By-election winners and losers

In the late hours of Monday evening, when the results from yesterday’s by-elections were trickling in, the immediate judgment from certain pundits and journalists on Twitter was that “nobody won” or that it was a “wake up call” for the major parties.

I don’t buy it.

In fact, in the cold light of day, it seems clear  the Conservative Party of Canada was the clear winner and that the real loser was media expectations for Trudeaumania.

Why are the Conservatives winners? It’s obvious: they won two out of three by-elections, one in Durham, one in Calgary-Centre.

Yes, Calgary-Centre victory was relatively tight, but the Tories still won by more than 1,000 votes and that aint bad.

More interesting is the failure of Trudeaumania.

Recall, how the media keeps telling us that Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau is a new breed of politician, whose idealism, charisma and charm will energize vast throngs of apathetic Canadians into obedient Liberal-voting legions.

He’s being sold, in other words, as the messiah who will smite the evil Harperites.

Yet we didn’t see much evidence of Trudeau’s divine magic on by-election night.

In fact, in two ridings, Durham and Victoria, the Liberals got crushed.

But what about Calgary Centre, you ask? The Liberals finished with 33 percent of the vote. Isn’t that the best result they’ve had in a long time?

Yes, it is.

But remember, Calgary-Centre was a riding the Liberals could win. By Alberta standards it’s centre-left/Red Toryish, the Conservatives were hampered by infighting between the Wildrose tribe and the Progressive Conservatives and, of course, Trudeau was making personal appearances in the riding.

And by-elections are wild-cards where anything can happen.

Yet the Liberals still lost. And voter turnout was low – less than 30 percent of eligible voters in the riding cast ballots.

And so the highly vaunted Trudeaumania didn't excite voters enough to get them to vote Liberal in sufficient quantities nor did it even get them off the couch!

Indeed, if anything, Trudeau The Great might have cost the Liberals a win in Calgary, thanks to his highly publicized anti-Alberta comments.

The bottom line is that while Trudeaumania may have smitten the media, voters  in general are not yet truly engaged in federal politics.

Remember that the next time you see a poll showing Trudeau will win a majority government.

Trudeau's Weaknesses Revealed

Could it possibly be that the impossibly handsome Justin Trudeau, he of the adorable smile and famous last name, isn’t perfect?

OK I realize that to the Canadian media, AKA “The Justin Trudeau Fan Club”, that question is close to heretical.

After all, they keep telling us about how it’s our national destiny to see Trudeau the Magnificent proclaimed God-Emperor  … oops I mean Prime Minister.

In fact, they seem irked we have to endure three whole years of non-Trudeau rule.

Yet we need, I think, to consider those controversial comments he made a few years ago that recently surfaced in a Sun News story.

It seems to me they might conceivably, possibly, perhaps, be considered somewhat of a mistake.

You probably know which comments I’m talking about.

While being interviewed for a French-language news show, Trudeau proclaimed “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.”

Get that?

He doesn’t say Canada isn’t doing well because Conservatives are running the country or because Harper is running the country, but because “Albertans” control our socio-democratic agenda, whatever that means.

To me, that sounds an awful lot like anti-Albertan bigotry. I mean, if you take Trudeau at his word, he would actually support a Conservative Quebecer for prime minister over a Liberal Albertan.

Take that Harvey Locke!

He then goes on to say the only good prime ministers come from Quebec and indeed that Canada “belongs to Quebec.”

Needless to say, these are not the sort of comments that will win votes outside of Montreal. It also undermines the media narrative that Trudeau is an idealist whose only goal in life is to unite all Canadians in a big group hug.   

Mind you, I doubt this will get him into too much trouble, at least in the short term. For one thing the media won’t play it up. Check out, for instance, this Canadian Press story on his comments which manages to put Trudeau in a positive light and attack the Conservatives all the while burying the lede so deep you will need a steam shovel to find it.

Now that’s journalism.

Also, we must remember Trudeau’s comments were made in 2010, before the media realized he was the true Messiah who would rid the country of the evil Harperites. Recall, at that time they assumed Michael Ignatieff was the true Messiah who would rid the country of the evil Harperites.

So given all that, maybe technically-speaking we shouldn’t consider his two-year old comments a mistake.

But still, whether the media will admit it or not, this episode reveals two glaring weaknesses in Trudeau’s candidacy.

First, it shows how the guy lacks political savvy and message discipline. In other words, he has a tendency to say stupid things. This means the problem for the Liberals isn’t what dopey things Trudeau has said in the past, it’s what dopey things he might say in the future.

And you better believe once he steps in the jungle of leadership politics, his battle-hardened and tough opponents will do everything they can to get under his skin, hoping to trigger an ill-considered outburst.

Secondly, and more importantly, Trudeau’s comments on Alberta and Quebec reveal that his mindset is  more suited to the 1970s.

Back in those days Liberals assumed Canada’s governing classes had to come from Central Canada, so as to ensure the country was run for the benefit of Central Canada.

Anything west of Ontario was there simply to provide a location for Liberal Party socialist experiments like the National Energy Program.

This, by the way, is also apparently the attitude of Trudeau’s comrade, Liberal MP David McGuinty.

What McGuinty and Trudeau don’t seem to get is that Canada is now much different place than it was 40 years ago.

Economic and political power is shifting west and if Trudeau doesn’t come to grips with that fact, he will need more than a god-like persona to lead his party out of the wilderness.

UPDATE:

After a consulting with his spin doctors and pollsters, Justin Trudeau now admits his comments about Alberta were a mistake!

Attack advice for the Green Party

I witnessed an interesting debate on Twitter today as to whether or not this pamphlet constituted a political attack.

In the pamphlet, Chris Turner, Green Party candidate in the upcoming Calgary-Centre federal by-election, suggests Liberal candidate Harvey Locke "doesn't understand Calgary now. He hasn't  lived here for well over a decade."

Some say this is an attack, some say it isn't.

The correct answer is, it definitely is an attack, but an incredibly lame and ineffective one.

Here's what a more effective attack would look like:

Harvey Locke: Bad for Calgary!

Harvey Locke wants to be an MP for Calgary-Centre – but here’s the shocking secret he doesn’t want you to know.

He lives outside the city!

It’s appalling, but true! Locke is not from here. He is not one of us!

How can a man who doesn’t live amongst us, possibly understand our unique Calgary-Centre concerns, our Calgary-Centre issues and our Calgary-Centre problems?

Answer: He can’t!

Yet this outsider, with his strange non-Calgary-Centre ways, wants you to trust him with your precious vote.

It’s frightening!

Don’t be fooled. On Election Day, let Harvey Locke know you don’t want a stranger to represent you in the House of Commons.

Vote for your neighbour, vote for Chris Turner, a proud Calgary-Centarian.

He's one of us.

The Little War that Could

As you probably know, two hundred years ago a major historic event took place which helped shape the destiny our great nation.

But this posting is not about the discovery of maple syrup.

Instead, I want to discuss another equally important historical event which took place two hundred years ago, a little something we like to call, The War of 1812.

Now some might say this conflict is the Marc Garneau of wars, in that it’s celebrated, but dull.

Certainly it lacks the panache of other famous conflicts such as World War I, World War II or The Clone Wars.

That’s not to say, of course, the War of 1812 doesn’t get any attention. In fact, a respected group of military scholars recently voted it “The War with the most Boring Name Ever.”

But clearly it needs some better PR.

Thankfully the Conservative government is on the case. It’s spending millions of tax dollars on War of 1812 TV commercials,  War of 1812 stamps,  War of 1812 coins, and War of 1812 lunch boxes, posters and T-shirts.

Word has it, if this campaign is a hit, the government will soon produce a sequel commemoration called “The Revenge of The War of 1812.”

Meanwhile, as a result of all this spending and commemorating, Canadians, who once knew next to nothing about the War of 1812, now realize it was a conflict where, for some reason, guys in red coats shot at guys in blue coats.

Yet, despite all this government-sponsored propaganda … oops … I mean public-spirited education, more needs to be done to inform Canadians about this key clash in our nation’s history.

With that in mind, I have decided to fill in some of the “historical gaps”, mainly with information I just made up.

The first thing you need to know is that technically speaking the War of 1812 actually started in 1813; it got its name due to a careless typo, which is historically significant when you consider the typewriter wasn’t even invented yet. (Nobody has the heart to point out this error to the Conservative government.)

Also interesting is the War of 1812 is known by different names in different countries. For instance, in Britain it’s generally known as “The War of What?”

Anyway, at one point during the War of 1812, invading American soldiers burned down our Parliamentary buildings. This action shocked and angered Canadians who decried it as an “outrage”; the Americans, on the other hand, called it a “parliamentary prorogation,” thus setting an important precedent in Canadian politics.

By the way, rumours are flying that US President Barack Obama may soon come to Canada and apologize for this act of arson. He will reportedly blame it on the Bush Administration.

Of course, later in the war we got back at the Americans when British troops burned down the White House. This is considered to be the worst thing to ever happen in America’s capital, other than the Washington Nationals shutting down the season of pitching ace Steven Strasburg.

So you see the War of 1812 is actually an extremely important part of Canada’s legacy, even more important in some ways than Justin Trudeau’s hair.

After all, because we managed to fend off an American invasion, Canada was able to maintain its cherished status as a backwater colony of the British Empire.

Ultimately, this paved the way for Canada to become a fully sovereign nation, a sovereignty we celebrate today by removing the Canadian flag from the Quebec National Assembly.

And it’s all thanks to the War of 1812. (Really the War of 1813.) 

NCC President Owes the CTF an Apology

After Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he was going to (finally) reform the gold-plated MP pension plan, National Citizens Coalition president Peter Coleman quickly claimed it as a victory for his group.

Nothing surprising about that.

I certainly expected Coleman would try and claim credit, but what I didn’t expect was that in doing so he would also launch a classless and pathetic attack against another conservative organization.

Yet, unbelievably that’s what he did.

In a recent note posted on the NCC blog (which was also emailed to the group’s supporters ) Coleman interrupted his boasting about the  NCC’s supposed triumph, to express his annoyance that other groups had the audacity to believe they also had a part to play in making MP pensions an issue.

As he put it, “there have been many groups coming out of the woodwork trying to claim credit for pressing for these reforms.”

While Coleman doesn’t have the courage to name the other groups, “coming out of the woodwork” it seems obvious he is referring to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is also taking credit for MP pension reform.

Coleman then tries to “set the record straight” by linking to some NCC anti-MP pension ads from the late 1970s and adds, “It was the NCC that first started researching and exposing outrageous MP pensions nearly 35 years ago, and it is the NCC that has put this issue in the spotlight once again.”

Interestingly, however, Coleman doesn’t link to any ads of more recent vintage, say within the past five years.

Why?

It’s simple, while the NCC was indeed a leading voice on MP pension reform in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it became virtually silent on the issue after Harper became Prime Minister.

For some reason reforming MP pensions was no longer a top priority for the NCC.

This is why it’s so absurd for Coleman to now be demanding all the attention, like some spoiled child.

The truth is the issue of MP pensions might have fallen off the public radar completely had it not been for another conservative organization that worked hard to keep the flame of reform alive.

I am talking, of course, about the CTF.

For the past seven years, it was the CTF, with its relentless, informative and creative ad campaigns, which almost single-handedly ensured that the issue of MP pensions stayed on the national agenda.

In other words, during the Harper era, it was the CTF and not the NCC which put a “spotlight” on MP pensions.

That’s why the CTF has every right to take a bow for its victory.

Ironically, if anyone is crawling out of the woodwork on the MP pension issue, it’s the NCC president.

So why did Coleman launch such a graceless attack on the CTF? I don’t know, maybe he’s jealous of its success. Maybe his own supporters were wondering why the NCC didn’t challenge Harper on the MP pension issue. Who knows?

All I do know for sure is that Coleman owes the CTF and its supporters an apology.

Setting the NCC Record Straight

Last week, in his Toronto Sun column, Warren Kinsella  took a negative swipe at my old group, The National Citizens Coalition. Alas, I was certain the people currently running the NCC would fail to respond to this attack; so I decided to send the following letter to the editor. It was published today:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re “Justin Trudeau’s resume compares favourably to Stephen Harper’s” (Oct. 14): Warren Kinsella took a cheap shot at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, by taking an even cheaper shot at the National Citizens Coalition. 

Mind you, Kinsella doesn’t actually mention the NCC by name; he just says some nasty things about the “group” Prime Minister Harper used to head up. As a former employee of the NCC, I’d like to set the record straight. 

Yes, Prime Minister Harper was indeed NCC president, back in the late 1990s. But he was not, as Kinsella asserts, a “lobbyist.” 

As NCC president, Harper’s job was to use advertising campaigns, constitutional court challenges and media appearances to raise public awareness about the importance of free markets, smaller government and individual freedom. 

To my mind, that’s an important job. And yes, any job where you have to argue policy, articulate a clear and consistent message to the public and deal with the media, prepares you for a life in politics. At least it seemed to work for Harper.

Gerry Nicholls

Former vice president
National Citizens Coalition

Just in Case You Don't Have Enough Trudeau News

Hey, somebody in the Liberal Party accidentally emailed me a copy of Justin Trudeau's itinerary for the next few months.

Thought I'd share it:

Justin Trudeau campaign itinerary:

  

Oct. 8 – Thanksgiving Day – Visit farm near Montreal -- raise turkey from the dead.

Oct. 14 --- Toronto rally: Brief talk to supporters, followed by turning water into wine.

Oct. 22 --- Niagara Falls –Part the Niagara River just for the heck of it.

October 29 – New York - Attend labour negotiations between NHL and Player’s Union, so that idealism and youthful energy can end hockey lock out.

November 2 -- Ottawa -- Talk to CBC producers about casting for planned bio pic, tentatively titled: “Justin Trudeau: The Most Impossibly Handsome Canadian” 

November 5 -- Organize the hordes of once apathetic but now inspired and energized youthful Canadians into obedient legions.

November 8  – Winnipeg – Raise funds for leadership campaign by turning base metal into gold.

November 11  – Regina -- Take day off to re-charge charisma.

November 13 -- Edmonton -- Bask in media adulation. 

November 19 -- Calgary – Announce detailed policy platform. (Ha, ha just kidding.)

November 25  ---  Red Deer -- Wear Stetson and smile adorably. 

December 2 – Vancouver – enter city via chariot drawn by four snow white stallions.

December 15 – Victoria – visit local restaurant – order sizzle without the steak.

December 25 – Montreal  -- Join the world in celebrating my birthday.

Is Justin Trudeau the long awaited Anti-Harper?

Justin Trudeau and Justin Bieber have more in common than just a first name.

Both guys are also adored by legions of love struck fans.

Except in the case of Bieber the fans are teenage girls, whereas for Trudeau they are the Canadian media.

I mean come on, ever since Trudeau started musing about running for the Liberal leadership, the media has gone completely ga ga over the guy. Coverage has ranged from fawning to ridiculously fawning.

Why is this the case? Why is the media so smitten with a Liberal MP who, let’s face it, has not really accomplished all that much in his short career as a politician.

Well the obvious reason is that Trudeau’s last name carries with it a certain mystique. Media types remember with a nostalgic fondness the reign of his father, Pierre, Canada’s last Philosopher King.

But the media’s adoration of Justin is about more than just his father’s legacy.

It also has to do with the media’s disdain for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And yes, believe it or not,  many media-types just don’t like Harper. Partly it's because they view him as a conservative, but they also don’t like his tough-guy, antagonistic leadership style. Plus, truth be told, Harper has not exactly done much to endear himself with the press.Quite the opposite, in fact.

At any rate, for a long time the media has been desperately seeking an “Anti-Harper”, and Trudeau  fits the bill perfectly. He is the Ying, to Harper’s Yang; the zig to Harper’s zag; the Abbott to Harper’s Costello.

Just think about it.

Harper is a somber, dull, middle-aged, policy wonk – Trudeau is youthful,  full of fun and does zany things like beat up Senators in a boxing ring.

Harper is seen as a ruthless, cynic – Trudeau is seen as an emotional idealist.

Harper is from the Alberta outlands --- Trudeau is from cosmopolitan Montreal.

Harper has a piercing, glaring stare --- Trudeau has a charming smile and a great mane of hair.

Harper is coldly calculating --- Trudeau is spontaneous and passionate.

Harper is boring --- Trudeau emits radiant beams of charisma.

In other words, for the Canadian media Trudeau is simply too dreamy to resist.

Mind you, if “Trudeau the Adorable” fails to overcome the Harperian Ogre, the media will quickly turn on him just like they turned on their former darlings, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

In the meantime, however, I just wish the media and Trudeau would get a room.

Anti-Harper Narrative Hits a Bump

I feel a little embarrassed for Canada’s media elite.

For the past few years many of their number have been carefully crafting a narrative which cast Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a wannabe-dictator, or as a New World Mussolini, or as an Attila the Hun impersonator.

What I mean is, they told us again and again that Harper and his minions were intent on eroding Canadian democracy and squashing human rights.

Scary stuff!!

But then something happened to upset their apple cart.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation - a group that believes “freedom, democracy and human rights are the fundamental values that give nations of the world their best hope for peace, security and shared prosperity” - announced it was presenting Harper with its "World Statesman of the Year" award for being a champion of democracy.

Oops.

If Harper was such a despot, why is he getting this prestigious award?

Something clearly didn't make sense.

Thankfully, after this award was announced, the Harper detractors came to their senses and apologized to the Prime Minister and to Canadians for their exaggerated fear-mongering about Harper’s agenda.

Ha, I'm just joking.

Of course, what they really did was attack the Foundation.

A case in point is the Toronto Star’s Bob Hepburn who recently wrote a column explaining why The Appeal of Conscience Foundation was wrong to honour Harper.

It begs for a rebuttal.

Unfortunately, as it’s so chock full of logical fallacies and ridiculous arguments a simple letter to the editor could not do it justice.

Accordingly, I have reproduced the column in its entirety with my commentary  in bold.

Check it out:

  

Stephen Harper’s democracy award a sad joke on Canadians
by Bob Hepburn

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation will give Stephen Harper its World Statesman of the Year award for being a champion of democracy.

With great fanfare, an international organization has announced it is honouring Stephen Harper as its World Statesman of the Year for his work as a “champion of democracy, freedom and human rights.”

Harper will accept the award from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, which was created by a New York rabbi in 1965, at a reception on Sept. 27 in New York City.

Harper won the award largely because of his support for Israel and his criticism of Iran.

Clearly, though, the foundation either blatantly ignored or didn’t know that Harper is arguably the worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights in Canada.

Translation: The people who give out this award must be complete morons who probably don’t even subscribe to the Toronto Star or watch CBC TV.

Oh and calling Harper the "worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights" is so absurdly over the top, it's laughable. What about Mackenzie King’s human rights record when it came to Japanese-Canadians during World War II or what about Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act?

Indeed, Harper’s record of abuse of democracy here at home over the past few years makes a mockery of his award as Statesman of the Year.

It’s a sad indictment for the foundation, which according to its website “believes that freedom, democracy and human rights are the fundamental values that give nations their best hope for peace, security and shared prosperity.”

In the past, the foundation has bestowed its award on some of the world’s top leaders, including former prime minister Jean Chrétien. The foundation also boasts a distinguished board of trustees and advisers, such as former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

I suspect Hepburn Googled the phrase, “Past winners of Appeal to Conscience Foundation Award,” hoping to find the award had been given out in the past to people like Richard Nixon or August Pinochet or George W. Bush, so he could then slam the group as a bunch of right wing zealots. Imagine the massive disappointment he must have felt when he saw Chretien listed as a past recipient!!  Were the Foundation people ignorant when they gave him the award?

Since he became prime minister in 2006, however, Harper has systematically assaulted democracy in Canada, overlooking — and in some cases condoning — clear cases where our democratic institutions and traditions were undermined.

So outraged are Canadians by Harper’s actions that many of them have started to fight back to save our democracy, launching letter-writing campaigns, tweeting politicians, signing petitions and joining local and national organizations promoting citizen engagement.

Yes indeed, “tweeting politicians” and “signing petitions” are sure signs of massive national outrage!! The anti-Harper Revolution must be just around the corner. On the other hand, there are subtle signs Canadians are actually less than outraged with the government’s agenda. One such sign, which Hepburn may have missed, is that Canadians recently gave Harper a majority government.

Harper’s record of abuse and assault on democracy and rights in Canada is long and well documented.

In April, his government killed the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights & Democracy), which for 24 years had promoted democracy and monitored human rights around the world.

In 2010, Harper slashed funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission so deeply that the agency had to close its offices in Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax.

In 2009, the prime minister approved cutting funds to Kairos, an organization of church groups that advocated for human rights, after it criticized Israel for bombing a Gaza health unit.

In 2006, Harper’s government severely chopped funding to Status of Women Canada, resulting in the closure of 12 of the agency’s 16 regional offices. Also in 2006, the Conservatives shut down the Court Challenges Program, which had worked on behalf of the rights and equality of women, immigrants and gays and lesbians by helping to fund court challenges to discriminatory laws.

OK  Hepburn’s proof to bolster his preposterous claim that “Harper is arguably the worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights in Canada” is essentially that the Harper government cut a bunch of bureaucratic budgets.  But in a democracy doesn't the duly elected government have the right to set spending priorities. Maybe the money cut from Kairos went to fund hospitals. Would that be wrong? My point is no government agency has a right to unlimited tax dollars. Resources are scarce; choices must be made. Besides, since when does democracy depend on a bloated government bureaucracy?

 At the same time, Harper orchestrated two controversial prorogations of Parliament in less than a year, became the first prime minister ever to be found guilty of contempt of Parliament, and approved the distribution of a handbook on how Tories can disrupt committee hearings, such as by barring witnesses with potentially damaging testimony.

Sorry, but prime ministers have the constitutional right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. So why is that undemocratic? Here's another question: Did Hepburn think it was  undemocratic in 2009 when three Opposition Party leaders plotted to create a "Coalition"so it could replace the government without benefit of an election?

In addition, Harper and his cabinet have flagrantly ignored freedom of speech and information tenets by muzzling senior bureaucrats, withholding and even altering documents, launching personal attacks on whistleblowers and lying to voters.

Also, there’s the anti-democratic robocall affair in the 2011 federal election, with allegations of voter suppression by the Conservatives. The Federal Court of Canada will start hearings into the allegations on Dec. 10.

Boy, if launching personal attacks and lying to voters were signs of despotism, then every prime minister in history must also have been a dictator.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t a Liberal MP engage in voter-suppressing robo-calling in the last election? Heck, didn't even Liberal media darling Justin Trudeau use the phones in this manner? Does that make the Liberal Party an enemy of democracy too?

Note: Hepburn leaves out instances when Harper won victories for human rights, such as when he disbanded the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, which infringed on the economic rights of Western grain farmers.

  

This is far from an exhaustive list, but it’s a good starting point for officials at the Appeal for Conscience Foundation if they want a more complete picture of their 2012 award winner.

Canadians understand that they should never take their democracy for granted. Given that, the foundation should have known that anointing Harper, who has displayed such a casual disrespect for democracy at home, as its World Statesman of the Year would be seen as a sad joke on all Canadians struggling to protect their democracy.

I will resist the urge to call this column a "sad joke."

Obviously, it’s too late for the foundation to revoke the award. But Harper could at least have the decency to be a bit contrite when he officially accepts it.

Hepburn is right about one thing. Citizens must never take democracy for granted. That means we absolutely must keep an eye on Harper and his government. Indeed, I have no confidence in any party to truly protect my rights and freedoms. The nature of government, after all, is to chip away at our rights. And the Harper government is no different, I have certainly  taken it to task when it has threatened freedom. Yet, let’s please be realistic. When it comes to human rights and democracy, Harper is certainly no more dangerous than any other prime minister of the past 100 years or so. My point is, it’s OK to criticize Harper for his failings, but just leave out the over-heated, partisan hyperbole. Or at least for the sake of consistency use similar language when talking about other political leaders.

Otherwise, you might just get embarrassed. 

Standing up for Canada's Sausages

Politicians in Ottawa have long ignored a sizzling, simmering, serious problem that's afflicting far too many Canadians.

I am referring, of course, to the terrible trauma of exploding sausages.

How many summer backyard barbecues have been totally ruined thanks to over-cooked sausages splitting asunder on the grill?

Probably too many to count.

Yet, amazingly no government has ever dealt with this national sausage crisis.

Until now.

In case you haven't heard, the Conservative government is doling out a whopping $826,000 to an Ontario meat processing company so it can buy the advanced technology required to produce a non-explosive sausage.

Yes, that's right; the Harper Conservatives are actually stuffing your tax dollars into a fancy meat grinding machine.

As the government put it in a news release, this "investment ... will help the company purchase new manufacturing equipment that will produce a higher quality sausage that is more resistant to splitting or bursting while cooking."

Now, I shouldn't have to defend the government's decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce something as important as higher quality, bursting-resistant sausages, but given the predictable complaints that will emerge from the anti-sausage lobby, let's examine the many reasons why this expenditure is a great idea.

Reason # 1.

First, it's all about economics. If we can master the art of producing non-splitting sausage casings, it will give Canada a huge advantage in the highly competitive global sausage casing industry.

Reason # 2.

Secondly, a sausage subsidy will ...Hmmm, let's see ..... OK, I can only think of one reason, but I am sure the government's PR people can come up with several other plausible-sounding rationalizations.

My only question is why didn't the Conservatives make sausages a key part of their election platform? It would have made for a great slogan: "Vote for us and we will improve your sausages."

Mind you, acting on sausage deficiencies should only be the first step when it comes to dealing with Canada's food-related tribulations. The government needs to do much more.

If you don't believe me, check out this list of other problems we should spend insane amounts of money to research:

• Whenever I try to open one of those individually wrapped cheese slices, I always end up mangling the cheese. Clearly we must set up a government task force to investigate easier opening plastic packaging technology.

• We need a national strategy to produce a chocolate bar that doesn't turn into a pile of yucky, goo when you leave it in the car on a hot summer day.

• We definitely should have some sort of government-financed program to deal with the heart-breaking dilemma of tough pizza crust.

• Why, for the love of Pete, isn't the government doing anything to create non-gas producing beans? This should be a national priority!

• Surely all Canadians, regardless of race, colour or creed, have the right to cook a hamburger that doesn't stick to the barbecue grill. (Maybe the advanced non-bursting-sausage technology the government is subsidizing can fix this problem too.)

Mind you, I realize the Prime Minister will not be able to concentrate solely on this foodstuff agenda, as he has many other key priorities, such as financing fake lakes.

That's why I propose we put former cabinet minster Bev Oda in charge of overseeing all government food-related research projects.

After all, she already knows how to spend money on orange juice.

(Please  note, this article was rejected by Huffington Post Canada, because, as an editor explained it to me in an email, the blog site likes to "shy away from sarcasm." Ha, of course, we all know the real reason it was rejected: The Huffington Post is in league with the anti-sausage lobby!)

Fifty Shades of Gerry

Given the success of “50 Shades of Grey” I have decided to write my own “erotica” novel in a literary attempt to become a billionaire.

Here’s what I have so far:

Chapter One

Sterling Nash sat by the roaring fire, a chilled glass of champagne in his hand, when she entered the room.

With her long, cascading blonde hair and her ruby red lips, Sterling thought she looked like a goddess.

“Welcome,” he said in his most sexy-sounding voice.

“Hi,” she responded. “By the way the fireplace isn’t lit and that’s a glass of Pepsi you’re holding.”

“Well, champagne isn’t exactly cheap,” Sterling noted “And the logs were too damp to catch fire. But never mind that, let’s get more comfortable.”

He started to slowly unbutton his shirt.

“Stop that!” she demanded.

“But this is an erotica novel,” he pointed out with flustered exasperation. “Wait till you see what happens in Chapter Two.”

“Yeah, well there won’t be a Chapter Two you pervert. In fact, this book is over right now.”

Sterling watched in dismay as she spun on her heels and marched out the door.

Then in a blatant effort to pad the novel’s word count, he just sat there puzzled for several minutes.

Finally, Sterling took a sip from his Pepsi and muttered, “I wonder why suburban housewives think this stuff is so hot?”

In Politics Nothing is Innocent

Free political lesson: If you want to attack an opponent you have two basic options. You can attack them for a) all the bad and dangerous stuff they do or b) for all the good and harmless stuff they do.

Yes, that’s right, in politics you can actually attack somebody for doing good and harmless stuff!

How is this possible, you ask?

Well, let me give you three recent examples of ways in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under assault for doing things any rational person would see as completely innocuous.

Case Number One: Oh My God!

What Harper Did

The Prime Minister, like millions of other Canadians, belongs to a Church, in this case the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, in this enlightened age we don’t attack a person for their religious beliefs, right? In fact, embracing Christian and spiritual values might even be considered a good thing, right? Wrong! Harper’s religion apparently makes him dangerous.

Why It’s Bad

Check out, here, here and here, and you will see why Harper’s choice of churches has some people in a tizzy. Basically, the argument goes like this: 1) Harper belongs to an oddball Christian cult. 2) Harper makes his policy decisions based on this cult’s superstitious teachings 3) this explains why Harper is “anti-science” and why he hates the environment. Of course, it’s all nonsense, but sometimes nonsense works.

Case Number Two: Attack of the Photo Op

What Harper Did

During his visit to Northern Canada, Prime Minister Harper did what all politicians do: he took part in a dopey, innocent photo op. More specifically, he drove an ATV. Lots of people, of course, drive ATVs. It’s a fun, outdoorsy activity, yes? Nope! When Harper drives one, it’s a crime against humanity.

Why it’s Bad  

Turns out ATVs should actually be called “Death Machines” on account of riding one of these vehicles will apparently destroy the planet. Or at least that’s how Harper’s critics reacted to the photo op. While many saw Harper’s little ride as harmless, his critics basically argued that by driving this instrument of Satan, the Prime Minister revealed himself to be someone who derives sadistic pleasure from desecrating our pristine environment. This in turn, means his ultimate goal is to strip mine the entire country! Also bad is that the ATV in question was not (horror of horrors) built in Canada. If you are going to despoil our delicate eco-system, you should at least do it with domestic products!!

      Case Number Three: At least he didn’t call it the Hitler Expressway

What Harper did

Recently the Harper government named a stretch of Ottawa road after John A. Macdonald. Surely, this must be the least controversial measure any Canadian government has ever undertaken. Macdonald was Canada’s first Prime Minister, he was a Father of Confederation; we name highways, schools and federal buildings after him. His picture adorns our ten dollar bill. He’s a national icon, for Pete’s Sake. Yet, amazingly even this action rubbed Harper’s critics the wrong way.

Why it’s Bad

The Ottawa Citizen ran an op ed by author Timothy J. Stanley who informed readers that Macdonald was actually a white supremacist! And so Stanley urged the Harper government to drop the Macdonald moniker idea and name the road after a former Liberal Prime Minister. And I suppose if Harper refuses to do so, his critics will take it as a clear sign that the Prime Minister must be a racist.

So now you see how political spin works.

You can take a person who goes to Church, who partakes in outdoor activities and who appreciates our nation’s history and turn him into a bible-thumping, white supremacist who likes to trample on endangered flowers.

Aint politics wonderful!

Harper and Flanagan are a couple of wusses

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his onetime sidekick Tom Flanagan are couple of wusses.

I say that because neither man seems willing to take on their ideological opponents in a fair fight.

If anything, they want to use state power to silence their adversaries.

And to me this is extremely troubling.

I come from an era when conservatives were willing and eager on take on the left. The group I used to work for -- the National Citizens Coalition--- certainly wasn’t afraid to tackle all comers.

During my 20 years or so at the NCC, we battled big union bosses, bureaucrats and politicians of every partisan stripe.

True, we didn’t win every tilt, but our opponents always knew they had been in a fight.

Indeed, the NCC of my day left so many bruises on so many sacred cows, the political establishment decided to strike back.

In 2000, then Prime Minister Jean Chretien enacted what we called a “gag law.”

This law had one purpose and one purpose only: to silence groups like the NCC during federal elections.

It imposed strict limits on how much money individuals or organizations could spend on “political advertising”, meaning the NCC could no longer freely or effectively express its views.

Of course, we tried to fight back. Under our then president - Stephen Harper -- the NCC valiantly waged a costly legal battle against the gag law all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Harper argued the gag law was an infringement on every Canadian’s right to free expression; he argued it would give professional politicians a monopoly on setting the election agenda; he argued it would have a chilling effect on democracy.

Alas, this was a fight the NCC and Harper didn’t win; the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the gag law constitutional.

It was a stunning loss for the NCC and an even bigger loss for freedom -- yet all hope was not lost.

In 2004, Harper, who by then was running for the leadership of the Conservative party, signed a pledge to repeal the gag law.

Yet six years have passed since Harper became Prime Minister and still he has not kept his promise to restore free speech to Canadians.

The gag law is still on the books.

And so Harper is now treating his adversaries the way Chretien treated the NCC.

Maybe like Chretien, Harper sees the advantage of a law which censors his opponents.

Or to put it another way, maybe he is just afraid of open, unfettered election debate.

And Harper isn’t the only Conservative displaying intellectual cowardice.

Tom Flanagan, an academic, a prominent conservative and Harper’s former campaign manager, recently wrote a column calling for Ontario to impose its own Chretien-style gag law.

Flanagan, like Harper, once opposed gag laws as attack on free speech.

So why does he support them now?

Well it seems he doesn’t like the fact that a union front group called “Working Families” spent a lot of money on ads in the last provincial election, urging voters not to support the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

To Flanagan this sort of advertising is wrong, which suggests he only believes in free speech as long as he agrees with what’s being said.

Of course, if Flanagan and Harper had confidence in the value of their ideals, they wouldn’t need to rely on gag laws.

They would be willing to put their principles to the test and let voters decide.

At any rate, Harper and Flanagan should come out and openly admit their fear of debate.

At least then they would be honest wusses.

Romancing the Bethune

Canada’s intellectual and political elite have a dilemma: how do they deal with Dr. Norman Bethune’s legacy?

On the one hand they desperately want to praise Bethune for his so-called “humanitarian” and innovative efforts as a surgeon, but on the other hand there’s that nasty little historical fact concerning the good doctor’s sordid political beliefs, i.e. he had a crush on Joseph Stalin.

Stalin, recall, is infamous for  butchering millions of people, for creating one of history’s most brutal dictatorships and for ruthlessly terrorizing half a continent – and that’s when he was in a good mood!

Yet Bethune the “humanitarian” thought Stalin was the bee’s knees, so in 1935 he joined the Communist Party.

That’s right instead of joining his local Rotary or Optimist Club, Bethune thought he could best help society by doing such things as advocating cockamamie economic theories, waving red flags and whistling L'Internationale.

Now in the 1960s and 1970s, this Stalinist past actually wasn’t much of a problem for Bethune worshippers. Those were the days, after all, when supporting the communist ideal was still trendy in left-wing academic and media circles.

Sure communism wasn’t perfect, they argued, but anything was better than capitalism, which simply didn’t work and which they confidently predicted would collapse in or around 1985 due to its own obvious internal contradictions.

Yep the super-geniuses in academia had it all worked out.

Except reality didn’t co-operate. In fact, after 1991 it sort of became clear that capitalism was in reality far superior to a system whose existence required generous doses of barbed wire, secret police and Siberian gulags.

Even Ivory-tower-ensconced university professors couldn’t help but notice the Berlin Wall toppling, the once mighty Soviet Union dissolving and China adopting a decadent, non-progressive, quasi-market-oriented system.

The only truly Stalinist state left was North Korea and aside from its snazzy military parades, it just wasn’t all that cool. It’s kind of hard even for intellectuals to idealize a society where the chief leisure activity is known as “Trying not to starve to death.”

Consequently by the onset of the 21^st century communism lost much of its cachet.

Which brings us back to Bethune. For better or worse, the guy will forever be tied to a discredited and blood-drenched ideology, yet oddly, there are still those in Canada who seek to romanticize his life.

And to do so, Bethune groupies have come up with two ways to overcome the "Bethune was a tyrant-admiring communist" problem.

One way is to simply ignore his communist ties. This is the method, for instance, Treasury Board President Tony Clement used to justify his government spending $2.5 million to build a Bethune Shrine in his riding. (Coincidently his riding is also the official federal repository for all things to do with Public Pork and Gazebos.)

Clement basically said Bethune’s communist past didn’t matter. As he put it, “I think we as Conservatives can be comfortable that there’s a message here broader than just his communism, that goes to his humanism and entrepreneurship.”

Well, all I can say to that is ….hey, wait a minute! … did Clement actually call Bethune, the Stalin-loving, Mao Zedong-adoring communist,  an entrepreneur!!!??

Maybe I’m wrong about Clement. Maybe he isn’t a Bethune groupie at all. Maybe he is actually using clever irony to insult the dead doctor.

I mean calling Bethune an entrepreneur would be like calling Thomas Mulcair a member of the Calgary Petroleum Club. As a good communist, Bethune regarded entrepreneurs as bourgeois enemies, as exploiters of the proletariat, as the people who would sell Stalin enough rope to hang everybody.

The best place for entrepreneurs, in Bethune's view, was is in front of a firing squad.

So this leads to the question: why is the supposedly pro-free enterprise Conservative government paying homage to guy who regarded free markets the way Dracula viewed a crucifix.

Well it seems Prime Minister Stephen Harper is really desperate to impress Communist China. The Chinese Communist Party recently gave him a few cute pandas, so the least he can do in return is lionize Mao’s favorite Canadian.

Of course, before the Conservatives could glorify Bethune in this manner they had to first set aside certain facts.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune supported Mao Zedong, a man who surpassed Hitler in the All-Time Mass Murderer Rankings.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune turned a blind eye to the horrific atrocities that took place in Stalinist Russia during his lifetime.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune embraced a totalitarian ideology that had as its goal the destruction of Canada’s democratic values.

And oh yeah, there’s one more thing the Conservatives had to set aside: their principles. 

But I digress.

Let’s get back to whitewashing Bethune’s communist past.

As I said, you can ignore it like Clement did or the other method is just to pretend it never happened.

This is the strategy Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson used in a recent column in which he paid homage to Bethune.

While describing all the supposedly wonderful qualities of the doctor, Ibbitson nonchalantly declared Bethune’s “communist taint” has been “rinsed away.”

Really?

And exactly how and when did this miraculous cleansing take place?

Did historians discover Bethune really admired Groucho Marx and not Karl Marx?

Did any of Bethune’s letters recently emerge in which he wrote something like: “I tried to contact some of my comrades in Russia today, but found out they had all been purged after a series of show trials. Apparently Stalin had them all tortured and then shot. Yikes! I know this might sound bourgeois and all, but it got me thinking that perhaps this working class struggle bullshit isn’t all its cracked up to be.”

If such a letter exists it’s news to me.

Maybe Ibbitson will provide evidence of it in a future column.

In the meantime, I will continue to oppose my government using my money to honour a man who was not only on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side of morality.

You see unlike Bethune’s apologists like Clement or Ibbitson, I have no difficulty in judging the communist’s legacy.

Nor, I suspect, will history.