The case for Ed Stelmach to stay as leader

Premier Ed Stelmach dismissed rumours that as many as 10 MLAs are considering deserting to the Wildrose Alliance. At the same time King Klein has come out and said that Mr. Stelmach requires 70% support from the PC convention delegates, in order to retain his legitimacy as Premier and party leader. It is clear, and has been clear for a while, that a leadership crisis is brewing in Alberta.

The Wildrose Alliance has shown surprising strength. They won a by-election recently and the Albertan and national media are taking them seriously. The Wildrose Alliance could replace the PCs as the PCs once replaced Social Credit.

That is why I hope that Mr. Stelmach gets his 70% at the convention, because his staying in power is the WA's best chance of gaining power. The WA has been getting traction by demonizing Mr. Stelmach. If Mr. Stelmach is disposed of by his own party, perhaps the appeal of the WA to long time PC party activists and voters will disappear.

I confess that what I have seen of the WA race, inclines me towards Danielle Smith. But even if Mark Dyrholm wins, I believe that Alberta would be better off with the Wildrose Alliance than with anyone that the PC party is likely to choose as leader. The PC party in Alberta has lost its claim to conservatism. I do not see how they could get it back.

So if you are a member of the PC party and you are a delegate to this convention, I implore you for the sake of conservatism, to vote for Ed Stelmach.

Canada to be exempted from "Buy American" rules

According to the CBC, Canada is likely to be exempted from the buy America laws passed by Congress. This is undoubtedly good news. It keeps trade free(ish) between Canada and the United States.

It does raise a question; if the buy America clause is stupid when applied to Canada then why is it not stupid when applied to other countries?

The answer is that it is stupid.

It rips off taxpayers who are forced to pay more. It harms the economy by diverting capital in inefficient ways. It also harms economic freedom, because people cannot sell products to those who demand them.

I truly am glad that it is looking like Canada will be exempt. I just wish that everyone was exempt.

Banning of Cigarillos: House of sober second thought?

There is talk about the Senate making crucial changes to an anti-tobacco bill that was passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

The bill is meant to rid the world of tobacco products that are supposedly geared towards 'children.' The idea is that candy flavoured cigarillos or small packs of cigarillos is a sure thing to get kids to smoke. The assumption is that the tobacco companies could not possibly think that adults enjoy candy or might want to buy their products in smaller quantity.

According to this article, the possible changes would not completely reverse these rather wrong headed reforms. Instead the Senate may ensure that some tobacco products are not covered by the sweeping language of the bill.

I am both heartened and dismayed by this. I am heartened because the restrictions on free enterprise would be less if the Senate choices to act. I am dismayed because the exemption is so narrow that it may give an unnatural advantage to one particular company or a few companies.

At the same time as being heartened and dismayed, I am surprised. The surprise is due to the Senate actually considering fulfilling its stated constitutional role; The House of the Sober Second Thought.

Though I assure you I'm not holding my breath.

Cheap at half the price?

David Miller is being given $167 000 when he steps down as mayor. Sadly I think we are all becoming jaded to the accesses of political pensions, but this seems more outrages than normal.

(I told this to me girlfriend and her only response was "I want to be mayor")

Of course the alternative way to look at is: we are getting rid of David Miller for only $167 000.

Parliament buys wine from wineries, so should we

Parliamentarians are doing something that the rest of Ontarians can't. They are bypassing liquor control boards to buy BC wines. According to the Vancouver Sun the law is:

The 1928 Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act prohibits wineries from shipping out-of-province unless it's to the Queen or her government. The Commons dining room can serve wine banned in the rest of the country.

It was my understanding that the rule of law is that we all live under the same laws. There should not be one set of rules for one group and another for another. But that isn't really my issue here.

My complaint is that the law is stupid in the first place. The fact that Parliamentarians are able to use a loophole in the law just demonstrates the stupidity of the law.

Why shouldn't Parliament purchase the best that Canada has to offer directly from wineries? Why shouldn't any of us do it? Why must we go through this governmental body to do business with our fellow human being?

Race for Toronto mayor is now wide open

A few days ago I called for John Tory not to run so that George Smitherman would have a greater chance to defeat David Miller. Now that Mr. Miller has dropped out the field is looking very different, though much more uncertain.

A race between John Tory and George Smitherman would be an interesting one, though I fear that in this scenario one of these two candidates might go after union support. If another mayor is elected in the pocket of the city unions, then Toronto would be doomed to another term of the narrow dominance of the union bosses.

I think it would be more likely that a third not yet named union supported candidate would appear on the field. For example it would not be impossible for Olivia Chow to enter the race as the union candidate. She has the background, connections, and name recognition to make a reasonable try at it.

All that said it is still not impossible that either John Tory or George Smitherman would back away. In Mr. Tory's case it would be very understandable if he is tired of campaigning. He has had a rough five years.

In Mr. Smitherman's case, it seems that Dalton McGuinty wants to force the issue sooner or later. The rumour couple of days ago was that Mr. McGuinty was getting ready to shuffle Mr. Smitherman out of cabinet, sighting his divided attention as his reason. Yesterday Mr. Smitherman, perhaps as a direct result, said that his mayoral candidacy was a "speculative hyperbole." This could mean that he may still decide that his future is brighter in provincial politics.

With the race wide open, we can only wait and see how things develop.

(A commentor for my Western Standard post has pointed out this National Post article that I didn't see. It contains a list of possible candidates.)

Kanye West goes too far this time

Children singing about Obama

During the election in the United States I signed up for GOP e-mail list. Yesterday I received an e-mail (I didn't bother to look at it until today) that showed children singing songs about Obama at a teacher's behest.



This is what the e-mail said about this video:

In the video, impressionable youngsters at a public school in New Jersey, most of whom are no more than six or seven years old, have been instructed to sing the praises of "Barack Hussein Obama." One song is even set to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Friend, this is the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin's Russia or Kim Jong Il's North Korea. I never thought the day would come when I'd see it here in America.

This is the type of fanaticism Republicans are up against as we fight to stop the Obama Democrats' radical leftist transformation of America. The only way our Party can defeat their liberal ambitions is by electing more Republicans in the upcoming 2009 state elections and the critical 2010 mid-term elections.

I can see the Republicans' complaint about the first song. It is actively promoting a policy agenda and no ethical teacher should be manipulating children this way.

The second song is a slightly different matter. It seems to be primarily celebrating that a black man can now become President. Though then again I don't remember ever singing about Jean Chretien when I was that age, I can see why this might be viewed as creepy.

No to ID card in the UK

Earlier today I was walking up North Bridge in Edinburgh when I saw a man holding a newspaper called "The Socialist Worker." In his other hand he is holding a petition, and so I am naturally curious.

To my surprise the cause is actually a good one. It was a petition against the UK Identity Cards. Putting aside the irony of a socialist desiring to put less power in the hands of the government, I happily signed the petition and accepted a pamphlet.

This is part of what the pamphlet says:

• ID won't stop terrorists
• ID won't catch criminals
• ID won't prevent fraud
• ID will be vastly expensive (another part of the pamphlet claims that economists estimate a cost of 200 billion pounds and the government is estimating a cost of 5 billion pounds)
• ID will waste your time
• ID will strip your privacy

You can find out more about this anti-ID organization at no2id.net.

(I also saw a man with his head upside down in a bucket)

Oh Shutup Lisa MacLeod (V)

This is related to my last post, but I thought it deserved to be said separately (plus it will allow me to continue my on going series I, II, III, IV).

Dalton McGuinty says no to a smoking ban. He says that it is up to parents to deal with teenagers who smoke tobacco.

Lisa MacLeod's response:

Tory MPP Lisa MacLeod said it's clear that more needs to be done to curb teen smoking. "As a parent, it sickens me," she said.

The LIBERAL Premier just said that it was YOUR job as a parent to take RESPONSIBILITY to raise YOUR children. No the government does not need to do more to curb teen smoking. Parents need to do more to curb teen smoking.

Dalton McGuinty says no to a teen tobacco ban

According to the Toronto Sun, the premier that has brought us more smoking bans than you can shake your fist at (seriously my fist is tired) has finally found his limit. He will not make it illegal for teens under the age of 19 to possess tobacco.

I for one am very relieved to hear this and I find myself stunned at his logic.

"You've got a 13-year-old that's smoking. If you're the mom or the dad, you've got a responsibility to act on that," he said. "You can't rely on the police to raise your child when it comes to smoking. So, no, we're not going there."

It makes so much sense that I wonder why he doesn't apply the same logic to all his social policy.

David Miller told an "error" that amounts to $200 million

The National Post is reporting that David Miller mislead Toronto and the media during the recent public service strike in Toronto. He claimed that the sick day benefits would cost $250 million, but in reality it will cost $450 million.

Public opinion sided heavily against the strikers, especially after people learned that the city's unionized workers get 18 sick days a year and can save up the unused ones until they retire, collecting a fat payoff. Mayor David Miller insisted the city could no longer afford such generosity, repeatedly citing the heavy cost in justifying the city's refusal to cave to the strikers.

Eventually the city did cave, letting the workers keep their sick leave (or get bought out), but eliminating it for new hires.

Now it turns out the sum is far higher than Mr. Miller admitted, even though he knew the real figure well before the strike.

The excuse given by the Mayor's office was as follows:

The city's chief financial officer blamed the discrepancy on a software error. A spokesman for David Miller says the Mayor kept mum on the gap because "the city didn't want to focus on just one aspect of the audited financial statements."

"The decision was made not to release financial results on a piecemeal basis," spokesman Stuart Green told the Toronto Star.

If the original claim was that Toronto cannot afford $250 million, then how could it possibly afford $450 million? I'm not even sure that I am upset that David Miller mislead everybody about the cost. I am far more upset to hear that Toronto is sinking into an even deeper black hole than we thought.

If there has ever been a politician that needs to be thrown out of office, it is David Miller.

I wish it was true

I won't bother to point out the idiocy of Michael Ignattieff's economic plan. The Globe & Mail article does it for me:

Canada has previously pursued an industrial policy of investing in winning industries, promoting regional development, protecting Canadian firms from foreign takeovers and seeking alternative markets to the United States. These were the pillars of Pierre Trudeau's approach to the economy. It would be charitable to say that results were mixed.

This is the part that I wish was true:

“Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all,” Mr. Ignatieff told the Toronto Board of Trade at a noon-hour address.

Everytime I hear the Liberals attack the Conservatives it makes me like the Conservatives more. My uncle onces told me that he dislikes Mr. Harper because he seems to hate government. I once supported him because I thought it was true.

Wildrose leadership debate

Randy Hillier endorses Mark Durholm for leader of the Wildrose Alliance

I received an e-mail yesterday letting me know that former Ontario PC leadership candidate Randy Hillier has endorsed Mark Durholm for Wildrose Alliance leader. The Wildrose Alliance is an upstart party that hopes to push the not conservative enough Stelmarch PCs out of power in Alberta.

Mr. Durholm commented on the endorsement on his Facebook status:

I appreciate the endorsement of Randy Hillier, Ontario MPP Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington. It seems there are even good conservatives in the east who appreciate my policies.

Brian Lee Crowley: The fall of Canadian values and the birth of the welfare state

The National Post has published an exert of Brian Lee Crowley's Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values:

The reigning political consensus that characterized this country right up to the birth of the New Canada in 1960 took a quite different view of the role of the individual, of government and of the effects of government intervention on people's character than the one that prevails today. The view that predominates today on both sides of the border is of Canadians as kinder and gentler than their American neighbours, more willing to use the power of the state in pursuit of public goods, more welfare-minded, more socially left wing. It is also a view that could establish itself only by defeating and then consigning to a trunk in the never visited attic of our collective memory the older view that had defined Canada for almost the first century of its existence and for many decades prior to 1867.

(Read More)

Here is a review of the book that you might find interesting.

I had the privilege of seeing Mr. Crowley speak at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar. I found his speech to be fascinating and I encourage you to take the time to listen to it.

Canadians are often groping for a national identity. Some point to government programs as our nationhood, others point to people with blades on their shoes and sticks as our identity. Yet most people are unsatisfied by this, we have forgotten who we were from the beginning.

Canada is free and freedom is its nationality.

Moving to Scotland

Tomorrow I'm moving to Scotland for a year. I am attending the University of Edinburgh for their Master's program. More specifically I'm going to study Multi-level and Regional Politics.

I plan to continue this blog and keep the focus on Canadian politics. I expect the British content will rise, but this is still an essentially Canadian politics blog.

Wish me luck.

Mr. Tory do not run for mayor

There has been rumors for three years now that George Smitherman, Ontario Liberal cabinet Minister, will run for Mayor of Toronto in 2010. Today Mr. Smitherman made it as close to being official as he can without making it official. The race in 2010 will be between Mr. Smitherman and Mr. Miller.

The open question is if there is going to be a third factor. John Tory has been contemplating running for mayor as well. This could lead to the splitting of the anti-Miller vote, thus allowing Mr. Miller to slip by for a victory. What is more both Mr. Smitherman and Mr. Tory agree that running two candidates against Mr. Miller is a bad idea.

So the question becomes this, who is best able to defeat Mr. Miller?

George Smitherman has long been elected from a downtown riding, yet he has a network throughout the city. He has shown leadership during the garbage strike by organizing people to clear the garbage. He has real executive experience as the former Minister of Health and current Minister of Energy. Mr. Smitherman has the makings of a strong candidate.

John Tory has never been elected in Toronto. The two times that he tried he failed. He has never been in government and has demonstrated a lack of leadership ability. He has also destroyed all his credibility as a political player. The by-election defeat that precipitated his resignation as party leader was the final humiliation. A party leader who cannot even win a safe seat is not a political force. The only thing he can hope to do is drain votes away from Smitherman.

Mr. Tory, for the sake of the city, do not run.

The real reason Rob Ander's pamphlet was wrong

I wrote in my last post that I thought the reaction to Mr. Ander's pamphlet was an over reaction. At the same time the pamphlet annoyed me for a completely different reason.

This was the last paragraph of the Calgary Herald article:

"The one I sent you was the one we had extras of," he explained in an e-mail. "There are 10 different versions sent out to 10 different parts of the riding. Each one has to be 50 per cent different than the next to satisfy House of Commons publishing guidelines."

The rules he refers to are the rules governing Ten Percenters (I know because I use to make them). These pamphlets were published and distributed using tax dollars. As much as I may agree with Mr. Ander's goal, it irks me that he is using taxpayer's money to advance that goal.

Conservative MP under fire for anti-HRC pamphlets

According to the Calgary Herald, MP Rob Anders has sent out pamphlets about the Human Rights Commission that is raising some controversy.

I would like to say from the beginning that I am glad that a Conservative MP is actively trying to raise awareness and support on this issue. It gives me hope that the movement to remove section 13 is not dying away. Sadly section 13 isn’t really what the controversy is about.
Mr. Anders is being accused of having said inflammatory things about Muslims on his pamphlet.

This is a text of his pamphlet:

"It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists," and "under section 13 of the so-called 'Human Rights' code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim Imams and liberal activists."

The main problem with judging these words is the context of the pamphlet. If it was said next to a picture of scary looking Arabs, I can understand their issue. Yet if the rest of it is benign then these two statements don’t seem overly offensive.

The first statement is a debatable point but the second statement is simply true. Ezra Levant was prosecuted exactly for that reason. It sounds awful to say it like that but it is true; if the complainers don’t like the truth then they shouldn’t blame the truth teller.

I suppose they are offended that the word “Muslim” is being used in a negative context. I find it difficult to be sympathetic to this complaint. “It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Christian activists,” would not offend me as a Christian, nor would, "under section 13 of the so-called 'Human Rights' code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Christian Priests and liberal activists."

Mr. Anders did not claim that all Muslims are evil; he merely said that he thought that what certain Muslim activists are doing is bad. I do not understand why that is shocking.

Prostitution likely to be banned in Rhode Island

I admit that the most surprising part of this Wall Street Journal article is that prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, but now it seems that legality is being threatened. A bill to ban prostitution has passed both levels of the legislature.

According the the WSJ, this new push to ban prostitution came from a high profile murder case involving a prostitute, a client, and Craigslist. I find this to be bizarre. Their response to this murder is to prosecute those in the same profession as the victim.

If a patient murdered their doctor would medical professionals be banned?

The Liberal Party ads miss the mark

The Liberal Party has released new political ads. Two are in French and one is in English. I will critique the one in English.

First thing that comes to mind is that the government doesn’t bring ideas to market, individuals do that. Mr. Ignatieff is basically suggesting that Canadians can only ‘take on the world’ with government help, but whatever. I’ll focus on the style not the substance.

As far as strategy is concerned I think this ad is a bust. This is not the time to go positive. He should be making his case for why we need an election, not talking about how hopeful he is. This ad should be featuring a list of woes that the Conservatives have brought down on the Canadian people. You should be meant to conclude that an election is desirable to kick the scoundrels out (I think the French ads my do this, but why only the French ones?). Instead you are left concluding that big government is good.

The main argument that the Conservatives have been using against Mr. Ignatieff is that he has lived in foreign countries for much of his life. The merits of this argument can be debated but is it really wise to remind people of your opponents point against you? He should really drop this ‘global perspective’ language; this is not the debate he wants.

Finally the ad is visually boring. He should be talking over images of business men shaking hands and children playing with cute dogs. Or they should have at least had a more interesting back drop than a few trees. Give him an office to look Prime Ministerial in.

Over all, these ads give the Conservative Party nothing to be afraid of.

(here are the French ads)

What! Beer is not evil?

According to the National Post, a sociologist discovered that beer and other alcohol is often the centre of normal teenage social interactions. Teenagers who socialize are often happier, thus moderate drinking with friends lead to less depressed teenagers. The sociologist also suggests that some fears of teenage drinking (moderate drinking) is overblown.

If you listen quietly you can hear the sound of millions of hands slapping foreheads and declaring, "no kidding."

Sociology: The study of the obvious and the unprovable.

Bernier on Freedom and Responsibility

Conservative MP Maxime Bernier explains the concept of freedom:

Reason interview with Daniel Hannan, Member of European Parliament

This the original video that they refer to.

Elections Canada says "No don't give us money"

Derek Fildebrandt is reporting on his blog that Elections Canada is refusing to accept $600 000 that is due to it from the Conservative Party. That's right, the Conservatives owed $600 000, tried to pay it, and the government refused.

According to Derek the only explanation given is that if the government was to accept the money it would be unfair.

This is yet another example of the comedic tragedy of government.