Progressive Conservative Convention: The path not taken

Most people will remember the 2009 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario convention for the reopening of the leadership race question. There was a surprisingly large faction within the party that wished to regress back to the delegated leadership convention. Even a federal cabinet minister spoke in favour of the potential abuses inherent in a delegated leadership convention.

But this isn’t what I will remember the convention for. No, I will remember this past weekend for a missed opportunity to advance forward and turn the PC Party into a truly grassroots party. Friday I wrote a quick blog post mentioning the potential decline of delegated conventions in the party. Sadly this optimistic prediction was not to become true.

There were several constitutional amendments that would have either taken power away from the delegated conventions or ended such conventions completely. The most significant proposal was to make leadership reviews operate the same way that leadership races operate. Every riding would have been given a vote per member up to 100 votes. If the riding association has more than 100 members then the votes will be divided by the percentages; that is if a 200 member riding had cast 120 ‘yes’ votes in a leadership review, that would equal 60 votes from the riding.

Most arguments you can use in favour of this system for a leadership race apply to a leadership review. It is more democratic, it is a more open process, and it puts more power into the hands of the grassroots versus the party elites. The delegated convention system for leadership reviews heavily favours party elites, and in most cases such elites have an interest in keeping the current leader. Even if the membership is unhappy with the leader, party elites will tend to support the leader because they rely on him/her for their career or influence. By giving more power to the grassroots you get a truer sense of the leader’s popularity in the party and their viability in the next election.

Unfortunately this amendment failed miserably. To have passed it would have needed 66% but I don’t think it even made it to 50%. It was not like this was a crazy maverick proposal. I talked to several members of caucus who were supportive of the idea. Nor was this a screw John Tory motion. Alex Sloat who proposed the idea (and has contributed some posts to this blog) made sure to point out that this was not meant as an attack on the leader.

I suppose there is always next year. If I propose this motion every year eventually they will pass it just to prevent me from proposing it every year.

(Yes I know writing a blog post about a failed constitutional amendment to a provincial party constitution makes me a huge dork. But you read it and that makes you a dork as well.)

Could today mark the death of delegated conventions?

I have been going to conventions since I was fifteen years old. Every convention is different; every convention has its own issues. Often they are exciting and momentous, but more usually they are tamed and represent small changes. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario convention that begins today could be interesting due to the momentous small changes.

There is no leadership race or massive battle that will be taking place. John Tory is now firmly in control of the party. I doubt anything short of losing the bi-election will remove him. Instead there are a number of constitutional changes that are being voted on. These may seem dorky and insignificant but they could change the balance of power in the party operations.

There is a proposal for removing the demographic requirements for the party executive. Most people likely don’t know it, but each position is assigned a certain demographic to represent. For example 6^th VP is someone who is under thirty. Removing this requirement will ensure that each member of the party is treated equally and is given the same opportunities to run for office.

There are other proposals to open up the process. ‘One member one vote’ conventions where the only requirement to vote is to be a member and pay the registration fee. Direct voting for leadership reviews and the removal of gender and age specific delegates. What we could be looking at here has never been done in Canada, as far as I know. This convention could represent the death of the delegated convention.

This would mean that anyone could run for any position on the executive and anyone willing to shell out three hundred dollars will be allowed to vote for them. Gone will be the days of the DSM stacking or the battles to disqualify your opponent’s supporters. A more open and democratic party will create a more grassroots oriented party and this will ultimately give birth to a stronger party. This convention may change everything about the PCPO, in small ways.

Mr. Obama goes to Ottawa

I get a call yesterday from my sister. With a screaming baby in the background she asks me “what are you doing tomorrow?” I tell her that I’m busy and ask her why she asks. There is a silence, then she tells me she wanted me to drive her to Ottawa to see Obama. I laughed and the reason I laughed is because my sister has never voted in her life.

I don’t know many people who are more disinterested in politics, yet she had an interest to go see the President of the United States walk by her. I am willing to bet that she doesn’t know a single policy that Obama wants to promote. She’s heard my rants but I doubt she was listening. In fact I doubt that she really cares about President Obama.

She wanted to go to experience the crowd. There is a party going on in Ottawa today and my sister is not one to miss parties.

People say that Obama is reaching people like my sister and engaging them with his celebrity status. This isn’t true at all. My sister is still not going to vote in the next election. Even if she could vote for Obama I doubt she would bother. No, Obama is not engaging non voters; he is just the catalyst of some pretty decent parties.

Fox News on Congressman Jeff Flake

The Manning Networking Conference & Exhibition

On March 12^th to March 14^th the Manning Centre for Building Democracy is hosting a networking conference for small-c conservative organizations. The event will take place in Ottawa and will include at least ten fantastic speakers.

• Preston Manning: Manning Centre die Building Democracy
• Tim Montgomerie: Conservative Home
• Mathew Eliott: Taxpayr's Alliance
• Senator Hugh Segal
• Deb Grey: Former MP
• Hon. Brad Cathers: Yukon Minister of Energy, Mines and REsources
• Tasha Kheiriddin: Fraser Institute
• Peter Stockland: Editor-in-Chief Reader's Digest
• Karen Selick: National Post columnist
• Gordon Gibson: Fraser Institute

The whole point of this event is to allow various conservative groups that don’t usually talk to have a chance to interact. And it gives you a chance to make new connections and learn more about campaigning.

Here are a list of organizations that are presently participating:

Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The Responsive Marketing Group
Canadian Constitution Foundation
National Citizens Coalition
Freedom Press Canada Inc.
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Ucrainica Research Institute
C2C: Canada's Journal of Ideas
Insitute of Family and Marraige Canada
Canada Family Action Coalition
Canadian Shooting Sports Association
4MY Canada
BloggingTories.ca
Navigator Ltd.
Cardus
Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
The Fraser Institute

Find out more details here

News articles like this makes me embarrassed to be Canadian

I am very proud of my country. I love Canada and all of its quirks. We are one of the freest most open minded country in the world. We have a lot to be proud of. We are peaceful by nature but always willing to fight for a just cause. As a society we value freedom and equal treatment regardless of creed or gender. These are just some of the great things to be proud of.

I am not proud that some guy born in BC made Michelle Obama's dress. Honestly how is this news worthy? Why is this presented as proof that we are indeed loved by the Obamas? What are we? Thirteen year olds with a crush that needs to be constantly validated?

Every time I hear someone say that there is a Canadian connection to this or that I have to roll my eyes. Canadians have contributed to the global culture in countless significant ways. We don't have to grasp at straws to find cultural significance.

Dey Took Our Jerbs!

Apparently the Conservative government is planning on limiting immigration. This has to be one of the biggest pieces of economic illiteracy I've heard of (well, since hearing someone say the bailouts will actually stimulate the economy).

An economy does not have X jobs, so when Y immigrants come, there are X minus Y jobs left for everyone else. When you have more people coming, they will be buying products/services, working in jobs they are either more qualified for or that Canadians don't want to do (at least at the wages offered) and even opening up businesses. All of these things help the economy! Using the logic that immigrants take jobs from citizens would imply that because the United States has 3 times as many people as us that they must have a third less jobs per person. This is lunacy! Over and over and over, populations have increased and so has wealth. A country's economy is not a zero-sum game. Labour flowing freely helps in the same way that trade flowing freely does.

Not only is this economic stupidity, it can also backfire politically. To get the majority that the Conservatives covet more than anything else, you would think they'd possibly want to make a break through into the areas that have the most recent immigrants. The increased immigration under the Liberals in the 70's helped create Liberal strongholds. These seemed to be breaking down, but now the Conservatives can kiss these areas goodbye for another generation.

The Liberals, or at least the one MP quoted, are opposing this. That is smart policy and smart politics.

Since you can't do an immigration post without showing the brilliance of South Park, here you go:



Also, since they are so awesome (both them and the shirts), here are the Bureaucrash t-shirts with the writing ImmiGREAT.

Shut up CAW

The Canadian Auto Workers and United Steelworkers are both demanding that Canada's government adopt a 'buy Canada policy.' This would be a disaster.

First of all the Canadian taxpayers will lose value for their dollars. The unions want the various levels of governments to only buy Canadian buses, ships, air crafts, etc. The truth is that Canadian firms don't always make this stuff as well or as cheaply as foreign firms. This policy could cost us billions of extra dollars at a time that we are already running deficits.

Secondly, this would create a trade war. If Canada refuses to deal with foreign firms other countries will refuse to deal with Canadian firms. Canada's industry will lose money.

CAW president Ken Lownza says in response to this, “These arguments are completely false, raised as a smokescreen by those clinging to the rapidly failing ideology of endless free trade and deregulation – the very ideas that got us in this mess today.”

I find it funny that he calls free trade a failed policy at the same time as proposing a policy that has epically failed throughout history.

The example dearest to the hearts of the manufacturing industry is the Avro Arrow. Contrary to popular believe it was not closed down because of pressure from the United States. It was shutdown because no one would buy it. The United States and Britain both had their own aerospace industries. And they had a 'buy domestically policy' that prevented them from looking at the Avro Arrow.

This policy has done nothing but harm every time it has been tried and I hope that these union bosses will be ignored by policy makers.

Government Regulation Gone Wild

I don't know how to read this article and think anything other than this is ridiculous.

Quick summary of article: A restaurant owner asked someone smoking pot outside his front door to move. It turned out the person smoking marijuana was medically licensed to do so, so the restaurant owner got taken in front of the HRC and lost. This should be bad enough already, but what is worse is that he takes this penalty and then agrees to let medically licensed marijuana smokers smoke outside. After, a different government department tells him he could lose his liquor license if he does this! He then has to try and fight the complaint against the government, who are covering the legal fees of the marijuana smoker.

Given the amount of regulations, it isn't surprising that there would be some regulations that conflict with each other. What is surprising is that it is apparent that this business owner clearly is not trying to be a jerk to anyone, yet he is getting screwed over no matter what he does. Obviously the government should step in and return all of his legal fees. However, I think they should go further than this and start to remove all the pointless regulations that only restrict the freedoms of consenting adults - including the two laws this man is caught between. Businesses should be worried about providing a product/service that customers want to buy, not worried about jumping through regulatory hoops.

Tasha Kheiridden and Tom Flanagan on if the grassroot Conservatives feel betrayed

Ms. Kheiridden was the co author, along with Adam Dafaillah, of the epic book "Rescuing Canada's Right." She has long been known as one of those people who considers herself conservative before she is Conservative. So I am not surprised by what she says in this broadcast.

Far more surprising is Tom Flanagan's walk down of his unquestioning support. Last year I went to a debate between Dr. Flanagan and Gerry Nicholls. In that debate Dr. Flanagan said that conservatives will always support the Conservative Party because they have no one else to vote for. It now seems that he is finally starting to doubt that assertion.

Bernier for ADQ Leader!

As Hugh mentioned earlier, there is a growing movement for Maxime Bernier to be the leader of the ADQ. He would be absolutely awesome in this since Harper won't make him minister anytime soon. Not only that, but he is such a wasted talent in the statist Conservative Party. He could rejuvenate the ADQ and take what Mario Dumont built to a new level.

Bernier is quoted as saying, "I'm flattered that some people can see me as ADQ leader, but it doesn't interest me at all." We all know this is political speak for, "I'll check to see if I can win before I announce my intention on running." So come on Bernier, go for leader of the ADQ!

Here is the link for the Facebook group mentioned in the CTV article: Les adéquistes pour Maxime Bernier comme chef de l'ADQ

Manufacturing Dissent: A Documentary on Michael Moore

I'm sorry I thought I was reading Maclean's not Liblogs

Aaron Wherry at Maclean's wrote a blog posting titled "Leadership that sounds like what you imagine leadership sounds like." The posting then goes on to gush about Ignatieff's 'listening tour' and his ability to make coherent sentences in English. Has Dion lowered the bar so low that being able to speak understandable English is all that we can demand from the Liberal leader?

Let me make something clear. I too like Ignatieff more than Dion. Rather in the same way that I prefer a punch in the face to a punch in the crotch.

Maxime Bernier leader of the ADQ?

The French Conservative blogs, usually silent, have suddenly come alive with speculation that Maxime Bernier may run for the leadership of the ADQ.

I like the idea. It seems doubtful that Bernier will be put in another position of authority anytime soon. I would much rather see a strong leader of the ADQ than have Mr. Bernier cool his heels in the backbenches for the next few years.

French blogs: 1 2

Is Jeff Flake Robin Hood?

Depressed about the current political climate throughout the world, I turned to You Tube videos of Congressman Jeff Flake to cheer me up.



This video isn't the Congressman at his most awesome, but he still is far more impressive than most politicians these days. The key point that he made was near the end, "this is the biggest shift of wealth from those who are less powerful to those who are more powerful."

People think of Robin Hood and think; take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They then try to apply this principle to government. But they forget that Robin Hood was not taking money from wealthy industrialists. He was taking back tax dollars that had been unfairly collected by a tyrannical monarch. Robin Hood, if he was real, was a leader of a tax revolt.

The truth is that government spending will benefit the ruling elite far more than anyone else. We need a new Robin Hood who will protect people's money from an ever growing and ever more tyrannical state.

MORE Spending?

I was going to do a longer post on the budget late last week, but I was just half way between anger and shock that I didn't feel like writing. However, apparently now when asked about stimulus Jim Flaherty said, "I'm open to the possibility of doing more."

I read a lot of opinions from Conservative partisans over the past week. The partisans that defended the spending usually said something along the lines of, "They had to do this to stay in government." Even if that was true at the time (although I disagree with that argument, mostly for the reasons that my friends Peter Jaworski and Janet Neilson make here), then certainly any future spending could not be because of this. The Liberals are already supporting the $34B deficit. Any additional spending would be because the Harper/Flaherty actually believe what they are saying.

Not only do I feel betrayed by the party that I have worked my ass off for in past elections, but it pains me how other partisans aren't even recognizing that we have a problem here. I am called cynical for actually believing that Flaherty and Harper aren't lying. They are telling Canadians that the spending will help. I believe that's what they think. If you are telling me that they are just saying this to win votes and that they are lying, then you are the cynical one, not me. You are the one saying that Harper is frequently lying to the Canadian public.

If Harper still has a free market hidden agenda, as I keep being reassured by Conservative partisans that he does, then he should have stood up for this back in December when the polls showed the public was not behind the idea of going into deficit. Yes, maybe the budget wouldn't have passed. And yes, maybe there would have been a coalition government that passed a slightly bigger $40B deficit. At least I'd have hope that there would be a party arguing against this reckless spending. The coalition wouldn't be popular and Harper may have even been able to get his majority when the coalition fell apart before their 2nd budget.

The Conservative Party is now explictily a big government party. Stephen Taylor may be correct that there needs to be a strong conservative movement, but that can only go so far. I think blame also needs to go to the partisans that are willing to support the party no matter what, as if they were just cheering for the blue team regardless of what they do. The party would be forced to act like a small-c conservative party if members wouldn't blindly support anything they do. Let's hold their ass to the fire and demand better.

Deficit hawkes fall one by one

Premier Gordon Campbell use to be one of our better politicians. In general he could be relied on to keep spending low and cut taxes. He wasn't perfect but neither was Mike Harris or Ralph Klein. But now Mr. Campbell is declaring that deficits have to be made to fix the economy.

There falls yet another warrior in the fight against deficits.

At the same time Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan is announcing $500 million in 'infrastructure' spending. I looked for any information on if they will be in deficit or not, but couldn't find any news articles that would tell me one way or the other. If you know please feel free to tell me in the comment section.

I want to have hope for at least one province.

Children rescued from hell

I don't generally use this blog for this purpose, but I want to send out a special thanks and congratulation to the OPP for a job well done.

Two children rescued in Ontario child-porn bust

TORONTO — Ontario Provincial Police say they rescued two children and arrested 31 people in what they are calling the largest child pornography investigation in the province's history.

Police say a three-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl were rescued as a result of the probe.

Ninety-three charges were laid against 31 people following provincewide raids Wednesday.

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino said the arrests are a direct result of improved tools to track down alleged child pornographers on the Internet.

Police said the people arrested include three youths and a 60-year-old man.

The charges include possession of child pornography and making child pornography.

Police say more charges may follow.

The unedited version of Michael Moore's Sicko

Canadian Taxpayers Federation demands tax cuts

Okay so maybe that's not a huge surprise. But the specific tax cut they want is a cut in the education portion of the property tax.

Here's the video



Here's the article

President Sarkozy on Quebec independence

It was the most dramatic diplomatic disaster in Canadian history. Charles de Gaulle, the great founder of the modern French state, stood up to make a speech at the 1967 World Expo in Montreal. He declared out to the crowd, "vive le Quebec libre" "long live a free Quebec."

Since that day, and really before it too, France has been encouraging Quebec to become independent, with various degrees of enthusiasm. As a result Canada's relationship with France has traditionally been worse than our relationship with Cuba.

French President Sarkozy changed that. He has made the occasional musings that a united Canada might be a good thing, and relations with France has never been better.

Now in case anyone still doubted President Sarkozy's position, (according to Globe & Mail)

In an improvised monologue this week, Mr. Sarkozy stressed the need for unity in the face of hateful, narrow-minded, sectarianism.

He never mentioned Quebec by name — but he made the remarks during a Paris ceremony where he presented Premier Jean Charest with the French legion of honour.

Of course the sepertists are outraged. They have lost their most important ally on the world stage. All they can do is jump up and down and call Sarkozy ignorant. After all, if you don't agree with their position you must either be an Anglo oppressor or you simply don't understand.

Stimulus Package in cartoons

Some cartoons that help describe the 'Stimulus Package'




This is basically what the government is doing.


All fear the mighty Nanny State.


We can only hope that this was true



This is the sad truth.

The Star Phoenix on the War on Drugs

This is a great editorial from the Star Phoenix. It outlines how the War on Drugs not only have ruined lives in the United States, but has also ruined entire countries.

Time to rethink expensive, futile War on Drugs

If President Barack Obama is to succeed in convincing allies to pony up for the war in Afghanistan, he must do better than to reinvent former president George Bush's ill-conceived "War on Terror."

He will have to revisit America's much older and disastrous War on Drugs.

The U.S. officially has fought the latter war starting with Richard Nixon's presidency, when the fear of a country made of peaceniks and hippies convinced the Republican leader to copy former president Lyndon Johnston's short-lived but popular War on Poverty. Although the battle against poverty was an unabashed failure, at least it didn't cost the thousands of lives and countless years of lost freedoms claimed by the war on drugs.

Estimates by the U.S. Justice Department put at more than a million a year the number of Americans who spent at least some of their lives in jail because of the drug policy adopted by Mr. Nixon and followed since by each president. Simple possession of marijuana accounts for the fourth highest number of arrests each year, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the collateral damage to those caught in the web of violence and crime associated with the illicit industry.

read more

also found on the Western Standard

Ignatieff avoids conflict with his Newfoundland and Labrador caucus

The six Liberal Member of Parliament form Newfoundland and Labrador defied their party leader and are refusing to vote the way they were commanded. The Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff did the only thing that he could, he made it seem like the whole thing was his idea.

Ignatieff said, “tonight, they will have a one-time vote against the budget in order to send a clear signal to Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of the country that this is no way to run a federation.”

It sounds like Ignatieff is ordering these MPs to vote against the budget as a personal gift to the people of Newfoundland. In reality he couldn’t control these members of his caucus. If this was truly done under the professor’s direction, he would have held a press conference with the six members to begin with. Instead he is making it a command after the fact.

The reality of the situation is that Danny Williams has more clout with the Newfoundland and Labrador caucus than the leader does. In many ways it was Danny Williams that got them elected in the first place. Ignatieff can’t easily punish these MPs; for fear that those seats will go NDP next time. Or worse, form a Newfoundland Bloc.

The professor managed to side step the issue this time, but eventually he’s going to have to confront the situation. And prove that he can control his whole caucus.

McCain on the 'Stimulus Package'

I'm still getting the occasional John McCain 'supporter' blast e-mail, and a few minutes ago I received one about his position on the 'Stimulus Package. (note that I am using capitals as if it was a proper noun. I figure that it was only appropriate since it is larger than the GDP of more than a few countries)

Yesterday, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans.

This is true. Anytime that there is a lot of money being spent by government, those with connections are the ones that get first dibs on the cash flow. This is one of the key faults with Keynesian theory. Governments, of any form, simply cannot be trusted to spend money without political considerations.

Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt.

If I would change one phrase in that sentence I would change 'does not need' to 'can not afford.' That load is already a heavy burden for the future generations to bear. I am glad that Senator McCain recognizes the problem of debt in the United States.

We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy.

Oh, never mind. It's not that spending is bad it is just the way that Obama is spending that is bad. It is not that leaving a burden for the future generations is a bad thing; it is that Obama is leaving that burden in the incorrect manner.

Suddenly I feel like that whole election thing was an exercise in futility. McCain would be using the exact same failed strategy, with a slightly different tactic.

My head hurts.

Free Market Environmentalism Seminar

Hey do you love the enviroment but hate socialism? Are you tired of nothing but big government enviromentalism? Well guess what, there are free market solutions to our enviromental problems.

Come learn all about them this Saturday at the Enviromental Policy Seminar, hosted by the Institute for Liberal Studies. (liberal as in the real meaning of the word, like Hayek and John Stuart Mills)

The Institute for Liberal Studies hosts student seminars promoting the discussion of social and economic liberty including the Liberty Summer Seminar and one-day seminars in Toronto, Waterloo and Windsor.

The Environmental Policy Seminar will be held on Saturday, February 7 from 10am to 4pm at the University of Toronto Mississauga (CCT 2130). This one-day seminar will provide students and non-students with a chance to hear from experts in different areas of environmental policy.

Registration is now open. This seminar is free for students and just $25 for general admission. Lunch will be provided.

Speakers

Ben Dachis, CD Howe Institute
What should governments do about climate change?

Pierre Desrochers, University of Toronto Mississauga
A critique of the food miles perspective.

Karol Boudreaux, Enterprise Africa
Community-based natural resource programs in Namibia.

Useful links
Directions to the UTM campus.
UTM campus map.
Parking lot map.