Afghan detainees

I certainly want to get to the bottom of this Afghan detainee mystery. But even if the Sergeant-at-Arms forcefully seized all documents uncensored and made them public we may not have an answer about what government official knew what when in regards to prisoners being tortured. Conversely because the documents date all the way back to 2001, although very unlikely it could be for all we know that un-redacted documents show that the Liberals were somehow complicit in the torture of Afghan prisoners when they were in government. Although the Liberals must realize that that is a risk, to get to the bottom of this they certainly want the documents released. I am of the opinion that it is not reasonable for parliament to force the release of all the documents to the public uncensored due to national security concerns. Unfortunately the wording of the motion that passed in December was such that it had the effect of demanding the government release the uncensored documents to the public without restriction. Since then opposition parties have been backing off that demand by conceding that there are legitimate national security reasons not to release some of the documents and are instead asking that select MPs be shown the uncensored documents in strict camera under secrecy. If this occurred, it is not clear to me whether the MPs who saw the uncensored documents would be able to then publicly say that they discovered that the Conservative government and/or the previous Liberal government had complicity in the torture of Afghan prisoners and thus would not be able to embarrass the Conservatives on this matter as opposition parties had been hoping. So in the end the opposition may not be able to embarrass the government as they had hoped.

Coming Throne Speech

I can’t deal with whether the federal government will fall on the coming Throne Speech. That seems too far away right now. I want to focus on the provincial campaign. There will be a lot of Throne Speech optics later. If we’re lucky, someone will find away to keep this government in power for now – Liberals in Ontario cannot have two elections so close together. I want this Conservative government out of office just as much as the next Liberal, but a 2007 election is not the way to do it. Bringing down the government only creates an election that the Conservatives could easily win with a minority or majority. Not for decades upon decades has the Governor General asked an opposition party to form government without an election victory for said opposition party. That just doesn’t happen anymore. If we could bring down the government in hopes of Dion simply being appointed Prime Minister on the spot, I’d go for it. But Governors General just don’t appoint new Prime Ministers on the spot following the loss of confidence of a government anymore. So it just is not a doable option. That is why we need to keep this Conservative government in power in the year 2007 and explore our options next year. That’s all the dealing I’m going to do on this topic for now.

But as a closely related aside I want to mention that Harper has been bold enough to say he won’t hold a vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan unless he thinks the government can win that vote. The implication is he may hold it eventually, as the current deadline of February 2009 comes close. But he will not hold such an early vote because he thinks he can’t win it. I seem to read signals from the government that the government was hoping certain Liberals would again break ranks and support the extension past 2009 in the same way that certain Liberals voted for the extension to 2009. I expect the government to be disappointed if they are hoping for this. Dion has more or less united the Liberals on this issue. In the spring there was a Liberal motion to end the mission in 2009. Individual Liberals did not break ranks and I wouldn’t expect them to in a future vote. We are now quite united on this issue. When it comes down to it, there cannot be an extension of the Afghanistan mission within the context of this current parliament. Harper would still need a majority government to push through such an extension of the mission. And even then, it would go against the type of “all-party consensus” that Harper has been promising.

Larry Zolf

Larry Zolf wrote an opinion piece in August about the 2007 Ontario Election (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20070806.html). There are some things he said that I would like to dispute. A general problem is that Zolf makes far too many generalizations. Here is one such generalization:

“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”

That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.

This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:

“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.

The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”

What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.

As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.

The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.

I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.

There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:

“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”

I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.

Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:

“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”

That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.

Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.

Cabinet shuffle

Stephen Harper’s cabinet shuffle was mostly about selling the mission in Afghanistan and nothing more. Harper also moved the moderate Jim Prentice from Indian Affairs to Industry and put the more conservative Chuck Strahl into Indian Affairs. This change in Indian Affairs minister has frustrated Caledonia First Nations protestors (http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=81574). Yet I find it strange that by contrast it seems to have pleased Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay. Look at thus quote from the article I just cited:

Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.

Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.

"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.


Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.


My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.

There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.

Harper's Limited Options on Afghanistan

If Stephen Harper wants Canada’s current Afghanistan counter-insurgency mission to be extended beyond the current February 2009 expiration date, he has only a few options of making such an attempt with this minority parliament. Firstly, he can call off the extension and end the current mission in February, 2009. Harper has promised a vote in parliament on all military missions, including a possible extension of this current anti-insurgency mission. The Liberals are now united in their support of ending that current mission at its present expiry date. With the anti-war NDP and anti-war Bloc also sure to vote against such an extension, extending the mission would fail in a vote in this current parliament. So if Harper really wants to extend the mission, he would have the following options left. He could do what he did last time, and say that in the event that the vote fails in parliament, the mission gets extended for one year rather than two. Harper’s second option is to go back on his word and extend the current mission without a parliamentary vote. Harper’s third and final option is to declare the vote on the extension of the Afghanistan mission to be a confidence vote and to then call an election when the vote fails. The problem with this strategy is that Harper may have trouble fighting a campaign that was triggered on the contentious and divisive issue of the Afghanistan mission extension at a time when polls show a majority of Canadians opposing the mission.