The New Conservative Cabinet

Today, Mark Kennedy speculates on a looming federal Cabinet shuffle.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with an eye on a potential spring election, is contemplating a cabinet shuffle to re-energize his team and bring greater focus to his government’s priorities.

Let’s assume Kennedy is right. Who should be shuffled in, shuffled out, promoted, demoted?

Keep in mind that the Conservatives have a new addition to their team: Julian Fantino, the former Ontario Provincial Police commissioner who was recently elected in a Vaughn by-election.

Let me kick things off with three recommendations:

1. Fantino would fit in well as Minister of Public Safety, a portfolio currently held by Vic Toews. If current National Defence Minister Peter MacKay does indeed step down in the days/weeks ahead, as some have suggested he might, then Rob Nicholson, the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General, could take over at Defence and Toews, a lawyer, could fill the office vacated by Nicholson.

2. Larry Smith, the former CFL commissioner whom the Conservative Party is said to be courting, should be appointed to the Cabinet even without a seat. Smith would then be expected to contest an election at the first available opportunity, either a general election or a by-election. (Appointing someone without a seat in the House of Commons to the Cabinet is unconventional but not unprecedented: Jean Chretien appointed Stephane Dion to the Cabinet in January 1996 long before Dion had won a seat in the House.) Where would Smith go? One option is for Smith to takeover for Tony Clement at the Ministry of Industry, and Clement could then replace Chuck Strahl (who is rumoured to be leaving) as Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

3. The prime minister needs to find room for Michael Chong. He is just too good to be left out of the Cabinet.

That’s my advice for the prime minister. What’s yours?

Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

There are a number of discrepancies with the statement provided by Hal Walker, President of the Provincial Executive for the Wildrose Party (bolded in parentheses).  Below is a rebuttal by Kevin Van Lagen, former Chair of the Little Bow Nomination Committee tasked with running the Wildrose nomination contest:

Hal Walker: “At three nomination events on Saturday November 20th, 414 Wildrose Alliance members in Little Bow cast ballots to select their candidate in the next provincial election.”

True, although only 406 have been verified by the Returning Officer, and there were at least 7 other paid members who were not allowed to vote due to some type of error at the central office. In fact at least two of these had their credit cards charged prior to the cutoff date, but were not on the list.

What do the rules say?

7.6.1 A membership is effective on the date that a legible, complete and acceptable membership application and the membership fee arrive at party headquarters.

Hal Walker: “The nomination process was run in accordance with the candidate nomination rules and procedures as approved by the Party.”

The nomination committee attempted to follow the rules and procedures but was met with resistance by the Provincial Executive on a number of key issues.  Firstly, it was discovered that candidate Ian Donovan had purchased memberships for individuals thus making those memberships invalid.  There were a number of people that tried to pay poll clerks for their memberships hoping that the poll clerks would give the money to Mr. Donovan on their behalf.  This was witnessed by the party official present. Others witnessed Mr. Donovan taking money from individuals outside the voting station in Vulcan.

What do the rules say?

11.1 The following offences will be reported to the PCSC, will be investigated, and may result in the disqualification of an Applicant, Nomination Contestant, or Candidate as the case may be:

11.1.4 Buying of Party memberships for individuals who are not immediate family members;

The party’s response was that Mr. Donovan was simply providing these individuals with a loan.  There is a reason memberships cannot be purchased by anyone other than family members.  It is to prevent abuse and it blurs the clear lines of open, honest, transparent democracy.  Regardless of the intent, Mr. Donovan clearly violated this rule when he purchased memberships for “friends”, to which the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee ignored.

So once again, who is breaking the rules?

There was an issue with the eight (8) mail in ballots that were mysteriously left in Calgary.  As the Returning Officer, I have yet to see these ballots or supporting identification, therefore it was impossible for me to declare them valid and include them in the count.

What do the rules say?

7.8.2 The RO shall supervise the voting and vote count and declare the winner.

7.8.3 The RO shall retain possession and custody of the ballots for fourteen (14) calendar days for delivery, if requested, to the Party. If not so requested, the ballots shall be fully and completely destroyed after the expiration of the fourteen (14) calendar day period. If so requested, confirmation of destruction shall be provided by the RO.

As the RO, it was my responsibility to ensure that the ballots counted were valid.  It would not have been responsible for me to take the word of a staff member from Calgary that he had mail in ballots in his possession.  Further, the staff member was not authorized to validate the mail in ballots.  Those ballots were required to be at the “designated location before the close of voting”.  This did not happen therefore, those ballots could not be counted as they did not meet the requirements as set out in the rules.

7.14 An eligible voter who will be unable to attend the nomination meeting(s) may, by personal individual application to the Party headquarters, request an absentee mail – back ballot.

7.14.1 The signed request must be made no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the first nomination meeting and must be accompanied by photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1.

7.14.2 The Executive Director shall forward concerns about possible abuse of the absentee mail – back ballots to the Chair of the LCNC, the President, and the PCSC.

7.14.3 The voter must mail back the ballot package (Outer envelope and form, inner privacy envelope with ballot, and photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1) to the designated location before the close of voting.

7.14.4 The Party shall provide supplementary rules and instructions for absentee ballots.

Hal Walker: “The Little Bow Local Candidate Nominating Committee (LCNC), in many instances, failed to follow these rules or maintain neutrality in the race.”

Here is where they go after locally elected volunteers. On multiple occasions the decisions made by the local nomination committee were overruled by the Provincial committee.  It was the local nomination committee’s decision to hold one (1) vote in a central location (Nobleford) and have a convention style vote.  After a complaint by Mr. Donovan we were overruled by the PCSC and forced to have three (3) voting stations throughout the riding.  This was still fair but forced a greater expense and more volunteer time.

Further to this, the LCNC did not want to have a nomination event this fall as it was not prepared to hold a nomination contest at this time.  We did not feel that we could meet many of the party requirements to have such an event on such short notice.  Once again, that recommendation was disregarded by the Provincial committee and a nomination contest date was determined for us.

Lastly there were some issues regarding communication of the Provincial committee’s interpretation of some of the rules.  One thing was said to the Nomination committee while different information was given directly to a candidate.  ALL communication regarding rules and procedures for the nomination process should have been filtered through the LCNC ONLY.  Any concerns or questions by any of the candidates should be asked directly to nomination committee.  Otherwise, why have a local nomination committee?

Hal Walker: “Party staff attended the nomination events in Little Bow to ensure that a fair and unbiased nomination process was run, despite the actions of the LCNC.”

This is conjecture and if there had been a concern about the neutrality of the LCNC, it was not addressed by the Provincial committee during their “thorough investigation” or by either of the candidates.

Hal Walker: “After a thorough review by the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC), the PCSC unanimously upheld the results of Saturday’s nomination event which saw Ian Donovan elected as our candidate in Little Bow.”

The LCNC seriously questions how “thorough” the review was and what criteria they based their final decision on.

Hal Walker: “The provision for absentee ballots is specifically written into the candidate nomination rules and procedures in order to ensure that any grassroots member who wishes to vote in the nomination race will have the opportunity to do so – both nomination contestants and the Little Bow LCNC were made aware of this provision”

The LCNC is not questioning whether absentee ballots should be allowed at this time.  However, it is necessary that the proper procedure as outlined in the rules be followed when counting these ballots.  Declaring ballots left in an office somewhere as admissible does not fall within the guidelines.

Hal Walker: “It is regrettable that members of the Little Bow CA and the LCNC do not accept the decision of the grassroots members in this nomination process.”

The LCNC believes in grassroots as we are unpaid volunteers that supported the supposed principals the Wildrose claims to represent.  Local boards ARE grassroots and the election of our representative is fundamental to the democratic process.  This process should not be dictated and manipulated by a few paid employees that are disconnected from the local constituency.  If Danielle Smith wants to lead a party that allows this type of manipulation which shakes the very core of everything the Wildrose purports to believe, than that is a party the executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association cannot stand by.

On behalf of the former executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association, thank you for having this conversation with us.

The Future of Canadian Conservatism

Over at my other blogging home, my colleague Scott H. Payne has been having a running discussion on the future of the Canadian left.  It’s been interesting, but it’s been leaving me interested in getting some thoughts on the future of the Canadian right.  Well, up stepped our very own Mark Peters, with some thoughts on where conservatism needs to go.

I’m still mulling over Mark’s thoughts, but he definitely makes some good points.  Feel free to pop over there and leave a comment, or start a parallel discussion here.

The Temporary Departure of Jim Prentice

Jim Prentice has just resigned his Cabinet position as Environment Minister and has announced his intention to vacate his seat in the House of Commons by the end of the year to accept an senior executive position with a leading Canadian bank.

But if you think politics has seen the last of Jim Prentice, think again.

I would bet a large amount of my minuscule savings that Prentice, only 54 years old, will return to politics within the next decade to mount a campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

This “temporary departure” strategy would be par for the course in Canadian leadership politics. John Turner, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper–each has in the past done precisely what Prentice is now doing: retreating from active political life to the comforts of corporate Canada.

When the leadership of the Conservative Party once again becomes available, Prentice will be well positioned to run a frontrunner’s campaign. Tempted by new corporate contacts, Bay Street fundraisers, organizational muscle and campaign operatives, Prentice will have a hard time resisting the siren song of politics.

True, Prentice will not have an easy ride to the prize. He will face a strong cast of potential contestants for the Conservative leadership, including perhaps Peter Mackay, Stockwell Day, Maxime Bernier, Rona Ambrose, John Baird, Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan, Jean Charest and Bernard Lord.

But given his strong Cabinet performance and the Bay Street glow that is sure to envelop him in the years ahead, Prentice would be a leading contender in the next Conservative leadership race.

Dueling Videos about Michael Ignatieff

Remember long ago when the Conservative Party released a series of “Just Visiting” videos about newly-appointed/elected Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff? Here are three of them and their titles: Just Visiting, Economy, and Arrogance.

Recently, the Liberal Party released a video of its own. It’s a four-minute video that serves to introduce–or rather, to re-introduce–Ignatieff to Canadians. Here it is.

It is effective. Actually, it is very effective.

But it may be too late to undo the image of the Liberal leader that has already hardened in the minds of Canadians.

The moral of this story is clear: define yourself as you want to be seen before your opponent defines you the way he wants others to see you.

Won’t back down

QOTW, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, via Stephen Edwards.

“We will not back down from our principles that form the basis of our great country, and we will continue to pursue them on the international stage,” Cannon said. “Some would even say that, because of our attachment to those values, we lost a seat on the council. If that’s the case, then so be it.”

Also at Nat Po…

Kelly McParland: It’s Canada’s foreign policy, stupid!

Getting rejected by this lot is no embarrassment; if anything it’s something to be proud of. It illustrates exactly how the UN works: You start with a set of beliefs, and then you compromise them over time, currying favour with other countries. The mystery remains why the Conservatives took such a belated interest in the council in the first place. Its most recent display of international leadership was … uh … well, I’m sure we’ll think of something. Given the anti-Israel bias that pervades the UN, campaigning for a seat on the Security Council — if it requires the OIC’s approval — is the international equivalent of applying for membership at a club that bans Jews.

John Ivison: You can’t blame it on Ignatieff. (I agree.)

Canada’s foreign policy should not be held to ransom by attempts to bribe small countries into voting for us at the United Nations.

The Conservatives are proud of what they call their “principled” foreign policy — an agenda driven by “right-wing ideology,” according to the Liberals.

But the lesson from this loss is that you can be “principled” or you can be popular. The Prime Minister should have figured out much earlier that you can’t be both.

Lorne Gunter: a meaningless seat in a dysfunctional organization.

Too much to quote. Read it all.

Update Oct 20, 2010: Wall Street Journal – “Bravo, Canada”. And, Charles Adler, you need to run for office. H/T

Trade with the Jooos, risk your Security Council seat

Jew-hatred runs so deep and wide at the UN that trading with Israel is a negative. It’s like red ink on a soldier’s file.

International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan has announced a bid to strengthen the trade relationship with Israel — a move whose timing could affect Canada’s bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council. [...]

Since Arab and Muslim countries either control or have varying degrees of influence over a majority of the votes in the assembly, Van Loan’s announcement has the potential to lose Canada support in the ballot.

Well, pardon this lowly Canadian, but… if we have to tiptoe around and kowtow to xenophobic Muslims to get a Security Council seat then you can take your SC seat and shove it.

If Canada is to hold a Security Council seat then let us do it with our affiliations on our sleeves and sovereignty written on your chests. We’re pro-Israel. We’re pro-democracy. We’ll trade with whichever nations we want, and we will not abide anti-Semitism in order to garner support for a Security Council seat.

CINOs sell out

Liberals and NDP, too.

“That this House, while recognizing the importance of vigorous debate on subjects of public interest, expresses its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean’s Magazine to denigrate the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions.”

The “Quebec nation?” Are you kidding me? And still nobody in the Big-3 voted against the motion after hearing that phrase? No, not one. In a delicious irony, the only MP to object, independent Quebec MP Andre Arthur.

What’s that, Jane? A “separatist trap,” they say. Oh, it was a trap alright, but here’s what this lowly peasant doesn’t understand….

How is it that career politicians and alleged “smart people” could not figure out that there was no way out of what the Bloc had planned? How is it that the lot of them, like a pack of fools, thought there would be any good come from pandering to the Bloc and Quebec just one mo’ time? How is it that not a single Big-3 MP possesses the balls to kick the Bloc in the crotch when they introduce asinine motions?

Instead, now, in addition to selling out on free speech and freedom of the press, we have the Big-3 on record endorsing the “history” and “institutions” of the “Quebec nation.” Nice. Real nice. Can’t wait to see how THAT plays out. Morons.

And you wonder, dear CINO party phone worker, why I won’t take out membership or give another dollar to the party?!?!

Answer: my money is going to Andre Arthur, the only MP in the House who didn’t sell out to appease the Separatists.

Another life not saved by the gun registry

Reginald Simms.

Newfoundland Liberal MP Scott Simms may well have the most devastatingly personal reasons for voting to preserve the long-gun registry.

[He] told fellow caucus members Wednesday how his father, Reginald, committed suicide in June with a rifle.

[...]A second MP told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Simms acknowledged the gun registry would not have saved his father.

But, he reasoned, if it could save at least one life, it would make a difference in some Canadian’s life.

It didn’t and it hasn’t because it can’t.

Update: “We have a gun registry. Your father still shot himself.”

Which Party–Liberal or Conservative–Believes in Multiculturalism?

The Liberal Party condemns the Conservative Party for choosing “again and again to divide communities–by race, religion, language and national origin–for partisan advantage.”

But in reality there is little daylight between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to multiculturalism policy. Both parties even use the same metaphor.

Conservatives recognize the “regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada” and are committed to “embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts.”

For their part, Liberals “believe that Canada is much more than the sum of its parts, and that we are stronger not despite our differences, but because of them.”

So, which party believes in multiculturalism?

The answer is both.

« Previous Page — Next Page »