Joe Comuzzi a Conservative!!!

I remember shortly after the last election, talking with two of my Liberal friends about what this parliament would look like. The one asked the other, "I wonder which Liberal will be next to cross to the Conservatives?" This was shortly after David Emerson had crossed to sit in cabinet. They both hummed and hawed, so I piped up.

"Joe Comuzzi" I said. We all laughed, moved on, and never talked about it again.

Fast forward 17 moths to today. The Chronicle Journal in my hometown of Thunder Bay, Ontario is reporting that on Tuesday, "Joe Comuzzi will join the Tories."

As much as I don't like to see floor crossings, and as much as I would prefer Joe to run in a by-election, I can't say I am disapointed. In fact, I am fairly excited. Not just because this is the first time I have had a Conservative representing me in Ottawa, but because I know Joe's reasons for his decision are honorable. He is, in my opinion, a riding guy, and he understands that his riding and increasingly himself, do not mesh well with the neo-leftist Young Liberals that are beginning to take over that party. From my three very brief discussions with Comuzzi, I believe he is a good fit with the Conservatives.

The riding however, will still be slow to warm up to the Conservatives.

Thunder Bay is a blue collar, heavily unionized town, who has traditionally voted Liberal federally since the days of CD Howe. The last time there was a Conservative representing the riding now held by Comuzzi, the oldest member in the house (Joe Comuzzi) was only 2. In the last election, Conservative candidate Bev Sarafin placed third with around 8000 votes, while Comuzzi and the dipper candidate fought it out with around 13000 votes each.

Unless Comuzzi changes his mind and decides to run in the next election as a Conservative, I believe that the riding will now go NDP. If he does run again, it is anyone's guess. What Joe will do is warm up the community to the Conservative brand. If after all these years ol' Joe can warm up to the new Conservatives, why not the city of Thunder Bay.

While this may not help the Conservatives party much in a coming election, in that I think the NDP will win in Joe's riding, it may help in the longer run. By helping the Conservative brand in northern Ontario, and hopefully costing the Liberals a usually safe seat, Joe's decision may now lead to an end to the Liberal hegemony that has had a firm grip on the region federally and provincially for years.

Any hope the NDP has in the riding in the long term, is through the old-left trade union wing of the party. The city has already lost enough jobs in the forestry industry, and will only lose more if the environmental movement gets its way. This will put the new-left environmentalists who are taking over the NDP, at odds with the best interests of city.

Hopefully, the Conservatives are going to be much better positioned to win the riding in the future now that ol' Joe has decided that the Conservatives aren't all that scary after all. As the Liberals and NDP continue their progression into the party of the new-left ultra-urban Toronto and Montreal voters, the Conservative party has a great opportunity to turn heads in riding's like Thunder Bay-Superior North where voters are being left behind as their traditional parties cater to seat rich areas of the country that are increasingly out of touch with the concerns of life in Northern Ontario.

Is Dalton Mcguinty Stupid?

Seriously though, is he???

First the man breaks every promise he made. Then, rather than trying to shift the focus away from his pathological lying, he decides to make the same promises he made in the last election (none of which he kept) again. AND on some big issues.

So far we have: He will not raise taxes. He will close all the coal power plants.

With I'm sure more to come.

Let's hope Mcguinty can keep this up and that the Liberals decide to just re-release their 2003 platform with the 3 scratched out, and a 7 in its place.

If John Tory can remain gaffe free, and make some modest proposals, he will be laughing his way into the premiers office.

The Coming Canadian Healthcare Revolution

I just came across the AIMS news release from a few weeks back titled "Sacrificing healthcare for Ideology". Never has a four word phrase summed up my thoughts on an issue so well.

In my mind, the current wait time crisis is not as much a result of underfunding and shortages in staff as it is a result of the lack of real political debate in this country. Lets be honest with ourselves, anybody who has challenged the Canadian healthcare orthodox in the past 15 years has been ruthlessly attacked and charged with being a radical, an American, or even "un-Canadian". The rhetoric that replaces honest debate has been to the detriment of decent care, especially care for those in the most need.

But before I go any further, due to the nature of this debate, I do feel the need to clarify one thing. I do not advocate introducing a truly market system of health care. Nor do I support whatsoever whatever you want to call the American system. The American government spends more per capita on healthcare than the Canadian Government and yet, not all Americans have access to health care.

In a way, Americans and Canadians share the same problems when it comes to health care. While the specifics are different, both countries lack any true debate. Instead all you hear are talking points and scare tactics. In America, any change to their orthodox is branded as "socialized medicine", which is the same as Canada's "American style healthcare".

In Canada though, there appears to be hope on the horizon. The Chaoulli decision of 2005 which ruled it unconstitutional to prohibit the purchase of private health insurance for the services covered by the government of Quebec, has only added to the growing grassroots public frustration with the current system.

Defenders of public health care have added to the frustration with the current system by their hypocritical behaviour. If Jack "health card, not credit card" Layton is now using private clinics, how can he expect ordinary Canadians to use only public clinics and endure the long lines. If Jack Layton weren't one of the most vocal opponents of private clinics in his public life this would be a non issue. But the reason serious debate is so lacking today is partially because of Jack Layton and his over the top theatrics... and I really believe that Canadians (outside of Alberta who realized long ago) are beginning to understand this hypocrisy.

In Quebec, there is an official opposition that came within only a few seats of forming government, who ran on a platform calling for more private delivery of health care. I remember in an Electoral Politics class last Spring immediately after the election that I mentioned that I thought the biggest story of the election when we looked back on it would be that a party ran on a campaign challenging the health care orthodox, and was successful. And I am beginning to really believe that I was right.

With the call of "a new health care financing commission headed by former Quebec health care minister Claude Castonguay", whose recommendations will likely call for a greater role of the private sector in Quebec, the debate that has been going on behind the scenes for the past 7 years, will become mainstream once again. And I believe this time Canadians are ready to fight through the spin and solve our health care crisis.

This will provide the Conservative Party with a historical opportunity, an opportunity to rebuild the elusive Quebec-West coalition that has lead to the two largest majority governments in history.

If the result of the Castonguay Commission is as expected, the Conservative party will be forced to pick a side once again in this debate. No longer will "we will respect the Canada Health Act" cut it. They can either take a stand against Quebec, or they can support it. I believe, as would most Conservative supporters, that we would have to support Quebec in both its use of private clinics, and its constitutional right to health care. Not out of politics, but out of principle.

I would rather see the Conservatives lose an election challenging this orthodox, then to win one pushing the status quo.

But I believe they would win that election, with the overwhelming support of Quebec and western Canada. They would need to sell it right, show Canadians that we would model the highly successful European healthcare systems, and not and American system. Canadians are fed up with the wait times and inefficiencies they see today and I believe are ready to see through the liberal-left media's spin.

It is time to drop our idealistic, ideological, ineffective version of health care. I was never alive at the time Tommy Douglas was, but if he truly was the greatest Canadian of all time, I believe he would be at the forefront pushing for reform.

It is time that we take our ideological blinders off and have an honest debate on the future of health care in this country. I believe that healthcare in this country has come to a crossroads. We can take the easy road where patient care will continue to be sacrificed for the sake of an out-dated ideology, or we can stand up for Canadians and demand better. Lets stop being scared away by scare tactics and catch phrases, and ensure that every Canadian, rich or poor has access to timely and quality care, whether that care be given in a private or public facility.

Lets ensure that the forgotten 3 tenants of Tommy Douglas's Saskatchewan Medical Insurance Act, that health care be efficient, responsible, and most importantly effective begin to outweigh the ideological first principle of the act, that of public administration.

Can there be an NDP of the right?

Despite Andrew Coynes almost religious but sometimes warranted attacks on the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper, I have to admit I admire the man a great deal. It is very rare that I read something of his and don't find myself nodding in agreement. He is very intelligent, articulate, and is a gift to the small "c" conservative movement in this country.

His most recent piece entitled "An Idea Without a Party" has got me thinking more than a newspaper column usually does. The article seemed all over the place as I read it and I had no idea where Coyne was going with it, but in the end was very good.

It started off with the release of the Ontario PC's platform, took a few subtle shots at the federal Conservatives, then compared the Canadian Conservative movement to the Canadian Socialist movement, and concluded that we needed a party to the right of the Conservative party, with no chance of ever forming government, to give those people a true voice.

He ends off asking the readers "Might the time have come for an NDP of the right?"

This really got me pondering the idea myself. I mean, at least part of the Liberal parties success over the past 100 years can be attributed (arguably) to having what could have been some of their more radical members, as members of the NDP instead. I mean, if nothing else, the Liberals have always been able to use to their situation and brand themselves as a safe vote, free of radicals on either side.

If there were a true conservative party to the right of the Conservative party couldn't the Conservative party use the same strategy as the Liberals to help win elections. While at the same time giving those so-called "radicals" a voice in an other party that can act out of principle without the burden of possibly forming government.

On paper it sounds like a pure stroke of genius. But if its such a good idea, why hasn't anything of that nature ever taken foot.

Then I remembered back about 10 years or so ago, when we had two right of center political parties in Canada. Remember that, before the whole "unite the right" thing.

Was Reform the NDP of the right? I mean, based on some of their policies, they were never going to win across the country given the political climate at the time. They were certainly to the right of the old PC's. And as Preston Manning told MacLeans on the 20th anniversary of the birth of the Reform Party, they were very effective in changing the direction of the national agenda. Had it not been for a Reform party in opposition, I highly doubt that the public concern about the debt would have remained at its early 90's levels. We might even be dealing with it today had it not been for Reform.

The problem was though, that Reform didn't want to simply be in opposition, they wanted to form government. That was clear in the party's constitution in that it stated that if the party did not form government in 10 years, it would cease to exist. To add to that, the Reform party was much more successful than the PC's. If the Reform were to the PC's, what the NDP is to the Liberal's, then the PC party would have to ATLEAST be as competitive as Reform. This was just simply not the case.

Slowly but surely though, the ideas behind Reform got watered down. First there was the Alliance, then the merger and a new party, and now the new government that has abandoned all its Reform policies save for a watered down belief in Senate reform. In a round about way, Reform is in government with its first policy chief as Prime Minister.

What Mr. Coyne is talking about therefore, cannot be another Reform. The Reform Party, in my mind, was not an NDP of the right. Nor do I think that a NDP of the right is at all possible. The biggest difference, I believe lies in the differences between the socialist and conservative movements both around the world and at home.

Around the world, there are a number of successful conservative movements that give great pride to conservatives in Canada. Whether with Ronald Reagan in the United States, Margret Thatcher in Britain, John Howard in Australia, or even the prospects of a successful conservative revolution in France under Nicolas Sarkozy. We have even had examples of them at home with Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution, or Ralph Kleins reforms in Alberta. While these movements do still have their critics here in Canada, they do provide ordinary Canadians examples or real conservative movements that have been for the most part successful, and provide hope to conservatives that their values can resonate with the general population.

Socialist parties like the NDP do not have the same examples to look to. What successful socialist movements do exist in the world, seem more aligned with the watered down socialism or statism of the Liberal party, not of the NDP. To Canadians, the NDP is the party of Hugo Chavez socialism, not Tony Blair. The recent extreme examples of conservatism around the world, have not been as opposed to by ordinary citizens as Mr. Chavez's socialism.

There may be an exception when looking at George W Bush's conservatism in the United States, but I hazard to guess that those who would be in this NDP of the right, would look at George Bush as the least conservative US President in years. And even if the Left tries to align Bush and Canadian conservatives, those Canadians conservatives will not look at Bush like they would look at Reagan or Thatcher.

What I am trying to say is that the conservatives have success stories from around the world to look at and to follow, where socialists and the NDP do not. For this reason, conservatives are always going to believe they can achieve power in some way, and will never be satisfied with being another NDP, when their ideological cousins around the world are having successes.

Another important dynamic at play is the regional politics in Canada. Conservatism in Canada is much more regional then Socialism. While the support of the NDP is stronger in certain areas of the country, it is nothing in comparison to the regionalism of the conservative movements. I doubt Alberta will ever split its vote between two conservative parties. Traditionally Albertans have voted in waves, both federally and provincially, and in order for a true NDP of the right to exist, an Alberta vote split would be very important, if not necessary.

So if there can be no NDP of the right, then what do I suppose we do. If Stephen Harper can't be trusted to act conservatively as the Conservative Prime Minister, is there any hope?

I think that their is. As Preston Manning observed in a column for the Globe and Mail recently, Reform failed because it "sought to be both a movement for change and a political party at the same time". He goes on to say this...

"The job of a political movement is to move public thinking and opinion. Reform, the movement, for example, sought to move public opinion from that of tolerating deficit spending toward supporting balanced budgets."
"The primary job of modern political parties (regrettably, in my view) is simply to run and win election campaigns. To do so, they generally seek to accommodate public opinion as it exists, rather than attempt to change it."

Manning's view, which I agree with, is that it is the role of political parties to win elections in the current landscape of the nation. Which right now is a desire for changein government, but not an all encompassing change in direction. There is no imminent national crisis on our hands and the economy is the best it has been in years. The best we can hope for right now is a moderate conservative government in power operating within the current political climate, while at the same time having a conservative movement moving public opinion slowly to the right.

This is what Manning is trying to accomplish through his new center, the Manning Center. And it is what all of us are doing on Blogging Tories. It is also publishing more conservative columnists (Andrew Coyne), attracting more conservative university profs (Dr. Tom Flanagan), having more conservative think tanks and most of all developing future conservative leaders.
All these things are steps in creating a truly conservative force in Canada.

Unfortunately, we can take all these steps and it still may not be enough. I am convinced that in order for Canada to have a truly conservative revolution, the economy will have to be in worse shape then it is. It will take a slowdown in the economy, combined with a Liberal government before the Canadian electorate Will tolerate a truly conservative agenda. Mike Harris came to power in Ontario in the 90's because Ontario's economy was in disarray and there was a grassroots conservative movement taking hold.

It may not take an alignment of the stars in order for a truly conservative government to revolutionize this country, but something will need to give it that extra push.What is important is that we as conservatives are ready to fight together when the conditions present themselves, and not be stuck fighting the same "he's not conservative enough for me" fights that have plagued us in the past.

In the mean time lets keep working to engage the grassroots across this country and we will win this war of attrition. It may become frustrating at times, but our time will come if we stick together. Lets not miss the next opportunity to change this country for the better by risking another fraction of the right.

Just think, if a truly conservative revolution is underway in France, it can happen anywhere, including Canada.

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper RE: Federal Budget and the Atlantic Accord

Dear Mr. Harper,

I have been watching the fallout of the federal budget in Atlantic Canada from afar, and I have to tell you that I am quite confused. What the big fuss is about, I don't get.

From what I understand, your "new" governments has introduced a new equalization program as apart of your strategy to address the fiscal imbalance. In doing so you have adopted the recommendations made in the O'Brien report, to include 50% of non-renewable resource revenue, along with an option for the Atlantic provinces to choose between the O'Brien and the Atlantic Accord.

According to Dalton Mcguinty, your new equalization program is supposed to be a "principled" approach to equalization. What Dalton said was that this program is designed to prevent "have not" provinces that reach the fiscal capacity of the "have" province from continuing to collect equalization. Essentially, it achieves the goal of equalization. To allow all the provinces to provide equal levels of service.

It sounds like welfare, but you know what, I am cool with that. Plus, its in the constitution.

So what the big stink in Atlantic Canada is about, to me, is with equalization. Atlantic Canadian politicians don't want to be equal, they want to be MORE equal. What the Atlantic Accord does is allow the Atlantic Provinces to achieve the fiscal capacity of the "have" provinces, while still collecting the equalization payments designated for the "have not's". It's a slap in the face of the entire principle of equalization.

But yet, Atlantic Canada is given that choice. In the Atlantic Accord. I do understand why though. You did promise to keep ALL non-renewable resource revenue out of the equation. And if governing Canada were that easy, I believe you would have. But its not that easy. The premiers had a few chances to work something out to that effect, with the fed's pushing for 0% non-renewable's. In the end the compromise position was 50%, and the majority of provincial and territorial premiers (10/13) were happy with the outcome.

In an attempt to keep your promise, you gave Atlantic Canada the Atlantic Accord as one of two choices. When I heard this, I thought to myself "wow, he has navigated a minefield!". I guess I jumped to a conclusion too quick though.

3 Premiers, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, have all objected now. Whining about cap's and broken promises. And now its "side-deals".

This is where I get to the purpose of this letter.

Please Mr. Harper, do not give into any side deal with Nova Scotia. Even if that's not what you are calling it.

Nova Scotia is already receiving 150ish million more in the next two years with the O'Brien. And when O'Brien becomes worth less than the Accord, they can choose the Accord. And if their fiscal capacity becomes that of a "have" provinces, they will not need equalization. I know you know that in principle, but politics is a bitch.

But with respect to the politics, its a lost cause. In my opinion there is no lost ground that can be made up. By compromising, you will abandon principle for nothing political. You will lose seats in Atlantic Canada even if you give Nova Scotia and Newfoundland exactly what they want.

If you want to salvage some political points in Atlantic Canada, accept Bill Casey back into caucus before the next election if he wants. And please rethink your communications strategy. Because this is the RIGHT equalization program for Canada. It returns us to an era where equalization serves its constitutional purpose and not merely political vote-buying purposes. I have no suggestions to offer to this respect, and it is tough when the media so clearly takes the side of the 3 opposing provinces.

But please, show Atlantic Canadians and the rest of Canada that this is the right approach to equalization, fight through the spin, sell the package as is, not with a side deal. There is alot of support for your approach throughout the country, including in Quebec and Ontario, and don't sacrifice that for no gain politically in Atlantic Canada.

Sincerely,

Kirby Ramsay
BCOMM 08 Mount Allison University


PS: I apologize for any minor errors (if there are any) in the intricacies of the budget, but on a whole, my assessment is in my mind correct.

PPS: When I speak of Atlantic Canada, I am referring to the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I have a great deal of respect for all the people of Atlantic Canada, and am anxiously counting down the days until I move back!

Bill Casey and the Budget vote

Bill Casey is a class act. He represents the riding next door to Beausejour where I go to school and I have heard nothing but good things about the man. I have even got the answer, "because of Bill Casey", from more than one person when I ask them, "what is it that makes you a Conservative".

That all being said, he has now voted against the budget, a confidence motion, and will be kicked out of caucus. This is unfortunate for the people of his constituency, which includes Amherst and Truro, but also a HUGE loss for the Conservative Party.

The people I go to school with from the riding simply cannot say enough about this man. He is good with the constituents, is well known in the community, and has served them well. A few of them, if I were to guess their particular ideology, would not be Conservatives without Mr. Casey as their MP.

Because of this, I tend to agree with On Liberty take on this...

In a region where Conservative seats are hard to come by we don’t need to remove a capable man from a seat that he can guarantee to put in the “win” column on election night. We don’t need to disillusion the voters in his riding who expect principle to be respected. Casey is no Garth Turner, he’s a decent hard-working man who is an asset to the Conservative Party. It’s time for this party to do politics differently.

However, I do not know how the party can ignore his vote and reinstate him. Copycats would be sure to follow, and the caucus has the potential to crumble. And there is the issue at hand as well. Bill Casey IS wrong on this issue in my mind. Yes, Harper did not keep his word 100%, but when looking at it from a policy perspective, and not regional or political, he made the right move.

I am not an opponent of asymmetrical federalism in general, but only as long as each province has the same options to choose from. For example, the Federal Government provides X amount of dollars for X model of health care, Y for Y and $0 for Z, and the provincial government then does what they choose within this framework, and gets the appropriate health transfer. I guess you could call what I envision, quasi-symmetrical asymmetrical federalism.

EQUALIZATION however, is different. If the idea of equalization is to allow all the provinces to provide equal levels of service, shouldn't the formula be based on the capacity of all the provinces to provide services. Shouldn't this be an instance where there are no loop holes. Where we don't have 1 or 2 provinces whose formula is tweaked so they can provide higher level of services then the others. Isn't this a little two equal...

But seriously, I'm not really an expert, this is just how I understand the issue. Harper did break a promise... sorta... and he will be paying for it come election time. This is hardly a reason however, to break ranks with caucus on a confidence motion.

I think Mr. Casey was wrong to vote against the budget, especially after he had raved about previously. I think he should be temporarily suspended from caucus, but not permanently expelled. In the name of backbench freedom, I support his decision as I will support Mr. Harper's decision to quietly reinstate him on a long hot day this summer.

My thoughts on the new Conservative ads

The Conservatives released their second round of ad's targeting Steffy Dion's leadership last week. These ones focus on the issue of Senate Reform and follow the same "Stephane Dion is not a Leader" theme.

Like their predecessors, I don't think these ad's will have a negative effect on the polling for the Conservatives like so many predicted they would last time. I do however, believe that they will have little to no effect on voter preference and leadership polls whatsoever. These ad's aren't as memorable as the last and I don't think they have garnered the "earned media" that made the others so effective. Because of this I don't think many pundits and political followers will look back on these ad's as any kind of defining moment for the party.

To me these ad's just seem different, and when I first saw them I wasn't impressed. The reason for this, I hazard to guess, is that they are not intended to be creative marketing ploy designed to create a lasting impression with the viewer. It is my belief that these ad's are designed as a kind of test. With a war chest deep enough to fight 3 elections, and no sign of an imminent election in sight I think (and hope) these ad's are designed to test the traction that Senate reform has with voters across the country.

Senate reform is an issue near and dear to the hearts of many in the new Conservative Party. It was one of the defining issues of the old Reform party and plays well with the base of the party. It is an issue of great importance to Mr Harper himself I believe, and should he ever get the chance to leave a legacy down the road, I believe that he would want Senate reform to be a centerpiece. I am however, jumping the gun a little here.

These ad's are a way for the Conservatives to get an unfiltered message out about Senate reform, and its importance to this government. They are meant to get people thinking about a particular policy, rather than personality. They are designed to see if Senate reform is something that the Conservatives can fight (and win) an election on. I would imagine these ad's are going to be complemented by some internal polling after being run for a few weeks.

From what I can sense, Senate reform is an issue that the Conservatives are overwhelmingly on the right side of right now. The problem is that the senate isn't exactly what you would call and hot button issue that causes tempers to flare. These ad's are simply an attempt to test what kind of emotion Canadians will put into a Senate reform battle. And they have complimented it with the tried and tested "Stephane Dion is not a leader" because they feel they have branded Dion and do not want to lose that advantage.

What I am trying to say is that, why would the Conservatives use election style, retail ad's at this point when there is no election in the foreseeable future. If there is one thing the Harper team has done well since day 1, its long term strategy. It has been the everyday nit picky things that have held them back. Which is why I think these ad's are a part of a broader campaign to test issues that might help the Conservatives win a majority in the coming election, whenever that may be...

Like most of the time, I may be way off on this. Maybe I am just being a naive partisan trying to make something out of very poor ad's. But every time PM Harper disappoints me with something, in the end he winds up, in the long run, looking light years ahead of me. So for that, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.