Senator Duffy

My fearless prediction about the upcoming trial of Senator Duffy.  It will not happen.

The Harper government will not want to have any of Mr. Harper's inner circle having to testify under oath during any trial regarding the Senate Expense Scandal.

Mark my words, a prosecutor very friendly to the Conservative government will be appointed.  He will offer Senator Duffy's lawyer a sweet plea bargain to get a guilty verdict to a couple of the charges the Senator is facing, with the remainder being dropped and this whole thing will be swept under a rug.

It will leave Mr. Harper open to further accusations of a cover up but they will blow over and he will be spared the alternative.

To all of the Bond Rating Agencies

And all of the other Conservative minded commentators bitching at Premier Wynne.

The guy that espoused your approach to the finances of Ontario lost and lost big.

So, stop trying to force Premier Wynne to follow that approach.  That is not what Ontario voters voted for.

The Prostitution Hearings

I have been paying some attention to the hearings currently taking place regarding the new Prostitution Bill before Parliament and it has come as no surprise that much of the testimony has been against it.  Most of that testimony asserts that the new Bill would make it very unsafe for sex workers and their customers.

Of course the Conservative government does not care.  It is often forgotten because he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian.  His caucus is dominated by them and the Reform wing of the Party, which currently holds sway over the whole of the CPC, is also dominated by them.

One thing that can be said about evangelical Christians is they are obsessed with sex.  They are particularly obsessed with people having sex that is not approved by their very narrow view of morality.  Same sex, premarital sex and sex for sale are anathema to them and they have no time for people who commit any of those "sins". 

So of course they do not give a damn about the safety of sex workers or their customers.  As far as they are concerned any harm that comes to them is a result of their immorality and they deserve whatever happens to them.

As well, the politics is pretty obvious.  The Supreme Court decision was ideal for firing up the base and it gave the Harper government an opportunity to enhance its social conservative bonafides without opening up any big debates on more controversial issues such as abortion.

So will the new Bill survive the Supreme Court when it reaches there?  No, but the Conservatives do not care.  By the time it gets their an election will have happened so this issue can be safely punted into the future.

Governing for your base is a lousy way to govern but it has been the MO of this government so it should come as no surprise that they did it this time too.

The Ontario Election

When the Ontario election was called I believed that it was Tim Hudak's to lose.

Up to this point it appears he is doing just that.

The sense that the people of Ontario want a change is palpable.  It was not just evident in the recent polls saying as much it was evident in many other ways as well.  So it is unexpected that such a sentiment has not become evident by manifesting itself as ever decreasing support for the Ontario Liberals.  In fact, all of the polls that have been published in the last couple of weeks show the Liberals gaining strength not losing it.  Even Ipsos, which has consistently indicated that the PCPO leads the OLP has shown that lead shrink from a substantial one to one that is within the margin of error.  Other polls that showed the Liberals leading are indicating they are holding steady or even increasing the gap.

Incidentally, that is how you interpret the polls.  Ignore the actual estimates as they are all over the place due to different polling methodologies.  Instead look at the delta between polls from the same company to discern a trend.  When you do that you see what I described above.

This is remarkable with only 10 days left in the campaign.  Some would say that the reason is the voters are not paying attention but considering the desire for change that seems apparent that should not matter.  If a pollster calls me and asks me who I am going to vote for and I happen to be one of those people who want change I have a perfect opportunity to tell someone what kind of change I am looking for.  If 75% of Ontarians are indicating they want change it stands to reason that a pollster is going to have a proportional number of respondents who feel that way in their polling sample.  Therefore, we should be seeing that manifest itself in the horse race numbers by now.

That has not happened yet so either the high desire for change that polls have been indicating since before the election call are wrong or people are looking at what kind of change is available and not liking it.  That is not without precedent in the recent past, as the recent BC election demonstrates.

There are still 10 days before e-day so we could see that shift yet but it is interesting that it has not yet happened and that in fact there may be some evidence that the opposite is happening

Want to win the next election Mr. Trudeau?

Then promise to work to make the Turks and Caicos Islands part of Canada in some way.  Maybe not a province but a protectorate or a territory perhaps.

The idea of warm destination where Canadians can travel without worrying about Customs or converting their currency to the Yankee dollar would be welcome by many and it would put the Liberals over the top I believe.

There are only 30,000 of them and they are relatively wealthy so the economic burden on Canada would be light.  Let them keep their open banking system but require them to give Canada a piece of that action and it would be a wash.

The advantages for them are incalculable.

Make it happen Mr. Trudeau!

Some form of Senate reform is still possible

In a decision that surprised no one the Supreme Court of Canada has essentially stated that no fundamental changes to the Senate can be made without the agreement of the provinces.  That means no abolition, no changes to a Triple E Senate not even term limits and elected senators without an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, which is not going to happen.

So we are stuck with the Senate in its present form at least until Hell freezes over and the Toronto Maple Leafs win another Stanley Cup.

In an indication of just how shallow and desiccated our politics have become most of the reaction of the media to this news were the political implications of the decision on the Federal scene.  Predictably, as I watched the "analysis" last night it shook out along partisan lines so it was pointless.  The only interesting point was some statements by Conservative friendly groups demanding a referendum.  That bears watching.

Much of the coverage indicated the Stephen Harper had "thrown in the towel" on Senate Reform and my watching of his reaction was they seem to be correct.

Does it really have to be that way?

Although there is no way to fundamentally change the Senate there is still leeway to make substantive changes around the conventions and practices of the Senate that are not covered by the Constitution, and there are a great many of them.

Not to be partisan but Mr. Trudeau did show us some ways of doing just that.  Certainly the changes he made were for partisan purposes but they are examples of what can be done within the Constitution. 

Could there not be a way of expanding on them?

Here is a thought, there is a broad consensus in this country that the Senate as it is now is broken.  Would it be too much to ask for our political leaders to put aside their petty partisan concerns and actually sit down together with some of the more thoughtful Senators to come up with ways to improve the Senate in its current form? 

There are many aspects that could be changed.  For example:

• Developing a appointment process that reduces or even eliminates patronage.
• Measures to reduce the partisanship of the Senate.
• Mechanisms in place to ensure that Senators, once they are appointed, actually do the job.

The Senate can be substantively changed but it would require true leadership from those who would call themselves our leaders.  I wonder if any of them will rise to the challenge.

I was wrong

When the Quebec election began I truly believed that the PQ would win it and most likely a majority government.  I even believed that after what was a rather bad first 7 days of the campaign.  The reason was simple.  I did not believe that Quebecers would elect another Liberal government just 18 months after turfing the scandal ridden Liberal government of Mr. Charest.

Of course this was all before the PQ conducted an election campaign which will appear in political science textbooks as a case study of how NOT to run an election campaign.

I watched some of the coverage on the CBC last night and after all of the drama was sucked out of evening they naturally turned to how this election would impact the federal scene.  I do not believe any of them said anything of value on that issue because we just do not know.  It was nice for them to speculate but they really did not add much to the understanding of what was happening last night.

About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Mr. Trudeau stated awhile ago that Quebecers would reject the Quebec Values Charter and they did.  Then again, it could have been they just rejected Madame Marois and the Charter just went down with her.

At any rate Canada and Canadians benefitted the most from last night's results and I really do not care how they might have been politically beneficial to the federal leaders.

Some thoughts

Resignation of Mr. Flaherty:  This is a man who inherited a $13 billion surplus from the last Liberal government and managed to turn it into a $20 billion dollar deficit in two years, during good economic times and before the 2008 recession.  Squandering $33 billions in that amount of time takes talent, hard work and dedication.  That fact should put everything else he did as Finance Minister into perspective.

Resignation of Alison Redford:  She was probably the reason for the surprise win of the Alberta PCP a couple of years ago.  Such a feat should have earned her some loyalty from her caucus and other bigwigs in the party but that was not the case.  That might be why some of the statements from the announcement of her resignation was her giving the rhetorical middle finger to her former colleagues.  I would not be surprised to see the PCPofA relegated to the Opposition benches next time, which really is where they should have gone the last time.

Stephen Harper:  Just got owned by the SCC. 

Quebec election:  Still a lot of time to go but the election is not unfolding as Ms. Marois would have liked.  She is still going to win, maybe even a majority government, but I imagine there is a fair amount of angst amongst the PQ election team at the moment.  As well, it is probably becoming safer to say that the leader of the PLQ does not have to worry about his job after April 7.  He has done a pretty good job for someone that has only been a party leader for about a year.

Liberal nomination battles:  It always amazes me what Liberals fight each other about.  They tie themselves in knots and make themselves look stupid for the most trivial of reasons.  Here is a free piece of information for Liberals.  None one cares how political parties pick their candidates.  Really they don't, so why some Liberals have chosen this particular hill to die on just leaves me shaking my head.  As well, to the Liberals of T-S you have no hope of winning that riding in any by-election anyway.  There is no way the NDP is going to allow the riding last held by the wife of Jack Layton to get away from them.  The amount of resources they will pour into that riding will be ridiculous. 

Quel Surprise!

Well that did not take long.  Early in the first week of the Quebec election campaign Ms. Marois had to give the usual non-answer to the question of whether she will hold a referendum if she wins a majority government.  This has been a pattern for leaders of the PQ since the 1995 referendum loss.

You really cannot blame her. 

There is an aging and shrinking minority of Quebecers who support independence as a matter of principle and they expect a PQ premier to make it happen.  If Ms. Marois actually came out and stated that she would not hold a referendum because it is likely that she could not manufacture the "winning conditions" during a four year term there is a real threat that these people would stay home on election day and without them Ms. Marois loses.

Unfortunately for her, the broader Quebec society does not want another referendum and I would even say that at the moment they have no interest in independence.  This applies not just to federalists but to many of those Quebecers who would describe themselves as Quebec nationalists.  These folks care more about such things as the economy and other issues not having to do with independence and they do not want another round of divisive, acidic independence debates to divert attention away from those issues.

Hence the waffling on the referendum question from Ms. Marois.

Ms. Marois will probably win the election for the simple reason that Quebecers are probably not ready to hand the government back to the Quebec Liberals so soon after turfing them out.  Enough Quebecers probably still believe that the Liberals have not had a sufficient enough time out from government yet.

So will Ms. Marois call a referendum if she wins a majority government?  Probably not.

As I stated in my last post the next referendum, if it happens, will be the last regardless of the outcome and the PQ has to win it or they pretty much lose their reason for existence.  In addition they will have to win a decisive enough victory in any referendum to prevent those who lost from using the Clarity Act to fight results

How can they do that?  Pick a fight with the Feds?  On what issue?  Others before her tried but really there is just no issue out there that has the ability to fire up the passions of Quebecers enough for them to consider independence.

In addition, for any referendum to succeed the PQ must convince some of the ethnic groups around Montreal to back independence as the 1995 referendum demonstrated.  There are just not enough Fracophone Quebecers willing to take the chance on independence to carry the day on their own.  They need to convince some francophone ethnic groups as well.

That will be hard to do when the PQ is fighting an election on a Charter that essentially makes new Quebecers, particularly of non-European stock, second class citizens.  If that Charter is passed the PQ can kiss any chance of these people supporting their pet project during a referendum.

Which is why I believe that if the PQ wins a majority government they will water down the Values Charter so much as to make it meaningless while Ms. Marois appoints her version of Jason Kenney to go out and woo the very people she is currently alienating.

Not that such measures will actually work to build enough support for independence within a useful enough time frame for the PQ. 

Ms. Marois is trying to win a majority government, not because she particularly wants to have a referendum any time soon, but because that is what governments do in this country.  If she is successful she will try to build a coalition of Quebecers who support independence but I would not bet too much money on her chances of success.  Unfortunately, unless she can find an issue to fire the passions of Quebecers and she can convince enough new Quebecers to support independence she does not have much of a chance of succeeding.

Relax Folks, a Referendum has not been called

Since the PQ government in Quebec called the long anticipated election in that province commentators, both the ones who get paid to do it and the ones who do it just for fun, have been having conniptions at the prospect of a PQ majority government and a subsequent referendum.  Many of these commentators put forward "analysis" on how this will impact the current players at the Federal level and they lament the fact that they cannot see any current federal leader who can really defend Canada.

They are getting way ahead of themselves.

First, the PQ has not won a majority government.  Government is theirs to lose for certain but it is an open question whether the Quebec Charter can be sustained as the focus of the election for the whole of the campaign or whether some other issue, such as the dismal performance of the Quebec economy, crowds out that issue and thwarts their attempt at winning a majority government.

But let's say for the sake of argument that the PQ does win a majority of the seats on April 7.  What then?  Will we be looking at another referendum?

Not very soon if at all.

The next referendum, if it happens, will likely be the last regardless of the outcome.  Most Quebecers, including that aging and dwindling cohort of Quebec society that supports Quebec independence as a matter of principle, knows that if they fail to win the next referendum that will be it.  There will be no more after that.  It will be a case of "three strikes and your out" because most Quebecers, of any language, will finally say enough is enough.

So, the next referendum, if it happens, has to be as sure of a thing as you can get in politics.  It cannot be entered into on a whim or without a solid foundation of support for independence at the beginning of a campaign.

That solid foundation is nowhere near to be had.  In fact, the appetite for independence is the lowest it has been in decades.  It is going to take years to build that up to a tenable level of support, if it can be done at all. 

So how does the PQ build this foundation?  What issue does it use to do so?

In 1976 the PQ government had a century of anger and resentment at the English domination of Quebec to work with and they also had St. René to fight for it.  The result was a dismal failure.  In 1995 the PQ government had the recent memories of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords to work with and Mr. Bouchard.  They came closer but they still failed.

What issue would the current PQ government have?  The Quebec Charter?  Some future fight they pick with the Federal government?  The resentment of Quebec towards Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?  Do any of these issues have what is necessary to build a solid and enduring foundation of support for independence?  I do not think so and that is even before taking into account the fact that the one leading the independence side would be Pauline Marois.

One reason is the message from the 1995 referendum that taking Quebec out of Canada would be neither cheap nor easy has sunk in with Quebecers.  Many Quebecers ignored this message in the heat of the 1995 campaign but after the fires cooled from that and they had some time for some sober second thought they realized the verity of those arguments.  That is one of the reasons why support for independence plummeted so sharply in the years after 1995.  It will take a very hot issue to convince Quebecers to endure the economic and societal disruptions an independence process will cause.

Then we have to consider the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference that preceded it.

Certainly, if they could a PQ government would ignore both after a successful campaign but if it is close and/or the referendum question is not that clear it will give those in Quebec ammunition to fight the result.  As well, one unintended consequence of the Quebec Charter could be to convince those it targets to fight such a result because they have essentially been told that they are second class citizens in their home province.

In short, in order for the PQ to be truly successful they need to be able to go into another referendum with a rock solid majority of Quebecers supporting independence at the beginning of the campaign.  That is probably a nearly impossible task and even if they can do it the task will take a great deal of time, certainly more time than the life of the current Federal government.

Who the current leaders of Federal parties are is not relevant to a future referendum.  If we have one at all, it will be far enough into the future that the federal scene will be greatly changed. 

We all need to take a deep breath and consider the great obstacles standing in the way of a PQ government intent of moving towards Quebec independence.  Those obstacles could be insurmountable and even if they somehow succeed in doing so it is going to take a very long time.  A Quebec referendum is not imminent so there is no need to become all freaked out.

Senators are already independent (At least they are supposed to be)

So Mr. Trudeau's words and actions to assert what is already supposed to be a reality is remarkable.

When I read my copy of the Canadian Constitution it is plain to see that the Senate of Canada is an independent Chamber of the Canadian Parliament.  It is not an extension of the House of Commons.  It does not answer to the House of Commons and it certainly does not answer to the government of the day.  It has its own rules and conventions.  The House of Commons cannot interfere with how the Senate is run and vice versa.

Of course almost a century of Parliamentary Convention has blurred those lines somewhat as successive Prime Ministers have used the Chamber as a place to reward loyal foot soldiers for their respective political parties who in turn looked out for the interests of those political parties while sitting in the Red Chamber.  As well, the Parliamentary Caucuses for the Conservatives and Liberals have included the Senators of the day and in several cases Senators have been appointed to substantive Cabinet Posts.  However, despite that the fundamental relationship between the two Chamber has not changed and Senators are still independent of their colleagues in the House.

Of course with the Conservative government those lines seems to have been blurred some more.

What really struck me about the Senate Expense Scandal was the level of involvement of the PMO in it.  If the available documentation is to be believed the PMO was actually involved with the minutiae of a Senator's expense claims and the audit called to investigate them.  As well, the PMOs fingerprints were all over the efforts to suspend Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin.  It is remarkable that senior aides to the Prime Minister immersed themselves so deeply into the details of this whole affair.

As well, I was surprised that the Conservative leadership of the Senate allowed this to happen.  Why they did not politely but firmly tell the PMO staff to get bent the first time they attempted to interfere with Senate business is beyond me.  Incidentally, if they had done so Mr. Wright might still have a job in the PMO and Mr. Harper might not have had such a gruesome 2013 and probably an equally gruesome 2014.

As for the announcement itself the spin has been interesting.

Claims that it has been done because of an AG Report is deeply cynical because they assume that Canadians are idiots.  This report is probably going to be bloody for both the Liberals and the Conservatives and Canadians are not going to forget that just a short time ago many of these Liberal Senators were members of the Liberal Caucus.  This action will not insulate the Liberals from any political fallout of that report.

Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's actions did not change anything.  The obvious response to that is of course it did not change anything.  In order to actually change the Senate a constitutional amendment would be needed and leaving aside the lack of appetite for such actions the last time I looked the Leader of the Third Party cannot initiate actions to bring about that amendment.  He is just doing what is in his power to do, which is not really that much in the grand scheme of things.

Related to that is the accusation that former Liberal Senators are still Senators that are Liberals and that they are still forming a Liberal Caucus.  Of course they are.  They were appointed as Liberals and they are members of the Liberal Party.  Cutting ties with the Commons Liberal Caucus will not change that.  As well, Senators are allowed to form any kinds of groups they want.  If the wanted they could form all sorts of Caucuses.  A Maritimes Caucus, a Western Caucus, a women's Caucus, whatever.  Now Parliament has two Liberal Caucuses independent of each other.  One in the House the other in the Senate.  Big deal.

Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's plan to change how to select Senators will lead to gridlock.  This claim is usually made by the same people who claim that Mr. Trudeau did not really change anything.  Which just goes to show that in politics you can suck and blow at the same time.  As stated earlier the fundamental relationship between the two Chambers has not changed and that means unelected Senators will not break with Parliamentary convention and defy the will of the elected House of Commons.  They will do their job but in the end they will approve Commons bills.  A new way of appointing unelected Senators will not change that.

Mr. Trudeau's actions are only extraordinary in the fact that he felt compelled to do them.