Premier Stelmach and Dr. Suzuki Need to Sit Down Over a Beer

Premier Stelmach and Dr. David Suzuki need to sit down and have a beer and get to know each other. The media induced tempest between the two is not informative nor helpful.

I was at the Suzuki lecture at the University of Alberta last night and heard him say “I did not write that headline” referencing the Calgary Herald headline attributing a statement to Suzuki on Stelmach’s qualifications to govern. In fact Suzuki admitted he “did not even know the new Premier’s name.” While Suzuki is a man of dedicated passion he is no fool and not prone to reckless character judgments.

I don’t know Suzuki except through his writings, lecture and television programs, which come to think of it, I perhaps know quite a bit about him. I do know Ed Stelmach and that his personal sense of responsibility as Premier is that he is a trustee for Albertans for the natural resources and the environment.

Stelmach has made "managing growth" a principle of his Premiership but that does not mean he is going to intervene inappropriately in the marketplace. As Premier he sees himself as the public’s trustee for the environment and as a working farmer, even today, he has a personal sense of what stewardship means.

There is lots that Stelmach and Suzuki can learn from each other. I think these two men of character and capacity need to have beer and get to know each other personally. The potential synergy of their talents and perspectives will serve us all for the better – at so many levels.

James Rajotte is a Class Act

James Rajotte is a class act. His letter to the Editor in the Edmonton Journal today sets the record straight over the visit by the CEO of CV Technologies (the Cold FX folks) to attend a luncheon on Parliament Hill - at his invitation.

He clears the air over what was talked about and why the meeting was held and deals effectively with the issue of any possible impropriety concerning the Lobbyist Registry Act.

There may be a technical and procedural issue here as to whether the meeting should have been registered pursuant to the Act. I expect it should have been but the parties are not professional lobbyists and were there at the invitation of their government MP. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

That said the spirit and intent of disclosure of such meetings is resolved by MP Rajotte’s letter where he is putting it all on the public record. In fact his disclosure of the meeting is significantly more information than you usually get from the official records pursuant the lobbyist registration legislation. I expect 99% of citizens don't even know how to access the disclosure information under the federal lobbyist registry system. Rajotte puts this public disclosure right in the MSM. Good for him! Good for the Edmonton Journal for publishing the letter.

This is a shining example of open, transparent, accountable and responsive government. If this was the norm for how our elected representatives acted we would not have the “gotcha” mentality exhibited by the NDP over this invitation by an MP to a constituent to tell of her personal and business success story.

Memo to self: It looks like even if an MP asks you to have lunch on his agenda one best register the event as your lobbying activity. An ounce of prevention….

Are Pollsters Being Abused by MSM?

Are pollsters being caught up in the Stockholm Syndrome? Are they being require to position individual poll results as points of “light” as if they were heralding a new Messiah? The distinctions being made are in reality with out a difference because they ignore that the results that are being touted are statistically non-existent or exaggerated based on the margins of error.

The commentary by very qualified pollsters is becoming close to the guest slots on the Entertainment Channels who are seen giving “expert” evidence on compelling stories like why Brittany shaved her head or who gets the custody of the Anna Nicole Smith body. This has seen reputable MSM turning polling, and I worry about political commentators too, into a sideshow at best but closer to farce for the most part.

Sure there MSM commentators who are exceptions. Chantal Hebert, Andre Pratte, Rex Murphy and Lawrence Martin are my trust worthies even if I disagree with them, which I do on occasion. There are more who are not hostages to the system, I am sure...but those are my dependable independent thinkers.

Look at how polls and pollsters are also being used as the attention getters in the rating wars of MSM and how they are being abused in the process. "Political Infotainment" must be included the Oxford English Dictionary by now.

Here are a couple of examples of what I think is the MSM abuse of poll results. A Globe and Mail/CTV polls recently showed we "know" Harper more than Dion. After all he has been in the political party leadership game for five years compared to Dions almost 3 months. That is a ratinale as to why we would give him a bigger nod on speculation as to if he would be perceived as the best PM today. It is hypothetical anyway without an actual election call.

The pollster spokesperson on this "story" says with this polling evidence of a Prime Ministerial preference for Harper he should go to an election soon. The more considered analysis shows the real "issue questions" in the poll results showed both men were statically tied within the margin of error range. Generally 25% of the poll participants were undecided...not an insignificant fact to be considered before calling or engineering an election.

We all knew then that Quebec was going to an election sooner and the outcome there, namely a Charest victory, was key to the Conman’s strategy to a federal majority. Why would Harper go now when waiting gives him a potential for a big edge in Quebec? Quebec support for the Cons is the key to a majority government. No reason to go earlier as the story on the poll results suggested…other than a “surge” in the poll. The Cons "bump" by the way was less that the Green’s “surge” in percentage terms in the same poll.

Not to be outdone Canwest/Global a few days later runs its own poll with another firm and the spokesperson for this pollster says the Cons have the momentum but it is insufficient a margin to go to an election. However the sponsoring newspapers headline, notwithstanding the results reads “Tories Top Liberals in Latest Poll.” The story has the following quote from the pollster:

“The survey, conducted by Ipsos-Reid for Canwest News Service and Global
National, says the Conservatives have the support of 36 per cent of the
population, compared to 34 per cent for the Liberals.

The two-point edge enjoyed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives falls within the margin of error, leaving the two parties in a statistical tie, said pollster Darrell Bricker."

The reality is here the Tories do not “Top Liberals.” They are tied and have been for a while. The headline may be lying, if you decide to impute motive. It misleads in any event, regardless of motive. The headline is factuallly wrong but it is a better reader "hook."

The hype and hyperbole in the competing MSM attention wars is not serving the voter well. No wonder more people are turning to Blogs and the Internet for information and analysis. On the Web you know you need a reality filter but the biases are more obvious and often worn on the
writer’s sleeves.

You will not likely be misled and you can weigh the anonymous Bloggers against those who identify themselves as for credibility and integrity. Competition has been sacrificed the objectivity of the MSM. It is as worthy of your mistrust just as Prime Minister Harper is worthy of your distrust given his reckless and politically motivated meddling with the judicial review
process.

The Public Conversation Has Started on the Anti Terrorism Act...YES!

I am encouraged by the MSM and the Blogs about what I have read on the Anti Terrorism Act review. I still have to find time to read the Supreme Court decision.

For a quality commentary on the ATA and the politics versus the public policy concerns go to Rational Reasons site. The last two postings are there are excellent.

I also like the Garth Turner Blog post on his observations as a newly minted Liberal on how this is unfolding (or unraveling depending on the level of your cynicism).

Also check out the Globe and Mail today Comment piece by Welsey Wark of the Muck Centre for International Studies at the U of T. He puts a better context around the consequences of the Supreme Court decision and points out it is not a crisis but an opportunity for Parliament to build a better law that respects rights, provides grater personal protections and provides for national security.

Surely that is not to must to ask of our legislators. Although under the current partisan political posturing, on all sides, this search and need for a rebalance may be too much to expect.

Stephen Harper is Starting to Remind Me of Richard Nixon

The past few days have been very disturbing. The political interference by Prime Minister Harper in the Judicial Review Committee has escalated. The Supreme Court Chief Justice is now publicly expressing concerns over the continuing independence of the judiciary. Her fears are not unfounded.

Stephen Harper is clearly now all about political power and positioning and is only focused on what he has to do to achieve a majority government in the next election. The personal political power ends apparently justify a wanton disregard for the rights and reputations of people if he decides to vilify or bully then under his Parliamentary privilege protections. He is unapologetic for the damage he may have caused as well.

We see this also in Prime Minister Harper’s implied linking of the Air India Inquiry process to alleging spurious motives to the Opposition’s questioning the continuation of the Anti Terrorism Act. He showed more bad judgment by not ensuring the Inquiry, he appointed, has access and disclosure of government controlled documents so it can do its work.

Instead he sets up a photo op with families of Air India victims as more political positioning and pandering. Is this cheap and tacky politics or, as he would see it, “strategic and tactical messaging.” Either way it is demeaning of the office he holds.

The Harper response to his critics was a counter attack approach, adding more despondence and increased questioning about his personal agenda. Concerns now arise over the content and the quality of his character to be the leader of a country like Canada. His approach may serve him well in pursuit of power in today’s Venezuela - but not Canada.

Then we have the Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutionality of the security certificates process under the ATA. This decision a welcome impetus and opportunty for Canadians to consider the extension of the ATA. It frames the trade off between personal freedoms and security from terrorists. We need to understand and consdier the implications of the ATA legislation and we need to make the trade off choice consciously as a citizenry. Perhaps that will happen in the pending election. One can only hope.

I have not yet had the time to read the SCC decision but I shall soon. I think, based on media reports only, we citizens are being advised by the Court that we need to be worried about potential abuses of these extreme powers by police, security and intelligence agencies and those with discretionary political powers too….like Prime Ministers.

In this Blog have drawn parallels between Stephen Harper and George W. Bush. Those comparisons are still valid between the two men as politicians and political players. There is not valid comparable in terms of their capacity as leaders and holders of the highest office in their lands. Harper is clearly much smarter and is more clever and conniving than the befuddled Bush could ever be.

Harper the man is now less like the bewildered George Bush and is starting to remind me more of the cunning the Richard Nixon we discover in Watergate. I am not suggesting Harper has a Watergate type problem now or in his future. I am suggesting that he worthy of profound distrusts, just as Nixon was found to be untrustworthy. I say this because of how Harper is starting to reflect more of a Nixon personality and political approachs in how he handles opposition, criticism and challenges to his authority.

I am also starting to see Harper’s demeanour in terms of Pierre Trudeau as the “gunslinger” we came to know during the FLQ Crisis. The famous Trudeau line from those days of the War Measures Act was in response to a TV journalists question about “how far would he go?” Trudeau said “Just watch me!”

To my mind Harper has proven himself as someone we need to watch. Canadians need to be very careful how much power and discretion we give him in the next election. In the past week I have withdrawn any benefit of the doubt I previously afforded Stephen Harper as the man I might trust to lead Canada. He raises more questions than he answers. He creates more concerns than he solves.

I have not posted for a few days because I have been busy but I think I would have deferred anyway so I could mull over the events of the past week. I am glad I did take some time. I have mulled and have come to a considered conclusion about Harper suitability for leadership. I have concluded that Mr. Harper is motivated by a goal of personal political power but he is not equipped with the strength of character necessary to govern well. As a result, in my opinion, he is profoundly dangerous to our democracy and disrespectful of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Canada. He must be opposed.