Or, “How to Rebuild a Political Party, in as Few Words as Possible.”

As the rhetoric leading up to this weekend’s Liberal convention in Ottawa begins in earnest I must—I simply must—say my piece.

I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I joined… gee I don’t know, back when what’s his name with the squeaky voice beat out Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae for the party leadership. I joined because I was interested in having a say in who would replace Jean Chretien or Paul Martin or however you want to look at it. At any rate, I’ve stuck it out for exactly that reason: because I want to have a say in the party going forward but as the outlook turns grimmer every year I’m beginning to wonder if I can get my money back.

Read the rest of this article »

I just got done reading Warren Kinsella’s diatribe in The Walrus. It’s titled “The Biggest Losers” and, after reading it, I think the only real loser here is former Liberal strategist Kinsella himself.

For all his angry ranting and finger-pointing (not at himself, of course)—and I used to really like Kinsella, mind you—he manages to squeak out some interesting points. Namely, the the left needs to merge if it’s going to compete with the Conservative Machine and Overlord Harper. I’d like to explore this in two parts. First, at this point in the game, a merger between the Liberal Party and the New Democrats is going to be squarely in the hands of the NDP, not the Liberals. The Liberals have lost their chance to architect any sort of merger when they lost the election so badly. And, second, it’s possibly a very bad idea either way.

Read the rest of this article »

Wait a second here. Remind me, what is the goal of federalist politics?

See because I thought—and maybe I’m wildly(!) naive—that the goal of the federalists was the keep the country together and, like any good club, to increase their membership.

So when a former separatist, or, for sanity’s sake let’s say a former separatist party member, decides to come on over to your side shouldn’t that be a cause for celebration? Shouldn’t there be some kind of ringing of the bells, a shower of champagne spraying out of a bottle of Dom Perignon shaken up by none other than Brian Mulroney himself? While the ghost of Pierre Trudeau dances a proper newfie jig.

All I’m saying is that I don’t get it. This whole response to interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel and her tenuous links to separatist parties.

Even  if she did vote for the Bloc Quebecois at some point—which she didn’t(!)—what is she going to do, tear the country apart as interim leader of the official opposition? Does a person’s lackluster political past mean they can never Reform their ways? There are Conservatives, Denis Lebel I’m looking at you, who admit to being “active” members of the BQ in the past. Active. And, my goodness, Stockwell Day once showed up to a presser in a wet suit and we forgave him enough to let him be President of the Treasury Board! Turmel didn’t even vote for the Bloc!

She’s been clear: she’s not a separatist, so let’s leave it at that. Wait, no, let’s not. Let’s celebrate. Because the whole point of a united Canada, like I’ve been saying, is that we need to get all excited-like about our country, and about every time someone decides that they no longer want a geo-political divorce. Hey, Canada, we’re stayin’ together… doin’ it for the kids. Bravo!

Stephen Harper may think he’s got the Liberal Party squarely in his campaign cross-hairs. He may think that he’s firing his best shots, that he is, like one Charlie Sheen, winning. He may think he’s got enough ammunition to defeat his opponents, that he’s leading the charge, that it’s take no prisoners and he’s coming out on top. I contend he’s firing blanks.

Read the rest of this article »

In my article Some Stats on Stats, I talked about my grief with the Conservatives who are relying on anecdotal evidence, rather than cold hard fact, in their pursuit of the elimination of the long-form census. I complained about Tony Clement’s assertions that Canadians have been complaining about the coercive and intrusive nature of the mandatory census. It was in defense of these Canadians, Clement said, that the government has been on the move against the long-form. Well, using statistics—of all damn things—I, and others, have shown these assertions to be false. Only three people have complained to the Privacy Commissioner about the long-form census over the past 10 years, and no one has ever been jailed for refusing to fill it out.

But, to be fair, I’ve dug even deeper and found some further statistics.

In total, there have been 50 complaints about the long-form census over the past 20 years. Most of these complaints, over half, originated in 1991 and were as a result not of the census itself but of the way Statistics Canada hired enumerators to review the census forms. That year, Canadians worried that because of a change in the hiring process, it could be their neighbours or friends reviewing their personal census data. In 1996, StatsCan report a total of 16 complaints out of the approximately 5.8 million people who received the mandatory long-form census and in 2001 the number of complaints was down to one, with two more complaints coming in 2006.

I was compelled to compile a few more facts, and include a follow-up to yesterday’s article after reading George Jonas’ full comment in the National Post last night. It’s worth a read, and despite disagreeing with a lot of his premises (e.g., the government is out to get you), he had me interested until the end. The end, where George dropped the ball, and where my heart just sunk in my chest.

Without hesitation, and without provision of any previous data, Jonas launches into his very own personal nugget of a census story featuring, of course, the little old lady next door. The lady next door who, in 1996, despite assurances from StatsCan, had her census form read by a neighbour and her privacy invaded. I’ll grant you that it must’ve been an unpleasant and intrusive experience for the woman, and Jonas is perhaps right to mention it, but again I stress this, too: Even the most stalwart opponents of the mandatory long-form census have nothing to stand on but anecdotes.

Like Clement and Harper who assure us that there are Canadians opposed the long-form census—somewhere out there—Jonas, who is evidently violently opposed to the long-form himself, relies on nothing more than hearsay evidence to make his case.

Really, still on this?  Really.

With only, literally, days until this year’s census forms go to the printing presses one has to wonder if it’ll do any good to continue to try and put pressure on the Harper government, but one must try. I’ve been on holidays the past few days and, believe me, the only reason I haven’t been writing up a storm is because I haven’t been able to. There is something to be said for the blissful beauty of an Internet-free existence—but there are other things that must be said, too. A lot has continued to brew over the long-form census, and a lot still needs to be said. The fact that the Conservatives are pushing ahead with their agenda to scrap the census is mind-boggling, but pushing ahead they are and I’m growing a bit tired of trying to be civil about it all. It’s ridiculous, but rather than editorialize about why the move to scrap the long-form census is a bad idea let me try, and I stress try, to muster up some non-partisan stats for y’all. Because after all, this is about stats, right?

Read the rest of this article »

Well, start bailing, this ship’s goin’ down.

Late yesterday afternoon word came out that Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada the body responsible for the national census, had canceled a town hall meeting, previously scheduled as an information session for StatsCan employees about the scrapped long-form census. The fact that the meeting was canceled at the last minute raised more than a few eyebrows, and we all waited to see what would happen next. Then, later into the night, the news came: Sheikh was resigning his position.

And now, the boat begins to sink in earnest.

Read the rest of this article »