• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2013

Here is what I find interesting.  In less time than it took to look at it, the Trudeau speaking thing went from him refusing to pay back, to him paying back or wanting to.  The media is starting to ask questions of the sources behind these leaks (the PMO apparently).  The CPC asks the Ethics commissioner to look into it. Now it seems Trudeau followed all the rules according to the Ethics commissioner.  Is the CPC trying to make him look good?

Now to make matters worse, a debate about secondary income is brewing.  192 MPs have claimed secondary income.  I'm sure a good chunk of that are Conservatives.  Some I'm willing to bet won't be too thrilled when the light shines on them and you know it will.

The smear tactic seems to be short lived gains for long term pains.  This is what frustrates me.  Could shut the conversation down but they keep getting themselves in trouble.
 
There seems to be an excess of tactics in the absence of strategy.
 
It's called "a strategy of tactics".  See COIN, 2006-2014.
 
Crantor said:
Here is what I find interesting.  In less time than it took to look at it, the Trudeau speaking thing went from him refusing to pay back, to him paying back or wanting to.  The media is starting to ask questions of the sources behind these leaks (the PMO apparently).  The CPC asks the Ethics commissioner to look into it. Now it seems Trudeau followed all the rules according to the Ethics commissioner.  Is the CPC trying to make him look good?

Now to make matters worse, a debate about secondary income is brewing.  192 MPs have claimed secondary income.  I'm sure a good chunk of that are Conservatives.  Some I'm willing to bet won't be too thrilled when the light shines on them and you know it will.

The smear tactic seems to be short lived gains for long term pains.  This is what frustrates me.  Could shut the conversation down but they keep getting themselves in trouble.

You read too much into things. These are mere distractions. The real games have yet to begin. They're simply looking over the tops of their glasses at each other and sizing up their opponents.

Don't be thinking the CPC is shooting themselves in the foot or young Trudeau is dancing his father's jig. It's early, settle down and wait till they really put the armour on. Right now, the horses aren't even in the tilt.
 
Listening to Marjorie Lebreton complain about the media didn't help my opinion on this.  It's a good thing the House has risen for the summer.
 
Infanteer said:
That's awesome, you put 7 metaphors into that post!

See, I'm not just a pretty face
respect-010.gif
 
E.R. Campbell said:
From a purely partisan, Conservative point of view I say, "thank heavens" for this: House adjourns after Tories back NDP motion for independent scrutiny on MP expenses.

But it is also, I think, good for the process, too. It is time for a fresh, mid-term, start: a new parliament, a new throne speech, and a new programme over which all parties can contest.

So covering up a corruption scandal by giving yourself a paid vacation from work is OK? My party right or wrong.

This is the problem. ALL parties feel that they can be corrupt because of people like you. They know the team will still stick together when they get caught. You are ignorantly turning the Federal Government into Montreal in terms of corruption. You actually tolerate it.  "Thank heavens," we are walking down that road Quebec's mayors started treading years ago.

You are why I can't vote against corruption.
 
Nemo888 said:
So covering up a corruption scandal by giving yourself a paid vacation from work is OK? My party right or wrong.

This is the problem. ALL parties feel that they can be corrupt because of people like you. They know the team will still stick together when they get caught. You are ignorantly turning the Federal Government into Montreal in terms of corruption. You actually tolerate it.  "Thank heavens," we are walking down that road Quebec's mayors started treading years ago.
You are why I can't vote against corruption.

A little harsh and starry eyed in your judgement there, Nemo. What cover up by the Feds? It has been front and centre for a lengthy time. Where were you when Adscam was in full bloom and was covered up for years?

Have a look at what is happening south of the border. Get some perspective, man.
 
I have some painful memories. Eventually corruption takes out honest people.

Decades ago I did private security work in Toronto. I was as straight an arrow as you could get. Honest to a fault and very by the book. I transferred to a district in Toronto that was not ideal. There were a number of side businesses that were not exactly legal going on. I needed the support of my partners for safety so I said that I didn't want to know about it. This must have cut into profits.

One day I came in and was given what I call "The Talk". A senior person took me aside told me that he respected my honesty. That they had someone with similar leanings at the airport. Something bad happened to him. He was asked repeatedly to get on board and refused. Some time later a pound of marijuana was found in his locker at work and he went to jail. I was asked if I could get on board. I was a bit panicked and said yes. I went back to the locker room a bit shaken. Two other rather shady officers were there.  Arms crossed leaning on the lockers. When I came in one gave a head nod to the other and left.

Tow days later I got an envelope. I bought a really nice TV with it that night. The TV is gone now, but not the stain on my character.

I learned the hard way the acceptable amount of corruption is ZERO.
 
Nemo: While I understand your frustration, I can't agree with what you wrote.  first of all MPs are not on vacation.  The house has risen for the summer.  MPs will take some time off yes but they are expected to back to their ridings and will likely be working hard at connecting with their constituents.  the House always rises around this time.  This isn't some way of dodging anything.  It's just timing.

Second.  Mr Campbell has stated from the beginning and has always stated that he is a card carrying Conservative.  He wears his political stripe on his sleeve.  From a partisan point of view he has expressed his relief that this session is over.  I don't think you accusing him of what you are is even close to the mark but I'll assume, that like me, you are a little infuriated with the state of politics right now.  Blaming Mr. Campbell for what is going on and that he is somehow turning the system into Montreal style corruption is a stretch and frankly insulting.  You are actually angry because he's engaged in the political system we have?  I wish more Canadians were as engaged on either side of the political scene.

Jed: I get what you are saying but this is exactly what I don't like.  It's the "Well the Liberal have adscam and look at the US".  Instead of dealing with the issues and facing them head on they are just passing it off as something less serious than what others are doing.  I want leadership.  They should be saying that yep, there's a problem with these guys (our guys) and here is how we intend to fix it.  i don't care if Trudeau made 20 000 in 2007 at a speaking engagement.  Tell me what you are going to do about the the guys and the problems we have right now in 2013 so it does not happen again.

The CPC's core being was about not being like the Liberals of the past and here they are turning into them.  I'm a neutral type of voter, could vote one way or the other.  I vote based on platforms, policies and yes I vote to punish at times.  Right now I will be voting in a by election provincially that will be a punishment vote against the Liberals, not because I like Time Hudak and what he has to offer.  And right now, the CPC is losing ever so slowly my vote because of this crap going on and their lack of real leadership on these issues.
 
Jed said:
A little harsh and starry eyed in your judgement there, Nemo. What cover up by the Feds? It has been front and centre for a lengthy time. Where were you when Adscam was in full bloom and was covered up for years?

Have a look at what is happening south of the border. Get some perspective, man.


It is beyond, "starry eyed," it is a silly comment. Politics is the most human of activities and humans (unless something remarkable happened while I was sleeping) are imperfect.

Our imperfection is demonstrated by the continued failures of socialism, in all its forms from the mildest Obama statism to hard core Marxist-Maoist communism. All socialism rests, and has rested for 2,000 years, on a single, simple Marxist principle: From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. That's wonderful in theory but it requires one thing: perfect humans - and see my first sentence. That is why, no matter what people want to believe socialism, in any of its forms, cannot work - it requires an impossible precondition. Time travel is more likely than a working socialist system.

Some politicians are corrupt ~ not "most politicians," not even "many," just "some." They are, I suspect, corrupt in about the same proportion are we find corruption amongst bankers, plumbers, lawyers, carpenters, colonels and Emergency Medical Technicians, and they are just as hard to detect, in advance. Do you think we try to elect corrupt politicians or that TD Canada Trust tries to hire corrupt bankers? Of course not! But we get some and, fortunately, we seem to discover many of them.

When I first started to vote, circa 1960, I supported the Liberal Party of Canada even though I knew there were some (too many) corrupt Liberal politicians; but I understood that it was the same for the Progressive Conservatives and the CCF. It was policy, not morality, that drove me away from the Liberals and to the (equally imperfect) PCs and it is policy that keeps me in the Conservative camp. I want the CPC to clean its own house and to try to make it more difficult for ALL politicians to break the fundamental rules - but I do not expect them to be perfectly "clean," and I will not blame the Liberals or the New Democrats for, also, being imperfect.

Most politicians, including Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are honest, honourable men and women; a few are tempted to take advantage of thier office and and even tiny fewer are dishonest from the get go. But they are all humans and they are all imperfect.
 
E.R. Campbell,
That was very well articulated and I could not agree more with what you wrote.
While corruption is not to be tolerated, it is unrealistic to expect any organization or activity to be perfectly clean and have zero corruption at all times. Certainly a noble goal to strive for and one which all parties must support, but also a goal that must be tempered (by the voters) as you indicated by the understanding that humans are imperfect.

The political process, I believe, would be much better if the focus was the respective parties policies and their merits. or lack there of.


Edit: Grammar
 
Fabius said:
E.R. Campbell,
That was very well articulated and I could not agree more with what you wrote.
While corruption is not to be tolerated, it is unrealistic to expect any organization or activity to be perfectly clean and have zero corruption at all times. Certainly a noble goal to strive for and one which all parties must support, but also a goal that must be tempered by the voters as you indicated by the understanding that humans are imperfect.

The political process I believe would be much better I believe if the focus was the respective parties policies and their merits. or lack there of.

Right on, milpoints inbound.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I have no doubt that the CPC orchestrated the "leak" of this; maybe the NB charity sought some help from a friendly Conservative after M. Trudeau rebuffed them. But the media - the Globe and Mail and the CBC, especially, neither of which are exactly pro-Conservative - have run with it. The story has "legs," as the journalists say. It is a "hook" one can use to raise doubts about M. Trudeau's political acumen, his ethical judgement and even about his values.

Indeed. There are stirrings in the Blogosphere about the Young Dauphin's "speaking fees" were for exactly. There seems to be a general settling of consensus that this is simply another way of getting around campaign contribution laws (bloggers are digging at possible Liberal party connections to any board or organization that agreed to pay a speaking fee to the Young Dauphin) and this article which argues that it was campaign financing for a particular action on a piece of legislation:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/19/justin-trudeau-and-unions/

Justin Trudeau and unions
by Paul Wells on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:10pm - 33 Comments

Should a political leader accept thousands of dollars from an interest group and then take positions on policy issues that defend the interests of that group?

That’s the question put to me by Terrance Oakey, the president of Merit Canada, which advocates for “open shop” construction associations (and therefore, against closed union workplaces).  Oakey is concerned that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau lists several labour unions among the organizations to which he’s sold his services as a public speaker, as revealed on the list of clients Trudeau has voluntarily made public. And he’s especially concerned that Trudeau has promised the Liberals will continue to fight Bill C-377, which the House passed in December and which would force unions to make details of their financing and spending public.

That looks like a pretty strong quid pro quo. Oakey’s an interested party in the matter, and a Conservative of long standing, but I think the questions he asks are fair. Here’s an abridged version of the argument he put to me:

Between 2006 and 2010, Justin Trudeau collected $112,500 from various unions for speaking fees. As a political candidate, it would have been illegal for unions to donate any money to him under federal electoral laws.

Trudeau has promised that Liberal Senators will work “hard to try and slow down, block, impede” Bill C-377 and he has promised to repeal it if it becomes law, should he become Prime Minister. At the same time, Trudeau is promising to increase transparency, yet is fighting a bill that would actually have seen unions have to disclose the $112,500 they paid him for his speeches.


Background:

Trudeau on getting Liberal Senators to delay/fight C-377 and promising to repeal it if it passes:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says if the bill becomes law, he’d repeal it as prime minister.
“I haven’t given up hope, however, that the Liberal senators who are doing good work are working hard to try and slow down, block, impede or make less damaging this particular bill,” Trudeau said Thursday after speaking to a carpenters’ union in Toronto. ( May 31, 2013)

Time for audience questions! First one is about Bill C-377, the Tories’ “union transparency” bill. “When you become Prime Minister of Canada, will you repeal this bill?” Trudeau says he will. ( May 30, 2013)

Trudeau speaking fees from unions:

From the official list Trudeau’s campaign gave to reporter Glen McGregor – $87,500

May 3, 2006 – Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. $10,000

November 17, 2006 – Alberta Teachers’ Association. $7,500

March 15, 2007 – Alberta Teachers’ Association. $10,000<

May 4, 2007 – New Brunswick Teachers’ Association. $10,000

October 24, 2007 – Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. $10,000

February 4, 2008 – Canadian Association of Food Service Professionals. $10,000

February 9, 2008 – Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association. $10,000

March 5, 2010 – Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union. $20,000

Other events have been identified as actually being paid by unions, though they were identified incorrectly as paid by school boards in the list given to McGregor, which the boards have confirmed were paid by unions, that brings it up to $112,500:

These were the two events:

November 6, 2009 – Waterloo Catholic District School Board. $15,000
February 9, 2007 – Ottawa Carlton District School Board. $10,000

———————

Me again. Wells. First, it’s worth noting that at no point does Oakey suggest Trudeau contravened current party-funding laws or did anything that wasn’t stricktly legal. Second, of the 10 events he lists, only two took place after Trudeau became an MP. Finally, I think it’s possible to believe that there is no direct causal link between the speaking fees Trudeau pocketed and his position on C-377. A handful of Conservative MPs voted against the bill on grounds of privacy and free association, as did all New Democratic MPs. They did it for free, as far as anyone knows. But it would be fair for voters to associate the money Trudeau made with the political position he took. And while Liberals may not like the association, they’d better be prepared to face such questions when an eventual campaign rolls around.

So even if there is nothing to this, once again there will be a perception that something underhanded was going on and yes, the Young Dauphin's values and judgement will indeed be questioned.
 
I commend independent MP Elizabeth May for releasing her expense receipts on her website.

One hopes that other MPs - from all parties - will follow suit without having to be shamed into it.

I take issue with two of Ms May's issues:

    1. She notes that she sees other BC MPs in "First Class" (I'm guessing in Executive Class on Air Canada) and suggests that this is, somehow, a bad thing. MPs are not going on vacation when they visit their ridings,
          it is, still, part of their work. Having traveled far and wide and often for work in my two careers (military and second, civilian one) I can attest that for flights of a certain duration - say three hours or more -
          Business Class, by whatever name an airline calls it, can and often does make good sense;* and

    2. She tells us that she does not claim for "phone, Internet, cable or other utilities, even though she’s entitled to do so." That's just plain silly - those are essential tools for an MP in Ottawa and she is "grandstanding,"
        not displaying commendable frugality.


_____
* When I was a director in NDHQ (many years ago) I managed a large travel budget - my responsibilities were global and face-to-face negotiations in committees and working groups were the normal way of doing our work. DND, like all of government, was conscious of travel costs and of appearances. Like everyone else I had to stretch every dollar and there were many times when I eschewed business class (to which I was, routinely, entitled) but there were also many times when I ordered my subordinates into business class when I understood that they had to work enroute and start working immediately on arrival. Time and money both matter and sometimes one (wisely) spends scarce money to save even more scarce and valuable time. Comfort is not a luxury when one travels extensively and must work after a long trip.
 
Andrew Coyne, who is no great fan of the current CPC government, gives some advice to the CPC, which is going into its annual policy convention which is scheduled for Calgary in just five days, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tories+rescued+from+self+destruction+salvation+must+come/8560015/story.html
If Tories are to be rescued from self-destruction, salvation must come from party base

By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News

June 21, 2013

Among the many questions surrounding next week’s Conservative party convention — which policy resolutions will be adopted, what will Stephen Harper say in his speech, who will win the biannual one-member-one-vote vs. equal-ridings beard-pull — one in particular stands out for me. Simply: Do they get it? Do the delegates understand what a fix the party is in, and why? And are they prepared to push the party to mend its ways?

It has become a commonplace of late to say the Tories have “lost their way.” That’s not about their navigational skills but their state of mind: an acute lack of self-awareness that blinds them to what they have become, a blinkered conviction of their own superior cleverness, a closed loop of defensiveness that interprets every criticism as proof of the rightness of the course they are on.

For if everyone — the courts, the bureaucracy, Elections Canada, the media, oh yes especially the media — is biased against them (for what else could possibly explain this heap of opprobrium?) then of course they must constantly be on the attack, and of course they cannot allow themselves to be weakened by internal dissent, and of course they cannot be open with the public about their plans. For that would only provide their enemies with ammunition.

This is the laager mentality that has taken hold in the upper reaches of the Tory party. It is the attitude of parties that have lost touch, not just with their principles or their supporters, but with reality. Toryism, in its current incarnation, resembles less an ideology than a pathology. If the party is to pull out of its current spiral it must be prepared to take a hard look at itself — starting with this convention. What is needed is less a change of course than a voyage within.

Politics is a slippery, opportunistic business at the best of times, and none of the parties is a beacon of decency. But a great many people of all persuasions or none have lately formed the same impression, that the Tories have taken politics in worrisome new directions. One has the sense, not just that they do not respect limits that had previously been observed, but that they don’t know where they are.

How to put this into words? Perhaps it is best expressed by what is not the case. You simply cannot count on this government to do what it says it will; to be straight with people; to take the high road; to behave with anything resembling spontaneity or goodwill. I mean it may, but you’re almost surprised when it does. Its default demeanour is sullen, wary, bullying, moronic. Its characteristic face is that of Peter Van Loan or Pierre Poilievre, and it is very much the face it deserves.

Policies, promises, principles, ethics: one by one the Tories have unburdened themselves of everything that could slow them on their march to majority. It’s not worth rehearsing all of these again here. But Conservative delegates might, as they go over the resolutions in their convention handbook, look back to previous conventions, years ago, and the sorts of things they used to debate, or indeed believe.

And as they contemplate all the many elements of conservatism that have been discarded along the way, from balanced budgets to ending corporate welfare to democratic reform and beyond, they should understand that it is all of a piece — that the vacuum of policy and the dictatorship of the leader and the thuggish partisanship and now the mushrooming ethical scandals are not separate and coincidental, but intimately linked; that the compromise of one very easily becomes the compromise of all; that when the dam of principle is breached, autocracy and partisanship and corruption are what rush to fill the gap.

Perhaps the explains the perpetual Tory scowl of late. Perhaps, in some vague sense, they are aware of what they have given up. Or perhaps it is simply that, for all their compromises, they are now running consistently below 30 per cent in the polls. But the reality is that a party that could perfectly well, if it chose, offer a positive, uplifting message — an optimistic vision of freer trade, freer markets and freer people — instead offers little more in the way of policy than a grab bag of settled scores (take that, gun registry; count on this, long-form census), never risking, never daring, never asking the public to endorse something larger, never explaining what it is doing, or why.

We used to do things with white papers in this country. Remember them? That’s what a government put out when it had something big to propose. The point was to lay out an ambitious proposal, set forth the policy rationale, canvas reaction. In due course, adjustments would be made — yes, compromises, but in the service of an idea — and legislation brought forward for debate in the House. How is policy made today? With a stray line in a speech, or under the hammer of “time allocation,” or bundled together in mammoth omnibus bills.

But the party was unlikely to object so long as it seemed to be working. For the longest while, it remained under the spell of Harper the master tactician who saw around every corner, the chess player, five moves ahead of everyone else. This calamitous spring has put paid to that. What has been more striking throughout, whether the issue was the discontent of the backbench or the Senate scandals, has been the sheer incompetence on display in the prime minister’s office. How out of touch does a government have to be, having provoked the nearest thing to a revolt over its handling of Mark Warawa’s motion in committee, to do exactly the same to Brent Rathgeber? In what universe was paying off a sitting Senator a good way to defuse an expenses scandal? What bag of rocks in Tory communications was responsible for the daily shift in explanations, from one improbable lie to another? For the prime minister’s long silence? For that ghastly public speech to caucus? For the comically ill-judged demand that Rathgeber resign and run in a byelection? For the clumsy outreach to the Barrie Advance? For those embarrassing anti-Trudeau flyers and attack ads?

So if the party is to be rescued from the self-destructive path it is now on, it seems the membership will have to stage something of an intervention. It is highly unlikely that the Prime Minister can or will lead the exercise in reflection of the party needs — still less the hardened zealots surrounding him, or even the frightened rabbits in caucus, notwithstanding some recent signs of life. It is still possible for him to put together a substantial policy agenda to take into the next election: his speech to the convention will be an early signal of his intentions, as will the expected cabinet shuffle and, if the rumours are true, fall Throne Speech. But to change the party’s tailgunner style of politics, for which, make no mistake, he alone is responsible? It amounts to asking him to be a different person.

No, it will have to come up from the base. It is the base that will have to call the party back to its founding ideals. It is the base that will have to remind the leadership of how far it has strayed. It is the base that will have to call those responsible for the party’s decline to account. It is the base that will have to teach those in the leadership the virtues of respect: respect for party principle, respect for their own MPs, respect for the opposition, respect for Parliament, respect for the public.

I do not know whether even the base can. But it seems that only they can, and the time to begin is at next week’s convention.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News


Does the party "get it?" Yes, almost certainly ... but there are divisions within the CPC, especially between the "original reformers" (a group that would like to include Stephen Harper in its number) and the "old Progressives" led by Peter MacKay. Both are trying to drag Prime Minister Harper away from the economically focused, centrist position in which he finds himself most comfortable. The "original reformers" are Western, rural, broadly (but not always deeply) socially conservative and "tough on crime;" the "old Progressives" are Eastern, urban, socially liberal and wedded to Trudeau era programmes like EI. The problem, for both, is Ontario which has a small rural base that shares many of the "original reformers'" positions, a larger urban base in which the "old Progressives" might be competitive and a HUGE suburban base which finds nothing attractive in either of the 'extreme' wings of the party.

The big challenges for the CPC are:

    1. Keep it together ~ do not let either of the "original reformers" or the "old Progressives" totally abandon the party; and

    2. Move the platform markedly in the direction of suburban Ontario (and, albeit to a lesser degree, towards suburban Alberta and BC, too).

Don't forget that this chap is the mayor of Calgary:

tp-cgy-naheed-nenshi.jpg


And there are more of "him" in suburban Canada than there are either "original reformers" or "old Progressives" or, even, members of the Laurentian elites in Toronto and Montreal.


Edit: typo
 
First preview of the Liberal/NDP battles coming up in Ontario and Quebec. I also expect the Green party to be out on full force in Toronto and the Bloc in Quebec (even if "full force" might only be section or platoon sized). The other "Progressive" parties will attempt to feed off the potential pool of Liberal voters. Given the need for "momentum", narrow margins of victory will not reflect well on the LPC.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/21/weve-got-to-decimate-the-ndp-liberals-bracing-for-fierce-race-in-toronto-after-for-raes-exit/

‘We’ve got to decimate’ the NDP: Liberals bracing for fierce race in Toronto after Rae’s exit

Tobi Cohen and Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | 13/06/21 | Last Updated: 13/06/21 11:24 AM ET
More from Postmedia News

OTTAWA — Expect the battle for Bob Rae’s Toronto-Centre riding to be fierce: It’s a microcosm of a full-blown war that the federal Liberals and New Democrats are about to wage.

With Rae’s announcement this week that he will step down as an MP, two apparently solid Liberal ridings — his, and the Montreal riding of Bourassa, where Liberal Denis Coderre also recently stepped aside – will be at stake.

The third-party Liberals admit anything less than a clear-cut victory in both contests would be a blow to the party’s momentum heading into the 2015 federal election.

“If we lose them, people are going to say the Liberals are fading away,” said Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis. “We’ve got to hold them at all costs. We’ve got to win these areas because they’re our ridings. We can’t show weakness. We’ve got to win them with a large plurality. We’ve got to go in and decimate.”
Related

    Bob Rae’s Toronto Centre riding likely to stay Liberal, poll says, amid rumours of high-profile candidates
    ‘This is not about money, this is about time’: Bob Rae resigns from Parliament to focus on First Nations work

Decimating is what the NDP has in mind, too.

“We want this riding [Toronto Centre] and it means a lot to us,” said NDP riding president Vince Cifani. “We can win it and the numbers show that.”

Rae won the seat in 2011 by 6,000 votes, hardly his best showing. New Democrats doubled their support, leaving him with 41% of the popular vote compared to 30 for the New Democrats.

Among the names already bandied about for the orange team: former MuchMusic VJ Jennifer Hollett, homelessness and transgender activist Susan Grapka and longtime New Democrat, union rep and lawyer Susan Wallace, who ran for the party against Rae.

“These are three very strong candidates,” Cifani said. “And it’s great that they’re all women. We’ve had a lot of men in Toronto Centre.”

Still, he doesn’t dismiss the impact a big name like Brian Topp, former party president and leadership contender, or Mike Layton, Toronto city councillor and son of Jack Layton, can have.

While Layton couldn’t be reached for comment, Topp confirmed in an email that he would not seek the nomination in Toronto Centre or the Montreal riding of Bourassa.

But Topp said his party has “an excellent chance” in both ridings.

“Toronto Centre has been a heartbreaker for us. Jack Layton ran there unsuccessfully in the past, but we made a remarkable advance in May 2011. As we did, to understate, in Montreal. Those are gains we can build from to give the Liberals a run for their money in these core Liberal seats.”

Cifani said the search for a candidate has begun and he hopes to hold a nomination meeting within the next 30 days. The first election planning meeting is next week and a Pride brunch hosted by the riding association, featuring NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair on June 30, is expected to feature the NDP contenders.
Bob Rae’s Toronto Centre riding likely to stay Liberal, poll says, amid rumours of high-profile candidates

A Toronto Centre by-election to replace retiring MP Bob Rae will put a Liberal once again in the coveted seat, says a new public opinion poll, as rumours circulate over who plans to run.

Forty-nine per cent of voters in the federal riding say they will vote for a Liberal candidate, while 25% said they will vote for the NDP, according to results of a Forum Poll for the National Post.

“It’s not that surprising to see a riding which has been Liberal for 20 years (and Red Tory before that) continue in the Liberal fold, and Bob Rae has been a very conscientious constituent representative,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are cautiously optimistic about holding onto both Toronto Centre and Bourassa.

Bourassa will be an important test for both Trudeau and Mulcair as they grapple to win the hearts of Quebecers.

Yet while the popular Coderre lost ground to the NDP in 2011 during the Orange Crush, he was still able to win by more than 3,000 votes. The riding itself has been Liberal in all but two elections since it was created in 1968.

Toronto Centre will likely be the bigger fight and an important gauge of newly elected leader Justin Trudeau’s appeal with voters in Toronto and its suburbs, where the Conservatives made a breakthrough in 2011.

A number of names have already surfaced as potential Liberal candidates, including former CTV Canada AM host Seamus O’Regan; Zach Paikin, son of respected political show host Steve Paikin; and former Ontario minister George Smitherman.

Paikin confirmed “a lot of people have been calling me and have been encouraging me to run,” but would otherwise not commit to throwing his hat in the ring.

Smitherman, whose last foray into politics was battling Rob Ford for the Toronto mayorship in 2010, said he’s entertaining the idea. He also said he’s looked at homes within the riding in recent months should an opportunity present itself.

In what seemed to be a pitch, he also said replacing Rae won’t be easy, and that an experienced hand would be best to maintain the Liberal party’s momentum.

“There must be great caution exercised in ensuring that whoever represents this riding next really arrives in Ottawa with something to contribute to the greater Liberal party good and to the greater prospects of forming a government,” he said.

Elections Canada expects to receive official notice of the vacancy in Toronto Centre within a matter of days. After that, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has six months to call a byelection. While Harper has until Nov. 30 to call a byelection in the Bourassa riding, he’s not required to choose the same date for Toronto Centre.
 
And more on what the Conservatives need to do and might do to "turn the page," in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harper-looks-to-woo-disenchanted-tories/article12758615/#dashboard/follows/
Stephen Harper plans a fresh start with shakeup of cabinet and PMO

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jun. 22 2013

Stephen Harper will use a speech to Conservative Party faithful next week to try to rebuild relations with rank-and-file Tories disenchanted by the Senate expenses scandal.

His June 27 address to the Conservative convention in Calgary will be the first step in an effort to regain control of the federal political agenda, an effort that will include changes in the Prime Minister’s Office and a cabinet shuffle in mid-summer.

After losing Nigel Wright, his chief of staff, amid an expenses scandal that has plagued the Senate and overwhelmed the Tories, Mr. Harper is looking to rearrange his suite of aides. Jenni Byrne, a trusted and loyal adviser who’s now director of political operations for the Conservative Party, is one name that has surfaced within the PMO as a possible addition to the team, according to a source.

By late July or early August, Mr. Harper will also shuffle his cabinet, sources say.

Flooding in Calgary threatens to upset Mr. Harper’s immediate plans but the Tories are holding off cancelling the convention – due to start Thursday – saying they will wait until Monday before deciding. One senior Conservative, speaking on background, said they still hold out hope the convention can proceed.

Tories privately say they are fighting complacency and malaise in their own ranks after a string of Harper Senate appointees and their improper expense claims have soured the government’s credibility on the Senate and marred its record in office.

Even among staunch Conservative MPs, there’s a concern the government doesn’t have more signature accomplishments to show for winning a majority two years ago. And they’re unhappy that the Senate has become a liability for the government as it waits for the Supreme Court to rule on what options are available for dealing with the Red Chamber.

Once, Stephen Harper looked like a reformer on the Senate; now the very people he appointed to the chamber – including Mike Duffy – are fuelling nationwide anger.

This has angered rank-and-file Conservatives, many of whom come from Reform Party roots where reforming the Senate was a key article of faith.

Mr. Harper needs to woo them back in his convention speech and re-energize the core of his party that will be expected to crank up the Conservative campaign machine as the clock ticks down to an expected 2015 ballot.

“The Senate stuff is bad,” one Conservative official said. “The convention is a time to repair those bridges and get [party members] committed to 2015.”

Mr. Harper will try to make a persuasive case that he has done something with his majority, reeling off the list of accomplishments that a Tory audience would appreciate, including a slew of crime bills and the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.

A second step in rebooting the Harper administration will be a reorganization of the PMO, the nerve centre of the government, that is expected in the weeks ahead.

Ms. Byrne is known for her hard-driving and highly partisan style. She previously served as director of issues management in the Prime Minister’s Office. She was also the national manager of the 2011 Conservative campaign that won Mr. Harper his first majority government.

Should she return to the PMO, Ms. Byrne’s appointment would be seen as a sign that the PMO is trying to exert even sharper control over government messaging. Those who know her describe her as ideologically conservative on matters such as gun control or Israel but also somebody “who would walk in front of a bus for Harper.”

The scope of the cabinet shuffle is still undecided.

That’s in part because Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has made it clear he has no wish to step down. Mr. Harper had asked ministers to inform him if they planned to run again – so he can decide whether he wants to make changes as he builds a cabinet team that will be ready to showcase going into the next election. Mr. Harper will have a bigger rejigging on his hands if he chooses to replace Mr. Flaherty.


If Steven Chase is correct about the changes to PMO then the differences - very subtle and increasingly difficult to detect since the late 1960s - between the PMO and the parties' campaign offices will almost disappear and we will look more and more like Washington DC and that, in my personal opinion, will be bad for policy and politics.

I think the Senate resonates, for now, with more than just "original reformers." I suspect that most Canadians want some sort of meaningful Senate reform and I'm guessing that Prime Minister harper can kill two birds with one stone ~ win back the affection of "original reformers" and appeal to the mainstream by offering something bold.

But he needs to be careful to not stray too far off the message that appeals to these folks:

multiculturalism.jpg


They want "clean" government but, mostly, they want less government, except in areas that are, essentially, local/civic in nature.


 
Back
Top