A Letter to Alfred Apps

Dear Mr. Apps,

I am writing this letter to you, as President of the Liberal Party of Canada, regarding the EKOS poll that was released today (Thursday). I'm certain that you've had a chance to peruse the latest results, showing that the Party you preside over is rapidly falling even further out of approval with the Canadian electorate. I'm also hoping that your hangover won't be too bad tomorrow morning when you wake up from this long, long nightmare.

If one of the goals of your Party is to put a smile on Stephen Harper's rather glum visage, I'm certain that you must know by now that you have achieved your goal. From media reports, it appears that the corners of his mouth may have turned up slightly toward his forehead; in other words, he's grinning from ear to ear.

The Globe and Mail, your favourite Liberal-leaning, Conservative-bashing mainstream media rag even had this to say:

"And, according to a projection calculated by EKOS President Frank Graves, the Liberals could be reduced to 64 seats from their current 77 were an election held in the first week of July, opening the door to the possibility they might not even form the Official Opposition."

Mr Apps, the sky is falling, the sky is falling! The Globe has fallen off the Liberal bandwagon!

Actually, if you do look at the trend of the numbers Mr. Apps, you can see a slow and steady rise in NDP support over the past 18 months from 14% to just shy of 18%. You can also see a slow and steady decline in Liberal support from the mid-30's to today's number of 23.9% support. With the precipitous drop over the past 2 months, just about any Canadian with a middle school education can project that the NDP/Liberal support numbers will cross in less than a year and likely a shorter time than that.

Another question Mr. Apps. How do you know that things are REALLY bad? Things are REALLY bad when the Globe prints this quote from Mr. Frank Graves, President of EKOS:

“The fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper now appear to oscillate more clearly with the national mood. When Canadians now feel better about the country they tend to assign special bonus points to Stephen Harper.”

Oh my goodness, now just because I feel good about Canada I'm going to give Stephen Harper a pass on everything he does plus a few bonus points just because his cronies show up to work? Sure Mr. Graves said it, but the Globe didn't have to print it, did they? I mean really, the nerve of the editing staff. I hate to go all Chicken Little on you again Mr. Apps but the sky HAS fallen, the sky HAS fallen!

I'm also hoping that you took the time to surf over to the EKOS website located here to read the poll for yourself. Here's their analysis of the results:

"So why this abrupt shift in Conservative fortunes? In the absence of Parliament, we could speculate that it is merely a random survey error. But the pattern is far too pronounced and we can dismiss this hypothesis.

Perhaps the absence of the critical lens that Parliament provides to the public explains buoyed Conservative fortunes. Another factor is the continuing recovery of the economy and the juxtaposition of Canadian strength compared to the economic and fiscal woes of recent visitors from the G8.

A final interesting hypothesis is that Stephen Harper may now be assuming a symbolic as well as political role. It is interesting to note that in the absence of the representative head of state (Michaëlle Jean), it was Harper who greeted the Queen, rubbed shoulders with Obama and European Leaders, and basked in the positive glow surrounding Canada Day.

So just as the Olympic hockey victory lifted Harper’s fortunes, the cumulative effect of these events seems to have exerted a similarly positive effect. If indeed Harper is now becoming a proxy for national pride, this may make the challenge for Ignatieff even more formidable (as confidence in national direction continues to be strong)."

So, as I said before, Stephen Harper is a now a proxy for national pride? For crying in the sink, the poll was taken between June 22nd and July 6th, right over the period of time when the G8/G20 security personnel were acting like Mr. Harper's own personal, billion dollar storm troopers. How could those polled possibly have seen that as a "positive effect"? What does it say about the Liberal Party; wouldn't you think that your people should have been able to muster up even more support than normal? After all, the invocation of the War Measures Act is so far in the past that most voters don't even know what it is anymore.

I have a couple of comments that I hope you'll read through once you pick yourself up off the floor and dust yourself off. Canadians are less than enthused about our current government. Nationally, only 40.5% of Canadians think that the Government of Canada is moving in the right direction with 48% stating that it is moving in the wrong direction. Why is it then that we don't like our Conservative government but we still pick the governing Party over your Liberals?

My strong suspicion is that voters are less enamoured with Michael Ignatieff than they are afraid of the direction that the Conservative government is taking Canada. While Mr. Ignatieff appears to be a fine gentleman and scholar, in today's political world, nice guys rarely finish first and in the Liberal Party's case, maybe even second.

The Conservative Party has done an excellent job of creating a shroud of doubt around Mr. Ignatieff. They are constantly reminding the sweaty masses that he's just here for a visit, he's really an American wannabe etcetera ad nauseum. While it appears that Mr. Ignatieff wants to fight a gentleman's fight, the Parliamentary Marquis of Queensbury rules have changed. Personal attacks are the order of the day.

I'll let you in on a secret. All it takes is a really simple search of the internet to find ammunition that can be used against the leader of the Conservatives that might help dispel the myth that Mr. Harper is a born again federalist. Here's a start for you from Mr. Harper's 1997 speech to the American Council for National Policy:

"...Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country that most Canadians."

What more need I say.

In closing, I'd like to suggest that if you want to see the Liberal Party succeed (or even exist) after the next election, you need to make the daring move of calling a convention that will vote (and I mean really vote this time) on Mr. Ignatieff's leadership. If, after the vote, the Party still elects to stick with Mr. Ignatieff as leader, at least the fickle finger of fate will point at the Party and not at the electorate when you lose the next election badly.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I know that you've been busy washing the bus for Mr. Ignatieff's "Liberal Express" summer cross country tour of Canada and fending off Jack Layton and the NDP who want to take over your Party.

Oh, and did I remember to tell you to let your grassroots delegates actually vote for the leader the next time you have a leadership campaign? You remember democracy in action, don't you?

P.S. Here's another quote from your favourite newspaper today from Doug Finley, the CPC Campaign Director talking about the Senate carving up Bill C-9:

""I think there’s more than enough issues here to run an election on, and I’m ready,” Mr. Finley said. “I’ve got buses, I’ve got planes, I’ve got war room, I’ve got advertising already in the can. We are constantly at work on our policy and platform. I’ve got a tour two-thirds planned. Yah, let’s dance.”"

If I were you, I wouldn't be sleeping too soundly tonight Mr. Apps.

Canada's MPs, Our Money and the Waiting Game

In the past couple of days, there have been developments on the proposed audit of Canada's Parliamentary budget of $583 million (fiscal 2010) including MPs expenses, and the ensuing storm that occurred when the Auditor-General was refused access by the all-party Board of Internal Economy. News reports from last week suggest that the deadlock will be broken this week and Ms. Fraser will be invited to discuss the issue with the Board.

On Friday evening, the Globe and Mail posted this item in their Ottawa Notebook about Liberal MP Michelle Simson. I’ve written about Ms. Simson, MP for Scarborough Southwest previously; she is one of three MPs (the others being Rob Oliphant and Marlene Jennings) who, in the interest of full disclosure, have posted their MP expenses on their websites. These voluntary disclosures ensure their constituents that they are spending taxpayers money responsibly. Good on all three of them!

According to the Globe article, Ms. Simson is not popular with many of her fellow Liberal caucus members. Some of her fellow caucus members, including Mr. Ignatieff, believe that she is making them look bad because of the proactive nature of her actions. Here's what the Globe had to say about Mr. Ignatieff's reaction to Ms. Simson's actions:

"Rather than praising her and encouraging other MPs to follow her lead, however, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told members not to do what she did. He told his caucus to stick together and not to be mavericks on this issue. He is concerned that different MPs could post difference expenses, creating the perception of inequities"

Here's a solution Mr. Ignatieff. Have one of the Liberal Party accountants prepare all of your MP's expense statements so they are all reporting expenses in the same fashion to make it easy for Canadians to understand, then post them online. See, Mr. Ignatieff, that wasn't so bad was it? Give Canadians more credit; most of us are capable of deciding what is fair and what is wrong.

I’d like to ask Mr. Ignatieff whether Ms. Simson represents the constituents who elected her, the Liberal Party or her fellow caucus members when she sits in the House. It is only her constituents that elected her, not the Liberal Party (or its Leader) and certainly not the Liberal caucus: it is her constituents that she is responsible to first and foremost.

The issue of representation seems to be lost on today’s politicians. The impending third reading of Bill C-391 is a prime example. This Private Member’s Bill that would see the abolition of the gun registry is currently in Committee and will be brought back to Parliament for, what Mr. Ignatieff has told his caucus, will be a “whipped” vote. All Liberals will be expected to vote along Liberal Party lines (against the Bill) regardless of the wishes of their constituents. While you may agree with the Liberals on this particular issue, it is the principle of whipped votes that I disagree with and it is an issue that the former Reform Party attempted to tackle back in their early days before they sold out to "business as usual" on Parliament Hill.

Back to Ms. Simson. During the 2008 election, she promised her constituents that she would be accountable to them and that they would see where she spent their money. She is now doing exactly what she promised her constituents she would do if elected, a highly unexpected turn of events on Parliament Hill and something that deserves respect.

Last week, another Liberal MP, Rob Oliphant, also made the right decision and posted his MP expenses online. It certainly looks like Mr. Ignatieff is experiencing yet another "palace revolt"; now three of his MPs have gone against the party line and have done what they feel is in the best interest of their constituents, the same thing that happened on the second reading of Bill C-391.

On Sunday, Craig Oliver of CTV's Question Period had the privilege of interviewing Canada's Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, a person that most Canadians both respect and trust. In the interview, Ms. Fraser told Mr. Oliver that she is waiting for a formal invitation from the Board of Internal Economy as the next step toward auditing the expenses of both the House and the Senate. Once the invitation is extended, she will meet with the Clerk of the House of Commons (and Secretary to the Board) Audrey O'Brien to discuss the scope of the audit and exactly what aspects of expenditures she will be allowed to access. She hopes to audit MP expenses as part of the examination of financial issues but will also examine broader management, security and information technology issues.

Ms. Fraser noted that it is unusual to have an audit with any restrictions (imagine if a publicly traded company told an auditor that they couldn't have access to all of their financial transactions); she stated that she was concerned that if any access restrictions were in place, that the audit would not be credible. She noted that she would not be judging "value for money", rather, she would be looking at "performance"; whether a program is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness (i.e. whether it meets certain goals). She will not be telling the House (and by extension, Canadians) whether the program or expenditure has merit; that will be up to the public to decide. She anticipates that the audit will take 12 to 18 months to complete.

Let's hope that our elected officials bend to the will of those that elect them, do the right thing and release all of the information necessary to complete a credible audit. If they don't, Canadians' trust in our political system will sink even further. It's about time Canada's MPs realize that most Canadians simply don't trust them. They need to take a step away from the palace on Parliament Hill and show some respect for those who send their tax dollars to Ottawa every April 30th. We need to tell our MPs (and Senators) that they are not entitled to spend our money without letting us know whether they are spending it wisely or not and that we need proof of their prudence.

As an aside, in the Question Period interview, Ms. Fraser also announced that she will be auditing the anticipated billion dollar expenditure on security for the G8/G20 Summits later in June. On the same show, Public Safely Minister Vic Toews stated that he would be pleased to have the expenditure audited (unfortunately, after the fact), but only time will tell if the Conservative government is co-operative or if they cook up some reason to keep the financial details secret.

Not Negotiating with Sheila Fraser

The story of Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's requested audit of MPs expenses has morphed slowly over this past weekend. Back in early May, the all-party Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons rejected Ms. Fraser's request to audit the House of Commons, most specifically MP expenses which total over $500 million annually. The last time the expenses of the House of Commons and Senate were audited by the Auditor-General (Denis Desautels) was in 1991.

The NDP have decided (finally, after everyone else joined the party) that they will not stand in the way of further negotiations with Auditor-General Sheila Fraser regarding her request to audit MP expenses, following in the footsteps of the flip-flopping being done by both the Conservatives and Liberals. Earlier, the NDP had claimed that since Ms. Fraser was an officer of Parliament, an audit performed by her would be like "auditing her own bosses". Hardly. Like most Canadians, I don't believe that Ms. Fraser would be biased in performing an audit of Parliament since she appears to be quite independent of both the government and MPs. Most Canadians seem to trust Ms. Fraser's impartiality and integrity and, sadly, far more than we trust those we are forced to elect to public office election after election. In fact, I suspect she would hands-down win an electoral race should she chose to participate.

In the case of the Conservatives, Mr. Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas stated on Sunday that:

“The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions continue. He’s also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency...”.

Perhaps, as usual, Mr. Harper is basing his new position on the results of the latest poll that shows that 88% of Canadians want to see an audit of MP expenses. Mr. Ignatieff also flip flopped stating that what he supported was:

"Sheila Fraser, the Auditor-General, coming to the Board of Internal Economy and talking about what she wants to do and then taking it from there..."

I find it most interesting (and more than a bit frustrating) that the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals are all forcing Ms. Fraser to "negotiate" and "discuss what she wants to do" with regard to an audit. There should be NO negotiation and NO discussion; this audit should be mandatory, non-negotiable and should be performed regularly (i.e. more frequently than every 10 to 15 years) to ensure both transparency and complete honesty.

Canada's Election Act should be changed before the next election requiring that all candidates from all Parties agree that their detailed expenses be posted on both their personal/MP websites and on the Parliamentary website. If the individual running for the office of MP is not willing to subscribe to complete transparency when it involves spending taxpayers' funds, then they should not be allowed to run. If potential MPs are not willing to tell us how they are spending our money, then they obviously have character deficiencies that make them poor candidates for political office. As I've posted previously, MP Michelle Simson (Liberal - Scarborough Southwest) posts her expenses on her website. Here is a screen cap of her disclosure (I hope she doesn't mind):

She sets a fine example to other MPs of all Parties; her expense statement is transparent, complete and detailed enough that it provides her constituents with an excellent view of the efficient manner in which she performs her duties. MP Marlene Jennings (Liberal - Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine) also posts a "Proactive Disclosure" on her website. Both of these MPs set an exemplary precedent for the remainder of Canada's MPs.

In contrast, here's what we get from Board of Internal Economy through the Speaker of the House:

It is interesting to note that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spent $18,266 on "Other" items when many of his fellow MPs had other expenses that were less than a few hundred dollars. This is where more detail is necessary.

Publicly traded Canadian corporations submit their financial statements to a full audit every year to assure shareholders that corporations are truthfully stating their financial health. While this doesn't always work (i.e. Nortel), it more or less ensures a level playing field for all Canadian corporations. In the case of Canada's Parliament, the Canadian public is the shareholder (i.e. owner) of the business and our elected officials are merely our employees. Without a regular audit, our employees can spend as they wish because they are not responsive or responsible to anyone but themselves. Under the present system, our MPs and Senators can increase spending without restriction. That has to change.

Go get 'em Ms. Fraser.

UPDATE:

From a CBC report this evening, it now appears that the Conservative government is willing to invite Ms. Fraser to conduct a performance or "value for money" audit and will announce a series (yet another) of proposals to ensure greater transparency (one of the CPC talking points) for MP and parliamentary expenses. The proposals will be taken to the Board of Internal Economy next week.

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/26/mps-expenses-auditor-general.html

Wayne, Whips and Guns

Last evening, it was with great sadness that I read of the passing of Wayne Easter's courageous stand against his Party and leader on abolition of the gun registry.

Now, apparently he's flip-flopped and decided to toe the Liberal Party line again. Mr. Ignatieff left his urban ivory tower long enough to engage the rural Liberal MPs who voted for the private member's bill that would have seen the end of the Liberal's pet gun registry. He informed the 8 MPs that he had decided that he wanted to make the registry more palatable for rural gun owners by reducing the penalties for being caught with an unregistered long-gun and cutting the fees for registration to zero.

Mr. Ingnatieff also announced that voting on the third reading of Bill C-391 would be a whipped vote, that is, all Liberals would have to stick it to their constituents and vote along Party lines. This becomes problematic for Wayne Easter since back in November 2009, he voted against his own Party to better reflect what his constituents have wanted all along, quite a marked change after being one of the most vocal supporters of the registry for 15 years, especially during his tenure as Solicitor General. I guess Mr. Ignatieff doesn't want to take a chance on having some of his rogue MPs vote against party lines for a third time in less than 6 months.

Here's what Mr. Easter had to say to the Globe:

“To Ignatieff’s credit … he came to rural caucus, talked to those of us who had concerns … and over the several months I think we found a solution that in fact works. It’s a reasonable compromise that I think shows leadership on Ignatieff’s part.”

Well, I guess we can see where this one is headed. I had hoped Wayne would stick to his guns (pardon the very weak pun) on this issue but I guess it was too good to be true. Apparently, it's back to business as usual on the Hill.

Reference:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/gun-registry-controversy-triggers-political-war-games/article1545203/

A Registry by Another Name

Today, Michael Ignatieff announced proposed amendments to Candice Hoeppner's (Conservative) private member's bill that would scrap the gun registry. The Liberal Party would make these changes to save the much maligned gun registry that was implemented under the Chretien government as a misguided means of gun control. Mr. Ignatieff is making this move to prevent a fractured vote similar to what happened in December 2009 when some of his Liberal MPs voted in favour of the Conservative private member's bill when he allowed a free vote.

His proposal would make it easier for owners of long guns to register their weapons by streamlining paperwork, removing renewal fees and, rather than making non-declaration a criminal offence, he suggests that it should be a ticketed penalty for first time offenders.

What Mr. Ignatieff fails to realize is that many Canadians do not want the firearms registry in any form, whether it is free or easier is of no consequence. When the original gun registry was passed by the Senate in 1995, it divided Canada along provincial lines with strong support for the registry in Southern Ontario and weak support in the Maritimes, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It also drew a line squarely between urban and rural Canadians.

The original (and unworkable) registry has already cost taxpayers a whopping $2 billion, obscenely over its original net cost estimate of $2 million after collection of fees. As well, an estimated 5 million gun owners in Canada did not register their weapons rendering the whole system a very expensive farce.

It would be interesting to know exactly what percentage of crimes involve the use of long guns versus crimes that are committed with handguns which are already restricted. It would also be interesting to know how many legal handguns are used to commit crimes versus those that have been illegally acquired. These are numbers that seem to be very difficult to access.

Michael Ignatieff needs to step down from his ivory tower, analyze how and why the Liberal's attempt to organize a gun registry didn't work in the first place, ascertain whether the majority of Canadians actually want a gun registry and rethink his plan before any more tax dollars are wasted.

References:

Ignatieff Announces Moves to Save Gun Registry

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2925107

History of the Canadian Gun Registry

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html

Harper and Helena

As much as it pains Canadians, and especially those unfortunate voters in the riding of Simcoe-Grey, Helena Guergis is not going anywhere.

Stephen Harper never admits that he's made a mistake. If he removes Minister Guergis from her portfolio as Minister for the Status of Women, he thinks that it will appear that her appointment was a mistake. Even worse, it will appear that the Opposition was right all along and that she should have been removed long ago. To our Prime Minister, making a mistake is showing weakness and weakness is something he hasn't shown since the playground way back when he was in public school.

If Harper realigns his cabinet prior to the next election, we may see Helena demoted to the back benches (again, following her husband Rahim's career path - they certainly have more in common than what I first thought!). That way Harper can always use the "she left for personal reasons" or "I'm just reshuffling my cabinet"excuse without personal repercussions.

I'm no great fan of Michael Ignatieff but at least when the vote on his Party's abortion motion went south on March 23rd, 2010 he "manned up" and admitted that he had made a mistake. You can't help but at least peripherally admire that in a politician.

I hope that I'm wrong about Harper and Helena but I doubt it.

What is Mikey I. thinking?

With yesterday's debacle in the House of Commons, it is likely that Ignatieff's leadership will continue to be seen as weak and directionless by the Canadian public. Unless the Liberals send a message of change (i.e. a new leader), the very best they can hope for is a continuing series of minority governments and the worst they might see would be banishment to the political wilderness for years to come.

Why is it that every time Michael Ignatieff builds up a bit of political capital with the Canadian public, he tosses it to the wind? It's like he just doesn't understand the political process.

The Liberals polling numbers were looking good in mid-January ago when, likely due to the electorate's dissatisfaction with Harper's prorogation of Parliament, they were essentially tied with the Conservatives among decided voters. By the latest poll undertaken in mid-March, the Ekos poll shows that the Liberals were trailing the Conservatives by 5.6 percentage points with the Liberals getting approval from only 27.7% of decided voters.

In late October, Peter Donolo was brought on as Ignatieff's new chief of staff. Donolo was brought on board because he is a savvy political veteran having served as director of communications for Jean Cretien until 1999. The Liberal party hoped that Donolo's input would help "pretty up" Ignatieff's image with the Canadian public and help raise their support among Canadian voters. For a time (a very short time) that appeared to work.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Liberals raised a motion that was attempting to drive a wedge into the Harper government's maternal health initiative. The Liberals had hoped to divide and conquer the Conservative caucus. Most unfortunately for the Liberals, three of their own members voted against their own motion and other Liberals were absent from the House. This resulted in the Liberals defeating their own motion. Rather than driving a wedge into the Conservatives, the Liberals now look like buffoons. While Ignatieff has taken the blame for this debacle, he has done nothing to help his growing reputation as a leader that is out of touch with the machinations of Parliament and his own party.

I suggest that the Liberals need a new leader....now.

Great Excitement!

Today was a big day in my household. I got another "10 percenter"! It doesn't get any better than getting new reading material for the bathroom. This time it was generously sent to my humble abode all the way from the riding of Regina - Lumsden Lake in Saskatchewan where Tom Lukiwski, Conservative MP lives. Here I thought they had forgotten all about me!

This "10 percenter" focussed on how unpatriotic Michael Ignatieff is and how "he's just in it (politics) for himself", not for all Canadians. Not only was it most informative, it was pure partisan politics at its very best.

We all know that every altruistic Conservative MP on Parliament Hill only has the best interests of Canada at heart. Their 2009 base pay of $157,738, annual expense allowance of $25,500 and annual allocation of 64 free return airline tickets would have absolutely nothing with their desire to serve Canadians!

I've sent Mr. Lukiwski my standard email questioning the use of millions of taxpayers dollars to fund the "10 percenter" Conservative election campaign. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response.