Canadian Politics

We're back in Calgary and off the foggy roads. Well, at least until the furniture arrives... Next month.

And let me just say that while I love Chicago, the State of Illinois Department of Highway Robbery is quite another matter. The rebuilding of I94/80? Oh yeah that's going really well. And thanks for making it even harder for out-of-state folks to pay for your tollways. Beauty. Illinois is managed kinda' like Canada. One party, for far too long.

Which leads me to my opener of the new blogging year; the Great Canadian Election of Winter 2006. People are starting to stir to the fact that they may elect a Conservative government but I'm going to doubt right here that it will be a majority. I am indeed filled with wonder and respect yet again for the people of Quebec. Not only have they moved the Conservatives from 8% to 20% in the Quebec polls; but also, they are definitely on to something in the likes of Gilles Duceppe.

Duceppe, destroyed the last vestige of Paul Minister Prime Martin's credibility over 2 nights of debate earlier this week. Duceppe is no master of the English language but, like Chretien, he is much better than he lets on. Drawing Martin into recognizing the "Nation" of Quebec on Monday was a great moment in Canadian politic debate. For me, the best I've heard since Mulroney's famous "You had a choice, Sir!" outburst in the '80's.

Harper's, 'aw shucks, I'm not a charismatic spin-doctor' routine was just what the spin doctor ordered. Now the race is his to lose.

Liberals had it all with Jean Chretien. They had the House, the Senate, the Privy Council. They built on the legacy of their enemy Mulroney - who began the process of great national transformation - and they let the economy throb to life. They had the trust of a majority of Canadians and they were embued with a heritage of entitlement that was firmly rooted in the legacy of the Trudeau and Pearson years.

Over the past 3 years -- for no good reason -- the Party has rusted and wrenched itself apart. We are witnessing no less than all out civil war in this election as Liberals fight Liberals for the crumbs of the legacy.

Into the breach steps an untested Conservative party. An amalgam of reformers, populists and progressives. The next stage of national greatness will once again be initiated by a Conservative government. Will Harper be a Mulroney or a Clark? A Macdonald or a Meighen? Will we define ourselves by the visions of a leader or the narrowness of a man?

Listening to the first English language Canadian election debate (listening, not watching -- I'm sick of the media focus on whether so-and-so blinked at the right time) I must say as an informed voter that I am insulted and appalled by the format that the party leaders have been compelled to follow.

There is no interaction, very little emotion and practically no depth. At one point, a question from a low income individual in Ontario about the GST was discussed with the earnestness of a bunch of first year political science students. Nobody -- not one of the leaders -- would honestly address the question and point out that low income citizens receive GST rebate checks on a regular basis. Low income Canadians get their GST money back! Why was this question even allowed in the rotation?

The format for follow-up comments -- steered by the moderator -- does not provide enough time for a reasonable answer. Eager sound engineers turned off the politicians' microphones mid-sentence thus making a mockery of their statements. It's completely disrespectful. The future of democracy? Hurry up! National unity? Beat the clock. Health care and social programs? There's no time! No time!

This format is dreadful and does no one any good. While voters have many reasons to be disrespectful of Federal politicians, this so-called debate format does a tremendous disservice to each of the party leaders.

(Follow-up: Gilles Duceppe -- the separatist -- called Canada a great nation at least twice; you've gotta' love the civility of our perennial national unity angst.)

I'm back from my self-administered cone of silence. And look what's happened while I was away; another Election!

You will notice that this site has removed it's articles from the last campaign. This time around I think I'll just point to other sites that will give a prospective voter some good background. My initial hunch is that the campaign will be very low key until the week after the New Year. A smart strategist may introduce some key discussion points for family and party conversation in mid-December, but I wouldn't expect the real scrapping to begin until after the Holidays. There is a possibility that the Liberals will have to go very negative in this campaign in order to hang on to what they have.

Best candidate-on-the-go site that I have seen to this point is Garth Turner's The Turner Report. It's fact filled, the comments look real and the response is pragmatic. Garth is a savvy journalist and a former cabinet minister. Experience and frankness in the quantities he delivers bode well for the team that could be forming the next government.

I drank my morning coffee and said a silent thank you to William
Thorsell, former publisher of the Globe and Mail, for his op-ed piece
entitled Burn, baby, burn: Why we're back to nuclear power. Loaded with money
quotes, Thorsell suveys the energy field in short order and arrives at
the conclusion held by many in the electrical and energy business. If
you want massive, scalable energy self-sufficiency you have to think
nuclear. Or newqyoular if you prefer.

The essay is short, to the point and full of honest to goodness truths,
rather than half-baked, highschool science class hopes. Thorsell is
unequivocal in voicing not just contempt; but also, complete
bewilderment regarding the public process behind the issue of nuclear
waste:

Regarding a continued reliance on fossil fuels for electricity
generation, he points out:

Some point out that increasing our nuclear reliance increases the possibility
for terrorism and the proliferation of destructive nuke technologies;
but that genie is already out of the bottle and as Thorsell states:

What is the emergency
plan for 30 days without any home heating or water in Toronto in January if the power goes down because of a distribution failure? Maybe there just can't be one, given the certainty of chaos, so a dependable supply of electricity is the closest equation there is these days to peace, order and good government. Lose electricity and we lose the social
order."

Thorsell saves the best for last. No
politician would dare say it but his statement rings truer than any of
the rhetorical crap that has been spouted by any party in any election
of note lately:

"Medicare
gets all the political attention, while the much more
fundamental question of our energy supplies and systems percolates
off-stage. The first duty of the state is the security of the citizen,
not the care of the ill. We got a glimpse of that last August."