In light of the views being expressed by various people inside and outside the party I would like to share this comment which I took from my older political blog.
ED: Harper changed my views completely after this interview
From CBC Your Turn:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_conservative.html
Peter Mansbridge: Next question is coming from a city you’re very familiar with, from Calgary.
Colleen Belisle: Hello, my name is Colleen Belisle and I have a question for Stephen Harper regarding the accountability issue. In the past 18 months, I have noticed a number of MPs crossing the floor after the election. This makes me wonder why I should, as a voter, go and vote when my MP can change parties after the election. Mr. Harper, are there any policies that you plan to enforce after the election regarding this issue?
Thank you.
Stephen Harper: My short answer is no. And I understand the voters’ frustration. You can imagine I feel that frustration as much as anyone.
I was the victim of a number of the particular incidents that the voter is referring to, that Colleen’s referring to, but the difficulty, Peter – I know that many members of Parliament have put forward various proposals that would restrict the right of MPs to cross the floor, force elections, or whatever.
I haven’t seen one yet that convinces me that it would create anything other than a situation where party leaders have even more power over the individual members of Parliament. And, as you know, I’ve said that, of course, I’ve said that for a long time that I think our members of Parliament need more authority, need to be able to represent their constituents’ views, and they may make very bad decisions in crossing from a good party to a bad party or, more particularly, a winning party to a losing party.
But that all said, I haven’t seen one yet that I’m convinced creates a bigger problem than it’s actually trying to fix.
Peter Mansbridge: Do you think voters are as uncomfortable as Ms. Belisle points out when these kinds of things happen? Because if they are, one assumes that they are looking for direction from their political leaders to prevent this from happening. As you pointed out, some parties, the NDP has said it would force an immediate election. Do you think something has to be done?
Stephen Harper: Let me give a concrete example of an alternative situation. The Conservative Party of Canada, the new Conservative Party was created because people left actually no less than three separate old caucuses, two old parties, and joined with a new party, and I think there is widespread consensus among not just members of the old
parties, but members of the public as well that this was a good thing to create a stronger opposition, to end the fragmentation of the conservative movement in the country.
Now, you know, this kind of law could have forced us into a situation where we were having 75 byelections. So, you know, that’s a problem with any of these proposals. We understand, I understand why people want them, and, believe me, there’s a couple of cases that have happened where I’d love to have a law like this, but there’s also a lot of downsides when you think it through. As I say, in a practical matter, I could see how party leaders could really abuse that particular provision to make it even more difficult for members who may disagree legitimately with their party to operate within the party.
Tags: floor crossing, Heather Forsythe, Politics, Rob Anderson, Wildrose Alliance
Sometimes when you cross the floor you are called principled, brave, honourable, sometimes you are called a whore, traitor, a cheat. Since 2005 I have had to come to grips with the parliamentary tradition of crossing the floor. It is an old tradition in our system. One that is both honoured and vilified depending on the side you are on. After the David Emerson switch in 2006 I have come to grips with the whole idea and I think I accept it as a method for MLAs and MPs to have independence.
I believe MPs and MLAs should have the power to cross the floor because it represents one form of representation they do have. Far to often they are whipped and told how to vote and how to debate. They are given the old puff ball questions to ask, basically they are told the debate ends after caucus meetings. Sometimes not even then.
As a member of the Reform Party I know I supported the need for less whipping of votes, more free votes and more independence. When we all complain about how restrictive our system is we must remember floor crossing is part of the deal.
I used to think it was a bad idea but now I just think if we allow recall there is no need for punishing those who cross the floor. If you want to punish them force a recall election get your signatures and be done with it. Then the voters can decide they want to hold a by-election. Usually those who want to “fix” the system are the same people who are in other parties and would not say thing one if it was to their team. In fact it is the same argument about the NDP support for proportional representation voting, that the NDP would support it only until they get elected as government.
Our British parliamentary system is based in part on the independence of the members and I think an important part for that is to change sides. We may not like their choice, and we are free to punish them for it at the next election if they have “betrayed” us. The offer of plum positions unfortunately seems to be par for the course.
Although I am having trouble seeing the plum side of sitting as the third party in opposition.
For more on this argument go here.
Tags: floor crossing, parliament, Politics
I have only ever been in a room with Premier Ed Stelmach on a few occasions. All of them were leadership related, he was running, winning or holding on to it. On the other hand I was introduced to Premier Ralph Klein once, talked briefly with him at a function and was with him on an elevator one day.
Not really definitive times to give personal opinions on their personal natures. There has been no reason to get to know them and they certainly have never gotten to know me, probably neither could pick me out of a line-up, and I am fine with that.
However, in 2005 I knew what people in private said about the “real” Ralph. Now I have been learning there is also a “real” Ed. Often we hide our private persona for various reasons, some good some bad. I have met with Danielle Smith a few times and I know enough to say her public persona is very good, easy to like. I do not really know her well enough to say anything meaningful about her private one.
Conversly I met Stephen Harper at a function once, where I talked with him briefly and where I had a terrible photo taken of myself and the Prime Minister. Not one for the record books for sure or even on the facebook page. Stephen seemed quite yet gracious and his wife Laureen seemed bubbly and out going, very easy to associate with.
Now the difference between these various leaders is that what was said about them privately. Danielle, I have had a couple of private conversations with and she has always seemed very geniune and personable. Premier Ed appeared much more at ease at the Tory convention when he was not dealing with reporters questions. Whether he is a nice guy in person, I could not tell you.
Even if he is a “nice” guy the gentleman farmer some portray him, is irrelevant now. Two years ago that mattered, now it does not. The reason is simple, it is Stelmach the public figure who shows intransigence and a lack of understanding. It is Stelmach the public figure who is unpopular. He will never been seen as somehow separate from his government the way Ralph Klein was.
So the nice guy version does not count any more. Just being a nice person in private means nothing. Harry Strom was a nice man, look how it worked out for him.
Once you cross a road with the public and your personality is tagged by them it is difficult to overcome a negative. While the public likes to forgive mistakes it never forgets them. As Tiger Woods is finding out if you pierce that barrier even once you are in for a harsh road.
Ralph Klein for all of his public popularity never really recovered from his trip to a homeless shelter. The H1N1 fiasco, deficit and cuts to programs will destroy public tolerance for Stelmach because he was supposed to be about good and competent government. So far he has never shown that, wishy washy leadership is often destroyed in Canada.
We vote for tough leaders, we liked the 1990′s Ralph, we (meaning the Canadian voters) like Trudeau no matter what he did, Canadian (mostly Ontario) voters liked Jean Chretien enough to keep him in even when his party wanted him gone.
But the public turned on wishy washy leaders, they hated the Paul Martin show, they disliked Getty (who was a tough leader in private but perceived as weak in public). The public wants a Stephen Harper while they complain about him because he gets it done. You know what you are getting and he does not hide his willingness to do what it takes to win. Unlike what the CBC, opinion polls and others tell you, Canadians generally agree or at least understand the need for Don Cherry style of Rock ‘em Sock ‘em politics.
Few Albertans may admit this but the reason that Ed fails is because liberals progressives like him. Conservatives find him to be too touchy feely and not really sincere. I have friends who are liberal progressive that like Ed because he is “honest” or “nice” guy who is saddled with all those others conservatives. While my conservative friends see him as the main reason the party has gone off the rails.
Personally I think the liberal progressive ones are deluding themselves and the conservative ones do not see the larger picture. The Alberta PCs have been in power too long and it is rife with problems created by that over abundance of power. Albertans appear to want change because they are tired of the same solutions to every problem. The time is NOW, as the old Lougheed platform said in 1971, to change the messenger. In a way I see 2009 no different than 1969 in Alberta change is the watch word and everyone better get used to it.
Tags: Alberta, Danielle Smith, Politics, Stelmach, Tories, Wildrose Alliance
Two years ago I “wrote” a letter to Ed and still I am waiting for a response. Let me re-post it here so you can see where I still stand:
Policy suggestions for the new Premier
Dear Premier Ed Stelmach,
Congratulations on your victory. You may not know me and up until last year I did not know you so let me introduce myself. I represent those voters who voted for Ted Morton. We believe in Democratic reform, a strong Alberta and true conservative principles.
I know it may seem the height of peak to offer policy suggestions… but if I can impose I think you might just be interested.
1. Citizen’s Iniatives – I firmly believe if the government of Alberta wants to get out of dealing with social conservative vs social liberal agendas offering citizens initiatives make sense. It allows politicians to stop vaccilating while allowing people to have a real say.
2. Recall and referenda – make it like the BC legislation on recall and referenda, it is quality legislation. It would help make MLAs accountable.
3. Fixed Election Dates – everyone else is doing it… little peer pressure for you.
4. Keep your promise on the Alberta Pension plan
5. Be doers of the word not just speakers of it when it comes to Ottawa. Stop being a Ralph Klein, mouthy dissent followed by meek submission.
Just doing these things and avoid the old boys Tory club and he will have my vote in the next election. (even though my MLA is Dave Hancock who I do not support)
I think just these things can do everything we need to solve the problems in this province. So please Mr. Premier think carefully.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Williams
At this point I suspect none of these concerns will ever be answered by our illustrious government. These were not difficult things to resolve but yet they could not even keep the one promise that Ed did make in his leadership campaign that he would bring some form of pension plan. So far no sign of that coming forward.
So with that in mind let us look forward to the new year and a new way of thinking.
Tags: Alberta PC, Leadership, Stelmach
In a recent discussion on Twitter Chris LaBossiere posted the statement:
Every party creates policy from it’s members. In the case of the WAP I think they hide behind that to defend bad or little policy.
My comment to that was to say:
Chris, creating policy that no one listens to is not the same as being bound by it. That is the difference.
Chris was confused at my response, so I want to elaborate without being restricted to just 140 words. So therefore I am posting this on the blog.
Chris seems to think that the Wildrose Alliance party somehow hides behind its policy. I do not see it as being hidden but being bound by it. As for little I think that is in the eye of the beholder. In fact I would argue that the Progressive Conservatives have little or bad policy. When the Alberta PCs come out with a policy book for public consumption it will be a first.
Over the past years the PC governments have pooh-poohed their own policies, and they have viewed the policy making exercise with a skeptical view.
Do not take my word for it here is Mark Norris from 2005:
“I do know that ministers I used to work with were very, very flippant about what was coming out of the policy conventions,” he said. “It bothered me then and it bothers me now. It’s important when a constituency goes to the effort to make a resolution that you respect it and bring it forward and give it its due.”
So to make this clear. I think the Alberta PCs have never felt that bound by their own policies. With respect I think that their policy conventions are policy in a vacuum, they quickly die for lack of oxygen, or interest. Considering there was more interest in fighting the rise of membership costs than policy setting in past years it says a lot. And the battles over Bill 50 at this years convention appeared staged rather than listening to the rank and file.
Now here is where I see the Alliance as different. Danielle Smith does not just give lip service to being bound by policies. She does not hide behind them she is rather upholding a tradition of reform oriented people in Alberta that the leader of the party needs to be held accountable to the party. That is not ducking responsibility that showing faith in the members.
Policy conventions are hard fought things, having sat through more than my fair share I can tell you I find them irritating and boring, mostly because I am a less is more kind of person. The Alliance like the UFA- Socred-Reform traditions they stem from believe in the right of the person to have a voice in government. Each tried, at least initially to offer their best version democracy. In some cases it was a fiasco but at least they tried.
Policy which stems from members can be too simple, too narrow, too complicated in the wrong ways, to be useful. But proper vetting by constituency associations and policy committees and eventually the membership voting as a whole can eliminate bad policy. The Federal Conservatives, thanks to their Reform roots have got this down. Eventually the Alliance will reach that same position.
Given time and talent and collective will the party policies will cover a broad range of issues from a conservative perspective. I think what they have now is not bad, while I might not agree with one or two it does not make them bad, nor some how very little.
As well Danielle has said all along the leadership trail she would be bound by the members, she believes that to be important for a leader. I fail to see how she is hiding, when asked she generally states her opinion.
So I disagree strongly with all parts of Chris’s argument, I believe that the Wildrose Alliance policy is broad, and that being bound by it does not mean you are hiding. I think progressives in the province should take Danielle at her word, bring their ideas forward and see if they become policy. Then Danielle would be bound by their “good” ideas too.
Tags: policies, Politics, Wildrose Alliance
I was first introduced to television from the United States when I was a small boy. In Ontario, where I was born, we could with an antenna receive a number of television stations from the surrounding area. We mostly got stations from Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo. It worked reasonably well and I had no complaints.
When we moved to Alberta we got Cable which gave us, initially, some stations from the Great Falls area.
Then we moved out to the country for a few years and suffered with three very paltry channels. Of course this was at the same time VCRs were coming so we made our way around the problem.
Then we moved back to Toronto and there we got local over the air channels and c-band satellite which offered us ESPN and HBO among other things.
For the most part I would say that was the height of my viewing for a number of years. Nothing was restricted and we got to choose what we watched and did not watch. There was no need to regulate anything.
As the television systems went through transition from analogue to digital the Liberal party got back in as government there was a slow and steady change in how television was delivered and controlled.
Now we have hundreds of channels tightly controlled from the government and the various distributors and providers. While the choice has never been better the control has never been tighter.
The government has allowed both broadcasters and providers to make money off of Canadians through subsimming (providing Canadian feeds over simulcast American channels). Now they are arguing over how to deal with the finances of the local channels. I have a feeling most of the public would like to say a pox on both your houses.
So with this in mind here is how I would suggest fixing the system:
1. Change the manditory Canadian specialty channel packaging to a fee per channel basis. Right now you can do that with digital channels but other cable channels (in the earlier analogue band) are kept locked up. As well it would allow the providers offer non Canadian channel packages.
2. Remove the CRTC noncompetition regulation within various specialty channels. They never really made sense and simply allow bad channels to survive (History Television).
3. Do not regulate the types of American channels allowed in, set a quota but do not create false standards, allow ESPN to compete with other Canadian networks for example. We do not need a “Canadian” HBO we just should have HBO if the viewers want it.
4. Charge a slight premium fee for American channels, call it a tax, which would not be charged on Canadian channels that offer 50% Canadian programs. Use that money to support CBC.
5. Stop government funds to Global, CTV and others because these companies are not doing enough to add to Canadian content so there is no reason to support them specifically. Use that money to fund a commercialess CBC which must show 80-90% Canadian programming.
6. The rules should be the same for French TV and English TV.
7. Allow competition from non-Canadian providers. If Directv Dish Network or Sky (Europe and Asia) feel they can compete within the rules set up let them do so.
8. The CRTC should be brought into line to follow a more traditional role of a regulator rather than a place for broadcast communism. The time has come for Canada to grow up and join the other nations of the world rather than following the same old ways of protectionism at all costs.
Look at how the Canadian magazine market has been working, there are American and European choices going against Canadian ones. The Canadian content magazines get special discounts and grants but they are not given a protected space where no one else is allowed in. I could see this working for the Canadian broadcast market.
The arguments made for protecting local stations is a red herring. These stations even in major markets generally do not produce enough local programming to make them absolutely necessary. Look at Lethbridge for example. The city of 85000 people has two television locals, CTV and Global. CTV local programming is laughable, one local news program a day. Global is only slightly better. What is the point of artificially keeping stations in Brandon, Waterloo, Red Deer, Abbotsford and other places that has a miniscule amount of local programming.
Combined with my changes is an attempt to prop up the national government owned broadcaster. For many conservatives this is anathema but there are those who feel that the Canadian culture needs to be protected. For this reason I would rather see a well funded CBC which has strict watchdogs and does not offer commercials over another government hand out to the CTV and Global and protection for the various monopolies along the provider level.
Local TV has been dead ever since the advent of digital TV and I think it is time for Canadians to rethink how they want their TV and who should be managing it and why.
It has been eight years since the United States and other Nato nations entered Afghanistan. Seven years for the Canadian military. In fact Canada has now been at war with the Taliban longer than they were at war in World War 2.
For many Canadians in the years after World War 2 until 9/11 many did not understand or appreciate the work their troops did to fight for their freedom. Canadian soldiers lived, died and were largely mistreated by the people they were defending.
In Bosnia as UN peacekeepers the Canadians were forced into the middle of one no win situation one after another. As they put their lives on the line trying to prove War crimes the government and population were slowly strangling their financial lifeline.
In Somalia, an incident with the Airborne forces led to conclusions that our soldiers were not defenders of freedom but some kind of Rambo crazies. The Liberal government left the soldiers to pay the price for their own mistakes, thus the morale was placed at an all time low.
Yet time after time troops were shuffled like pawns into hellhole after hellhole. For the most part they did outstanding work with tiny resources, apathy or loathing at home. The truth was that most Canadians did not understand the need for the Armed Forces. They saw themselves defended by the United States and military spending as somehow redundant.
But yet we sent our men and women in the fire line over and over to act as peacemakers and peacekeepers.
I perceived that this has slowly changed since the terrorists attacked the United States. It showed no one was safe. And then terrorism came to our country once again. We arrested plotters bent on causing death and destruction in our back yard. Suddenly, it all changed. Now many of us sympathize with the soldiers, their deaths which have mounted in Afghanistan has brought back the realities of war.
Politicians are now referring to our troops outside of November 11th. The concerns have led to bitter debates over the role of troops in Afghanistan. As well there is a slowly growing discussion of the misuse and abuse our soldiers face. The government for the first time in twenty years are beginning to invest in the military. Sometimes badly and with no thought to what they are doing but they are slowly changing the lives of many.
Too often in Canada we have left to fall the torch passed to us by Canadian poet John McCrae 
in World War 1 when he wrote In Flanders Fields. He would die during the war of pneumonia but his message has lived on for nearly a century.
In remembering the sacrifice of our soldiers we often quote the phrase Lest We Forget, however, often we do forget.
My point here today is that giving our Armed Forces nothing to work with creates nothing good. We are the second largest country in the world. It is important that we defend ourselves and act more like a part of the free world rather than freeloaders. To do that we must continue to renew the faith with our soldiers.
Given that let us remember they are not just a tool for us to use. We should treasure our soldiers and not misuse them in places where they will be sacrificed for cheap reasons. Afghanistan needs to mean something, otherwise we will have wasted much for little.
To do that we should push our allies for meaningful contributions and continue to insist those who went into Afghanistan must not allow others to do the heavy lifting for them. Part of the reason others want Canada to stay past 2011 is because they are unwilling to do the hard things needed.
Part of the faith we have with our service men and women is for politicians to not just pay lip service to their defence of these troops. Thinking about how often our veterans continue to struggle to get the basic necessities because our government forgot about them. Let us not do that any more, let us not break faith anymore.
In Flanders, Vimy, Dieppe, Juno Beach, Kapyong, Medak and Panjwaii Canadian troops have entered the line of fire. We should recognize each of these places for their importance to our troops and not avoid mention because it is seen as jingoism. Our military history is significant to the country and should be honoured more than just on Remembrance Day, lest we really do finally forget.
