free vote was held on a new bill that would legalize abortion on demand to the first trimester, and further ban after the second trimester under the threat of criminal prosecution.   On July 28, 1988 both pro-life (because the legislation was too lax) and pro-choice MPs (because it was too restrictive) voted down this bill 147-76.
9)      Early in the second Mulrouney mandate, in 1989, a new abortion bill was introduced that would criminalize forms of abortion.  What is interesting about this bill is that cabinet was whipped, so Red Tories such as Joe Clark and Flora MacDonald were required to vote in favour of the legislation.  On May 29, 1990, this vote passes by nine MPs.  The legislation goes to the Senate to be voted on.
10)   At around this time the GST debate was heating up substantially.   As the Liberal dominated Senate was blocking the GST being passed into law, Mulrouney used a new tactic.  On September 27, 1990, with the consent of Queen Elizabeth II, the Prime Minister used his reserve powers to appoint eight new senators to overcome the Liberal majority and to pass the GST legislation.
11)   In February 1991 the Senate, for the first time in 50 years, tied voted on the abortion bill that was passed in the House.    As a result of the tie, the bill died right there.
12)   Given the public outcry over the GST debate, appointment of senators, and the ongoing issues over Meech Lake (and soon to be the Charlolettetown Accord), the government felt that it was too divisive to deal with the abortion issue.

Since this time, excluding the debate around the funding of abortion services under the Canada Health Act, there has been no changes to the legal vacuum around abortion.    Presumably, there appears to be some constitutional room to create “reasonable” restrictions on abortion that would be consistent with Section 7 of the Charter, but that would involve a ramping up of the rhetoric, and at this stage (like it has been over the last twenty years), there is no reasonable climate in Canada to have a debate.   The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not want to open up the debate which I think is the prudent course of action given the lack of a reasonable climate regarding debate.

I do wonder, though, how the Prime Minister would respond if the debate were forced on him and the Conservative Government.

Manitoba Flooding

First of all, I want to make it really clear that natural disasters should never, never, never be used for partisan purposes.   Whether it is in Quebec, or BC or Manitoba, these are times where political sniping must stop and we must all band together. 

My thoughts and prayers are with the people in Brandon, Portage La Prairie and those that will be directly affected by the deliberate dike breach that will likely take place sooner than later.   These are trying times for city residents, homeowners and farmers alike.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister took an aerial tour of the Western Manitoba flood region.   In times like these, we look to our leaders as those who need to be comforting and reassuring and stating that as Canadians, we will stand by our citizens in their time of need.   Judging from the local news footage, I think that the Prime Minister seemed to display the right human touch to Manitobans, if you go by the judgement of this this editorial.  Some will look at this as an opportunistic photo-op, but the reality is that we want our leaders to be seen and provide reassurance.  

Bon chance to my fellow Manitobans and military personel as we continue to fight the floods.

adneganeddih is now on Blogging Tories!

So...now it's official, I am now offically a member of Blogging Tories!   I'm glad to be a part of Canada's online Conservative movement!  

For those of you who want to know a bit about where I am at, and why I chose such an unpronounceable name such as adneganeddih, click here to find out more!

Incremental Conservatism (or for some.. the emergence of the Harper Theocracy)

I always get a kick out of those who engage in hyperbole against the Harper Conservatives.  You know, labelling them as "neo-cons", "theo-cons", "capitalistic robots", "there is death in the soulless eyes of Stephen Harper", a "Bush clone", etc, etc.  I don't know how much of this is real fear, and how much of this is hyperbole to define the Conservatives as an enemy.   I often get the feeling that some of the hyperbole is, at the very least, to define the Conservative viewpoint as unCanadian.  "It's not caring!" "It's not peacekeeping!" "It's not compassionate!" "It's too American!" "It's not cultured or intelligent."  See...when I hear these things, I hear the strains of a left-leaning demogagy.  I think this has been particularly acute in the West, especially since introduction of the National Energy Program.   Successive Liberal governments and other parties (the NDP and the Bloc) have used Alberta as their whipping boy which simply sharpens the politics of division.

Against this background, the Prime Minister made the statement on May 3 that “One thing I've learned in this business is that surprises are generally not well received by the public."  And I think he is right.   One huge lesson learned from the Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris in Ontario from 1995 is that change cannot happen at such a radical pace that people want to jump off the bus.  So...there won't be any flat tax coming, there won't be citizens referrenda  (I wonder if it is possible to get a poll going to see if we can change Rick Mercer's first name to "Textile" for those of you that recall his campaign to change Stockwell Day's first name to "Doris"), and there won't be any large attempt to re-open the constitution. 





That isn't to say that change isn't coming...because it is.   I just see it taking longer than what a lot of Tories would like to see.   I also see change defined in three major ways:

1) Probably the most significant issue is whether the Tories are re-elected in 2015 with another majority mandate.   If it is, then it shows that there is a significant comfort level achieved with the Tories by the Canadian electorate, not just by Conservative supporters, but also by a significant portion of non-Conservative supporters.   This portion of the electorate may not like that their candidate/party had lost, but they have a comfort level with the Tories.  Without this, there is a shaky foundation for points 2) and 3).

2) A return to POGG.   What the heck is POGG?  It stands for "Peace Order and Good Government."   Found in Section 91 of the British North America Act - POGG deals with the division of powers between the Federal and Provincial governments.   Without getting into a really boring discourse on constitutional law, the basic issue is that there is a lot of turf wars and meddling between the provinces and the federal governments.   The debate over a National Securities Regulator is a prime example - is it the responsibilities of the provinces or the federal government to regulate national commerce?   Ultimately, with POGG, I believe that the aim is that the Federal Government to set certain national standards and policies for the Nation, and let the provinces do with as they wish in that framework.   This, by extension, would limit the size of the federal government to represent Canada within nation bulding and nation defining files (defence, national monetary policy, foreign affairs, etc).

3)  The Tories moving the centre rightwards, and by extension the entire country away from the "nanny state."   The characters that were able to do this successfully were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.   It can be argued that even to a large extent this drift to the right has been happening since Pierre Trudeau left office.  It wasn't too long ago that the NDP was in favour of nationalizing the banks...now there is no mention on this at all.  I don't think, though that we are in any danger of becoming as right winged as America (recently, I was in Arizona and some things I heard there makes Alberta look like a bunch of socialists).

All of these things will shape the debates over the future (what to do with the CBC, the future of our health care system, how do we balance environmental considerations with economic considerations, how do we get our kids more active, do we need a rethink in our aboriginal policy approach, etc, etc.)

Move over Waldo, where's Ruth Ellen Brosseau?

Over the last few days, I have been contemplating what to make of the uproar over the election of NDP candidate Ruth-Ellen Brosseau ( Berthier-Maskinonge).  In case you hadn't heard, Mlle. Brosseau beat a three term Bloc Quebecios incumbent by nearly six thousand votes, without appearing in the riding, living in Ottawa, a poor command of Francais, and of course - taking off to Las Vegas for a holiday.

In Quebec, sacrificial candidates such as Mlle. Brosseau are often referred to as "poteaux" or posts. And sometimes, in politics, poteaux such as Mlle. Brosseau can get really lucky.   And...it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened in La Belle Province.    In the 1984 Mulrouney sweep, the Progressive Conservatives, one poteaux was a Purolator driver enlisted to run by party activists when he was delivering a package. 

Of course,  in our tradition of the Westminister Parliament, a citizen doesn't vote for the leader of a party, but for the candidate of  a party.  But because the leader of a political party, defacto, is the party, the fine residents of Berther-Masikinonge placed a vote beside Mlle. Brosseau as an endorsement of her leader, the Hon. Jack Layton.    But I believe that that the residents of Berther-Masikinonge have buyers remorse for several reasons as follows:

• On vacation during the middle of a campaign.   Now..most candidates are in it to win, and would not do this, but of course, with family schedules and the unpredictability of a minority government it may be reasonable to take a vacation during the writ.   There were other candidates that did this from other parties (and I believe that includes the Tories) so that is not necessarily a big deal.
• Not around/barely visible in the riding.   There are plenty of charges of this all around.  Right now, there is a case of a new Conservative MP, Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge), who is in the middle of a controversy of running a very low profile campaign.   As one of my Green Party facebook friends, suggests, Conservatives were running away from candidate debates all over the place. (Ha! I am critizing the optics of what my party has done!).  Of course, there were also other candidates that were also nowhere near their ridings because they were working in other ridings.
• Poor command of the language of the residents of the riding.  Apparently Mlle. Brosseau's command of the french language was so bad that a local radio station had to scrap her interview from going on air.  Cyberpresse used the headline: ""Ruth-Ellen Brosseau: fantôme et anglophone?"" (no translation necessary here!).  If you had an MP in an anglophone riding, that only spoke broken french, how much confidence can you have in them to help with a refugee claim, a dispute over your OAS, or some other "routinely complex government issue?"  The MP staff can only cover a small portion of the MP's shortcomings.

A candidate can survive a bit of controversy with either of the first two points.   The last point invites much more scrutiny.   Put all three together, and the temperature is high, high, high.    It's at the point where the Liberals look like they are wanting to go ahead with a legal challenge of Mlle. Brosseau's victory (I doubt this will go anywhere).

I do firmly believe that the voters are never wrong but I must confess that in this case, my resolve in this belief is severely tested.   Populistic movements and their candidates (and Quebec has had a couple now with this NDP surge and even with the ADQ provincially  in 2007) need to be examined by the voter before their ballot is cast.

Ummm...Jack...I think your youngest MP didn't get the message in not talking to the media.

On the John Oakley show on AM640 in Toronto, the 19 year old NDP MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke), decided to say the following:

“I don’t think separatism is dead,” he said. “The NDP and I respect sovereignty.”

 My reaction is two fold.

1) <FACEPLANT>
2) Um...Jack...you might want to talk to the Prime Minister about getting some tips as to how to muzzle your caucus so that they understand the consequences of going off message.   Freedom of expression is good and all, but can get very emotional and very torqued up when you are starting to talk about National Unity.

UPDATE

It appears that one of your other rookie MP's, Alexandre Boulerice ( Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie), stated in an email during the campaign explaining that he was still a Quebec sovereigntist and still supported the sovereigntist left-wing provincial party Quebec Solidaire.

"Anyone can be in the NDP as long as they defend the program," wrote Alexandre Boulerice, who is likely to play a prominent role, in the late-March email to Montreal's Le Devoir.  "We can also prioritize social and environmental questions before the national question."

Memo to rookie NDP MPs from Quebec...do not do what your teacher just did!

So...apparently, the deputy leader of the NDP, Thomas Muclair, decided that the pictures of Osama Bin Laden's death don't exist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/04/pol-mulcair-osama.html

You would think that Muclair, who is going to run point on teaching the younger-not-so-life-experienced-members of the NDP Caucus the finer points of parliamentary procedures and political message management,  might not want to accuse the US of fabricating things of which he has no proof.  Not to mention that that your colleague, and foriegn affairs critic (Paul Dewar),  has countermanded your statements.

So...why adenganeddih?

So...this is truly a bizzare name for a blog...so why adenganeddih?

In 2000, the Liberal Party of Canada successfully demonized Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day with the moniker  "Hidden Agenda" due to his socially conservative leanings.    Rightly or wrongly, that label stuck in in the 2004 election and to a lesser extent in the 2006 election.   It's funny when the current opposition parties still try to raise this label, hoping that somehow the fear of a majority government will result in Canada only allowing "abortions-only-being-conducted-in-for-profit-health-clinics-located-beside-an-F35-hangar-within-an-oilsands-development."

Ergo...because:

a) the name hiddenagenda.blogspot.com was already taken, and
b) in case the Liberal Party of Canada decides to trademark "Hidden Agenda" (and sue for damages - and we all know they can use the cash)
c) I decided to reverse "Hidden Agenda" and call it "adenganeddih"

I'll be upfront, I am a partisan Tory.   My reasons are long and involved, but generally I align with most of their ideology, I find them more ideologically consistent than Liberals and NDPers, and I tend to believe in their brand of civil liberterianism.   Having said that, the blog I admire the most is Dan Arnold, aka calgarygrit.blogspot.com.   He's a partisan Liberal (originally from Alberta!) but he's not afraid to call it like he sees it.   That is what I would like to model myself after.   I suppose this precludes me from running for office, as my views (which often will align but not always with the Federal Conservaties) would certainly be used against me.   But that's ok.

So...here goes!