Courting MPs

Over the past month, there has been a lot of idiocy on the Hill about what is/not acceptable behaviour in the House of Commons. While debating the relative merits and politeness of debate might be interesting to those inside the beltway (for Ottawa, this stretches from Sandy Hill, across the 417 North to the Parkway) it really is up to the voters to decide who is being polite and who isn't.

Above, or below, the minutiae of the debate is the actual business of government. At the risk of sounding sexist, let me tell you how some of the work on the Hill has devolved to a form akin to the perils of a 15 year old boy looking for love.

The Tease: A certain MP whose boyfriend's name may rhyme with "blow me" is notorious for accepting meetings then canceling them within a 24 hour window, and usually via voicemail at 8:00 PM. The 15 year old thinks he has a date, tells all his friends, and has his heart broken after paying $600 to fly in to Ottawa for the day. Once, understandable. Twice, unfortunate. Countless experiences by multiple different industry groups and associations- bizarre indeed.

The Avoider: I would love to meet with you, call me! Then the fifteen year old calls, writes, sends emails and doesn't even get an answer about the promised date.

The Waffler: Sure, I would love too- how about Tuesday at 1:00. (Ten minutes later) Can't make Tuesday, how about Wednesday at 8:00. (The next day) 8:00 is no good- how about fifteen minutes in the lobby? (An hour before the meeting) Can you come back tomorrow? The fifteen year old just breaks down and cries- especially when he sees the girl sitting on a bench feeding pigeons by herself during their first scheduled time to meet.

The most popular girl in school: I can give you six minutes at 12:18.

The Liar: She has a date with the 15 year old and it goes perfectly, they get on fabulously, and there is a promise of other dates. And within hours of the date, the girl stands up in front of all of her other friends, saying that she went on the date, and that the 15 year old is horrible and is generally bad.

The uninformed gossip: I would love to meet with you, call me. Then the fifteen year old calls, writes, sends emails while the girl is avoiding him and standing up and telling her friends how evil the 15 year old is.

And finally, the Prom Queen: I was supposed to have a date with her yesterday, and dammit if some smooth talking foreigner didn't swoop in and mess up my chances Viva la Mexique. When you get the date, it doesn't actually matter how good it was- you just make sure you get a picture to show your friends.

Seriously, there are a lot of MPs who are really good at their jobs and they truly are busy- I get it - I worked there too and a lot of my closest friends work(ed) on the Hill- and many of whom regularly visit this blog. I honestly believe that they (the little sister) can be a huge help to 15 year olds, or the biggest source of malaise for the 15 year old. Some of them realize that their sister is popular and can be picky. Others think their sister is a way bigger fish than she is, and intentionally screw with 15 year old boys. The best little sisters realize which 15 year olds are good, and make sure that they get dates. I like them a lot.

Sexism or Stupidityism?

When Belinda Stronach (C - Media Darling, L - Entitled Media Darling) crossed the floor of the House of Commons on the day of my 31st birthday, the resulting comments from the Conservative Party establishment was disturbing.

There is no doubt that some of the remarks made by people who are now sitting in Cabinet were deplorable. They were also comments that would not have been made about a man. A whore is worse than a traitor. For the record, I called Emerson (C - Softwood) a whore when he crossed the floor. Fair is Fair.

Last week, Elmer's Boy (C - PotatoE Farm) did something that is being called sexist. He responded to an equally stupid remark from the opposition (with whom I am equally disgusted with, FYI) about caring for his dog. Let's remember- it was McGuinty (L - Look Ma, I'm not as important as my older brother) who brought up the reference in the first place. Granted, he was actually talking about a dog, but what possible value did that add to the debate? So Peter responded. It wasn't sexist, it was STUPID, and maybe everyone in the house should just grow up. I have seen better decorum at the Kingston Penitentiary Model Parliament.

There is a fine line. Sexism is when you say something that is denigrating to the opposite sex. I am not convinced that the comment made about Belinda does that. I think that calling her a whore does. I do not believe that it was intentionally sexist, I think it was something that wasn't filtered properly. But is anyone surprised?

I have opined previously that Ms. Stronach is in an unfortunate position, and that no person deserves the attention that she has received, both positive and negative, for the things she has/not done. Our society may be sexist because the idea of an elegant and glamorous blonde in public life is so novel that it itself receives media attention. Of course, I know different because the PS to International Trade (C - Toyota) is significantly better looking and is dating the Conservative Caucus Chair (C - Look Ma, I'm important). In this case, its because Belinda is beautiful, carries political intrigue in her love life AND is phenomenally rich.

Ultimately, I would agree that we are talking about a bunch of stupid men. I would agree that they are, for the most part, not as opened-minded as other political demographics. I would even agree that they should apologize for their stupidity. Right after former Prime Minister John Turner apologizes to Iona Campagnolo. There is no room for debate about what he did 22 years ago.

I agree that this is the sort of thing that can contribute to keeping women out of politics. Not because it is sexist, but because it is stupid. Women don't seem to want to participate in the chest beating as much as men do. My unscientific survey of all the women I work with unearthed a shocking statistic - 100% of them agree that politicians do stupid things and they couldn't be bothered. The only thing they think is dumber is making a bigger deal out of it like the opposition seems to be. The Government released a comprehensive plan to save the planet last week, and the opposition are still talking about "personality." I am sure the press release is forthcoming about how the Green Plan 2 is sexist.

Does this mean that when NDP members say that Stephen Harper is George Bush's boy, are they making a racist remark? I suppose we should just call a spade a spade.

Que? Beck and Call

I heard an awesome rumour on Friday. Let me state uncategorically that I don't believe it. There are, however, lots of reasons to believe that it is true, which I will detail below.

Let me also state uncategorically that I am not the person who started it. The last time I started a rumour like this it got picked up nationally- and Peter MacKay is probably regretting his decision to remain in federal politics.

Ok- here goes. According to a trusted source who has worked with Premier Charest for the past 17 years, the Premier is planning on leaving provincial politics to become the Deputy-Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment by February of 2007. The negotiations are ongoing, and the only thing that is standing in the way is the ability of the Quebec Liberals to replace him by May of 2007. Senior Quebec Party brass are aware, and the membership campaigns are starting.

At the outset, let me tell you why it doesn't make sense- it is a demotion, Charest hates Harper-cons, and quite frankly, Charest fought for so long and hard to avoid the Conserv-amalgamation, returning with his tail between his legs and signing up to be its Quebec gauche-tennant just doesn't sit right with anyone. In fact, some people were somewhat surprised that Charest didn't run for the federal Liberal Leadership.

Now, here is why it makes sense. First, there is a lot of worry that Charest will not be able to win the next provincial election. Even though Mr. Boisclair is such a tool that Lucien Bouchard (L, PC, BQ, PQ - Los Angeles) is considering running for the ADQ (I didn't make that up either) there is a suggestion in the province that Charest is overly committed to federalism and isn't standing up to the PM like his federalist predecessors. If you can't beat 'em, join em.

Factor in the Quebec Election which was slated for November 13th, and the fact that the brakes were slammed on unceremoniously last week, and suddenly the mediocre poll numbers (which aren't really that mediocre electorally) aren't the only reason. Everyone with half a wit in Quebec knows that Charest would in all likelihood win again because in the ridings where the Liberals are most vulnerable, the vote will go to the ADQ, not the PQ, because Boisclair is such a tool. Like I said before, the only person who benefited from the election of Andre Boisclair was Mario Dumont, former president of the Quebec Young Liberals, and twice rumored to run federally- first for the Canadian Alliance and then in 2004 for the Conservative Party. Quebec politics is a sick incestuous place.

Second- Charest hates being the Premier, and only took the reigns because the alternative was an unchecked Lucien Bouchard. In other words, he had to. When Bouchard just quit out of the blue, and was replaced by the un-charismatic Bernard Landry, Charest accidentally became Premier. Now, he sees himself as the Quebec Bob Rae- doing the correct things for a province in quasi-labour turmoil when he doesn't have a lot of options. His creativity has saved jobs and the "outer" economy, but the major unions are still really upset with him. AND He is taking it personally.

Third- Harper needs him in Quebec. What makes Charest unpopular as a Premier will re-catapult from the forefront of national politics in Quebec to the forefront of federal politics in Quebec, while understanding that national politics in Quebec is not the same as national politics in Canada. Harper continues to think he can reason with les Quebecois, and it just isn't on. His key policy areas (Khandahar and Kyoto) are DOA in Quebec. Personality, however, sells tickets. Charest can overcome that barrier no questions asked.

Charest's power outside of the province might even deliver a few more seats out East and in Ontario.

Fourth- Charest, as a comparatively young man, has a future in national politics. As I said above, he didn't want to be a provincial leader anyway. Harper won't be around forever, and who better to step into that mantle than someone who is often identified as the "Man who saved Canada" in 1995. Problem is, he would probably split the right.

Party Politics v. The Judiciary, redux

The learned Judge Ted Maltlow of the Ontario Superior Court struct down the oft-criticized public funding sections of the Canada Elections Act on Thursday October 12, 2006 as an unconstitutional violation of sections 3 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He held that the two percent threshold was arbitrary, had no rational connection to the limitation of the rights in question, and undermined the public trust in the process. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

The smallest parties lauded the decision, the largest parties shrugged their shoulders because they don't care, and the NDP and Greens are in trouble because they thought they had a lock on the whack-job electoral demographic. It should be of no surprise that the Government is preparing to appeal, because that is what they do best.

My view on the decision is the opposite of the polite waiter: 'Welcome to Hy's Steakhouse, we recommend the steak. Tuna? Excellent choice- how would you like it cooked.' Criticisms of the $1.75 a vote that goes to political parties as an expense unfitting to the public purse are silly to me because since the dawn of time contributions to political parties have been equated with charitable contributions and are tax deductible. Since FAAttawa reduces the availability of those contribution allowances to tax-payers, the net effect on the public purse is minor, at best.

Regardless, I understand the philosophy behind the law. It is designed to keep money out of politics. The answer to whether or not it is successful can also be found in FAAttawa- if they were really concerned about money in politics, they would have banned all contributions.

I think intelligent people can disagree about whether or not money influences Canadian politics. A direct look at the money spent in the last election shows that there is a strong correlation between the amount of capital spent and the number of votes received (not seats won). It was certainly the case in 1997 and 2000. The obverse is also true - the Tories (as they then were) spent a boatload in 1993. Justice Matlow said it best when he wrote "there is much more than the mere right to enter a voting booth and mark a ballot that is counted." You can do that in China, but few would agree their elections are free and fair. Money is needed to ensure that there are lots of opinions out there - "Bush/Gore" amounts of money just lead to adds about the military roaming around Young and Bloor.

Public funding of political campaigns is philosophically problematic to me - but I get it. In the spirit of encouraging a "full" discourse, all viewpoints must be heard, and not all groups have the same access to Belidiot's MSN list.

For me, however, the problem is the same one I have with publicly funded advocacy groups- I openly question the value of public participation of any group who can't support themselves. If their ideas can't sell on the marketplace of ideas, maybe they should get a better store. The difference of course, is that I am only paying for the bad advertising- not the product itself.

Thanksgiving and taking

Thank you for the 153 emails that I have received in the past three days reminding me that the 200 million dollar Yankees are out in the first round of the post season for the second straight year. I am aware, thank you very much.

What I am truly thankful for is that this is the biggest problem that I have. My biggest concern in the world is that a bunch of overpaid athletes didn't succeed.

Thank you, Conservative Party of Canada, for calling my dad asking for money at 7:40 PM on Thanksgiving Sunday. While I am sure that the strategy is predicated on ensuring that people will be at home, it ignores the fact that we were eating our holiday feast.

I am willing to bet that they lost more votes then they gained campaign cash.

Thank you, North Korea, for giving foreign policy hawks something to actually worry about. Not that I think anything has changed, it makes me happy to know that there are actual threats out there and not just completely fabricated ones. I look forward to the Eye of Sauron focusing on your piss-ant regime and finally having something done about the worst tin-pot dictator left on the planet. I am sure the newly nominated Secretary General from South Korea has nothing substantive to add to the conversation.

What baffles me is that there is still debate about whether or not the test actually happened. I say we bomb them with food- and not the good stuff, the leftovers from this weekend.

Thank god Parliament isn't sitting this week. My ears need a break.

The Blair Switch Project

I watched the second icon of modern day liberalism give his farewell speech to the Labour Party this morning, and I have to admit, I am going to miss him.

In 1997, Tony Blair (L - Clinton East) defeated John Major (C- That is what you get for betraying Maggie) to become the Youngest British Prime Minister since 1812. They have governed comfortably, without external opposition, ever since.

Tell me if this sounds familiar - A personally popular PM with a huge majority governs through three consecutive elections where the biggest source of his opposition is found within his own party. That opposition is rooted underneath an economic Minister who implements the plan developed in partnership with the PM and as a result, becomes personally popular. When the PM feels slight drops in personal popularity that are always associated with the beast that is government, the knives come out from the supporters of this Minister until finally the embattled PM steps down. It is also important to note that the Minister and PM come from the same part of the country, but the PM is no longer popular there.

The legislature is traditionally populated by three different political parties: the Governing Labour Party, traditional Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. All the while, two key regional parties emerge taking key votes away from the national parties. While they win a few seats, they allow the governing party to come up the middle in many others. Ok- so maybe that is an alternate reality, its still crazy, eh?

There are three key differences: (1) Gordon Brown didn't actually stand for leadership against Tony Blair (there are reports of a secret deal between he and Blair- I am sure it will be written about in the book); (2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer is also the Treasury Board President equivalent (ergo, they have a lot more to do) and (3) Without Tony Blair, Gordon Brown would probably have been in opposition for the last ten years. I don't think the same could be said about Paul Martin (L - Entitlement), but revisionism is always 80/20.

There are also two key similarities: (1) After ten years, it is often just "time for a change" and (2) As of right now, Tony Blair is leaving with his middle fingers safely stowed away in his pockets, knowing that the greatest legacy he could ever hope for is "a fourth consecutive Labour majority."

I am not so naive as to think that connections and similarities can't be drawn between any two regimes over space and time. That said, British elections haven't produce a minority Parliament in 32 years. If all goes to plan, I think it is quite possible that there will be a third similarity very soon.