Five Point Plan to Save Canada from the Cons

1. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as Prime Minister to the Liberal caucus and the Liberal caucus appoints an interim leader.

2. Justin Trudeau resigns as Prime Minister and asks the Governor General to select the interim Liberal leader as Prime Minister of a National Unity Government with Jagmeet Singh as Deputy Prime Minister and Elizabeth May in the Cabinet (in order to allow assured confidence and time for a new Liberal leader to be selected before the next federal election).

3. The Liberal, New Democratic, and Green parties announce they will not compete against each other in the next election, agreeing that whichever party (of the three) won the most votes in each constituency in the last election will not be challenged by the other two.

4. After the next election, if successful, the National Unity government will strike a special Parliamentary committee with expert researchers to consider expert and public testimony on electoral reform, followed by a report and legislation, with implementation of a new electoral system by Elections Canada.

5. The National Unity Government will be dissolved and a new election held under the new electoral system and a truly representative government that reflects the votes of the Canadian people will be elected.

Federal Election 2019 Reflections

The big surprise of the election has to be the Bloc Québécois resurgence, although I am sure they probably saw it coming even if the rest of us didn't. This certainly makes leader Yves-François Blanchet's position secure.

The other surprise was the late campaign resurgence of the New Democratic Party under leader Jagmeet Singh. I am sure many New Democrats are thinking if only they had another week of the campaign as his popularity surge does not seem to have peaked yet. If before the election there was uncertainty over whether they had made the right choice he has proven himself and his leadership is certainly secure now.

The Green Party under Elizabeth May is a different matter altogether. This was the election they were supposed to make a breakthrough and it proved not to be. While Elizabeth May may be a saint to many Greens, others have questioned her “leadership style”, to put it politely. To many the Green Party is Elizabeth May and that may be a problem in itself. The question for the future of the party may be is there a Green Party beyond Elizabeth May.

As for the upstart People’s Party of Canada (aka the “Mad Max party” or the “I'll get you Andrew Scheer party”), it went down in flames with even leader Maxime Bernier losing the seat he won as a Conservative in the last election. There will be no leadership change here as you cannot have anyone else but Max Bernier lead the Max Bernier party. What we will likely see is brave statements about this being their first election and they will be better organized next time, followed by the party slowly fading away.

This was supposed to be the election the Conservative Party under Andrew Scheer formed government, considering Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau's recent SNC-Lavalin and brown face scandals, to name just two. But that was not to be, leaving Max Bernier with at least something to celebrate. The knives were already out for Andrew Scheer during the last week of the campaign as many Conservatives foresaw what was coming. But it is not only leadership the Conservatives have to change, they need to find a way to move beyond their social conservative base that just scares away other voters.

As for the apparent winner, Liberal Party leader, and Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the big question is going to be did he win a minority or lose a majority. To many observers this is the election where more people voted against the Conservatives than voted against the Liberals. It may indeed have been an election where the Liberals won despite, not because of, Justin Trudeau. I see it as similar to the last election Kathleen Wynne's Liberals won in Ontario. Discontent with her leadership of the province was only going to grow and she did not see it was time to step down and let the Liberals re-brand under a new leader if they hoped to win the next election. Will Justin Trudeau see this, or more importantly, will the Liberal Party.

So how many party leadership campaigns will we be seeing in the next few years.

Postscript - What if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had kept his promise and this election was not held under the First Past The Post system but under a system where every vote counted.

Realigning Canada's Political Spectrum

Canadians have traditionally held social democratic values while supporting centrist political parties. Canadians support universal single payer public health insurance, public pensions and a social safety net, all of which, at the federal level, have been proposed by leftist political parties but legislated by centrists political parties. These parties traditionally were the Liberal Party, slightly to the left of centre, and the Progressive Conservative Party, slightly to the right of centre.

The new extreme right wing federal Conservative Party of Stephen Harper (and Ontario PC Party of Harris and Hudak) are historical anomalies.

But the rise of the New Democratic Party in the recent election, and the rapid decline of the Liberal Party are signs that a change may be underway.

Some are suggesting a move to a two party left/right alignment with a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, but I do not see that happening.

What I see happening is a realignment closer to the traditional Canadian model.

I see the demise of the Liberal Party with it's right wing moving to the Conservatives and it's left wing moving to the New Democrats. I see the right wing Liberals joining with the former progressive wing of the Conservatives to move that party closer to it's former position slightly right of centre, while the New Democratic Party fills the position formerly held by the Liberals but somewhat further left of centre.

This would mean that the centre of Canadian politics would move to the left leading to more progressive future governments.

But I also see a further possibility of a New Democratic Party government bringing in proportional representation so that a true left wing party could emerge, with political representation equivalent to it's public support, along with a similar right wing party. The Greens would also get representation equivalent to their public support.

Their would be the potential for a more democratic system that made majority governments unlikely and co-operative (rather than confrontational) politics not only possible, but a necessity.

What is Progressive About the Liberal Party

Well, nothing, actually.

The Liberal Party has always been a centrist (and opportunistic) party, slightly to the left of the Progressive Conservative Party. The fact that the latest incarnation of the Conservative Party has moved to the right does not make the Liberals progressive. Indeed, if anything, the Liberals under Iggy have moved to the right into (and past) the spot held by the old Progressive Conservatives.

As for the Greens, they are simply a recognition that broader support for environmentalism has created a spot for a right wing environmental party that recognizes that without an environment there can be no profits and that there are profits to be made from environmentalism. But their solutions are clearly capitalistic and not progressive.

The fact is that Canada has only one mainstream progressive political party. It is the party that has always been the political wing of the progressive movements, including the environmental movement. And, of course, that party, with it's own inherent problems from time to time, is the New Democratic Party.

The Great Debate - My Predictions

As an almost unilingual anglophone I will not be making predictions on the French debate, but I am posting my English debate predictions now, so as not to be influenced by the media coverage of the French debate.

This has the makings of one of the country’s most historical events. It may very well be the turning point in this election that leads to real change rather than the normal superficial changes we usually see in federal elections.

Those of us who say that Jack Layton and the NDP can win this election do not say so frivolously. We know the debate will make the difference and we know that Jack needs to win the debate.

So what are my predictions.

Stephen Harper will be more of Stephen Harper, He will come across as a stronger more intense Stephen Harper. His core supporters will be delighted and see him as the winner. Those who have always opposed him will have their views reconfirmed. But most importantly, Harper’s soft support from traditional Progressive Conservative Party voters, who want to vote Conservative but have doubts about Harper and the new Conservative Party, will be placed in jeopardy.

Stéphane Dion will surprise many and come across better than expected. He will not do a terrible job in the debate, only a poor one. The Liberals Green Shift was a gutsy move but his retreat to the wimpy”we are in the middle” position will hurt him.

Gilles Duceppe will not be playing to his core Quebec francophone audience and that will show.

Elizabeth May will be a disappointment. The debate will give viewers a chance to see beyond her party’s Green label. All her efforts to get into the debate may come back to haunt her as she has to deal with the more experienced debaters.

Jack Layton will continue what he has been doing throughout the campaign and will show he has the leadership capability to be Prime Minister and that the NDP has the polices that ordinary working Canadians and their families need.

Why Green Party Supporters Should Vote NDP

“I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous.”
--Elizabeth May

We Can Stop Stephen Harper

As the federal election campaign begins, early polls have indicated the possibility of a Harper majority.

How can this be.

We have a combination of a lack of leadership on behalf of the Liberal “natural governing” Party and a focus on the environment pitting three pro-environment parties against the anti-
environment Conservatives.

Stéphane Dion clearly lacks the communication skills necessary to counter the Conservatives American style negative campaign and win the election. The public will not elect a Liberal government under his leadership.

On the other hand we have three parties vying for the environmental vote. We have the Liberals with their newly discovered environmental religion. We have the Green Party with an environmental label, along with right wing economic policies and a leader with strong ties to previous Conservative governments. And we have the traditional party of Canada’s environmental movement, the New Democratic Party.

This is all happening at a time when NDP Leader Jack Layton is the most popular of the opposition leaders seeking to become Prime Minister.

But if Canadians were to vote based on the leader they think would be the best prime minister, Ipsos-Reid's Darrel Bricker says there is a clear front-runner.

"(Stephen) Harper is at 50 percent of Canadians saying they think he would be the best Prime Minister, followed by (Jack) Layton at 31 and finally by Stephan Dion at 20 percent."

Bricker adds the fact that Layton's growing popularity across Canada could make things interesting at the polls."

In contrast to Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton’s leadership qualities are shining through in this election campaign, as are the NDP’s polices to support Canadian workers and families.

As Canadians look beyond the labels, and look at the parties long term records, they will recognize that the only party capable of getting elected and implementing progressive environmental policies is the New Democratic Party.

The pundits have always said the New Democratic Party could never win federal power. They also used to say they could never win power in Ontario. That was until 1990 when the voters ignored the pollsters and elected Ontario’s most progressive government ever.

The New Democratic Party can win this election. All it requires is for the voters to realize that they do have a choice. They do not have to choose between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. They can vote for real change.

This is no time for strategic voting. When the NDP won in Ontario they won ridings nobody predicted they would have a chance to win. If people had “voted strategically” they never would have won.

Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party can stop Stephen Harper. Indeed, they are the only party that can.

Don’t Fuck Around With Nuclear Safety

Sometimes an “expletive” is required and this is one of those times.

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

It is frightening that we were placed at risk because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited simply ignored safety directives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who discovered the fact in a routine inspection.

The situation is all the more worrisome because the country's nuclear regulator specifically ordered AECL more than a year ago to take extra safety precautions if it wanted to continue operating the aging NRU.

But there's more at stake than isotopes.

The technical competency of an industry trying hard to win back public confidence is being questioned, as is public safety, national security and the reputation of a company whose message to Canadians has consistently been: "Trust us."

Yet AECL not only failed to install a key piece of safety equipment on the National Research Universal (NRU), Canada's oldest nuclear reactor. When its mistake was discovered, it matter-of-factly camouflaged it in a Dec. 4 press release as little more than a routine maintenance issue.

In fact, an important safety repair had not been made.

On Nov. 19, a day after what was supposed to be a routine five-day shutdown, safety inspectors with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) discovered a significant and mandated safety upgrade -- connecting two heavy water pumps to an emergency power supply -- had not been done.

It is even more frightening that the government, with the support of all parties, is going to put Canadians back at risk.

The emergency legislation introduced by the Conservatives, which would allow AECL to start the reactor immediately and run it for 120 days, was passed unanimously by all parties after four hours of civilized debate.

As an NDP supporter it troubles me that the only party to oppose this was the Green Party. The NDP should be ashamed.

The Prime Minister has disgraced himself by accusing the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting Canadians safety with “obstruction” for doing it’s job.

"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The operator of the Chalk River reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had said it expected the plant to be up and running by the middle of this month, but the safety commission was refusing to allow it to restart production until it resolved a host of safety issues.

So it appears that all we have to protect us from a nuclear melt down is the Prime Minister’s word that it can’t happen here.


References:

Globe and Mail: Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

National Post; Emergency bill to resume isotope production off to Senate

Ottawa Citizen: The major safety snafu behind the isotope shortage

CBC: MPs pass bill to restart urgent isotope production

CBC: Green Leader May slams Tories' handling of isotope shortage

Much Ado About A "Right" Nobody Wants

Bill C-6 provides that "an elector shall have an uncovered face when the elector is proving his or her identity".

So just what is the problem with this new rule.

Why should we not have our face uncovered when proving our identity when voting, whether we use photo ID or not.

I can think of two reasons, one being medical for which there is already an exemption. The other might be a matter of "reasonable accommodation" for religious or cultural requirements, except that no religious or cultural group has requested that proving ones identity with one's face covered when voting be allowed. The only request has been that Muslim women be allowed to uncover their faces in front of female officials rather than male officials, which has been accommodated in the bill.

This "controversy" all began when the Chief Electoral Officer decided to address a non-problem by issuing a statement clarifying the fact that the existing law did in fact allow the practice of proving one's identity with one's face covered. As it turned out the only people interested in taking advantage of this "right" were people protesting the fact that the law did in fact allow it.

Yes, it is seemingly irrelevant to require the face be uncovered when photo ID is not being checked and I know the motivations of some people supporting this rule might be less than pure, but for whatever reasons there is strong support for this rule, including at least one Canadian Muslim organization.

Perhaps the Green Party and others who so vehemently oppose this rule should focus their attention on important matters of public policy rather than fighting for "rights" that nobody actually wants and that just create a backlash against the recipients of those unrequested "rights"

Faith-Based About Face

Tory's Policy No Longer Tories Policy

John Tory raised this issue with a principled but wrong position. Now he is just wrong.

Meanwhile Dalton McGuinty continues to oppose public funding for (non-Catholic) faith based-schools and carries on about how he supports public education while pretending the the Catholic School system does not exist.

And Howard Hampton carries on about how schools need more money while pretending the faith-based issue does not exist.

Only the Greens can claim to have a principled position on public education.

Why I Am Not Voting NDP This Election

Since I started voting in 1968 there have only been two previous times I did not vote for the NDP. Once was as a protest vote after the Waffle was expelled from the NDP and I voted CPC-ML, and the other was a strategic vote for Marianne Wilkinson (who had left the Tories to join the Liberals because of Mike Harris's regressive policies) in an attempt to unseat the sitting Tory, Norm Sterling, and the Harris government.

This will be the third time, and it is essentially over one issue. I do not usually believe in voting based on one issue but in this case I have an opportunity to vote for a party not afraid to raise the issue of one public education system for the province. It should be the NDP, but it is not. On this issue I even find myself agreeing with John Tory, rather than Howard Hampton, on the fact that the existing funding of Catholic religious schools only is discriminatory. Of course I disagree with John Tory's solution, which would only make things worse.

In the entire history of the province only the Green Party has had the political will to stand up for equality and public education in Ontario, and for that they will be rewarded with my vote.