Photo Credit: media.canada.com

I read with some interest in the Globe and Mail recently of the quashing of a grassroots challenge to a sitting Conservative MP. As reported by Steven Chase, the governing body of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) took over control of Calgary West riding association a few days ago in order to do damage control. What was the damage you ask? The riding association was going to ask its members if it wanted to challenge sitting MP Rob Anders’ appointment as a candidate for the next election. Back in the spring of 2009 the national body of the CPC ruled that they would not allow any challenges to be put forth against any of its sitting MPs, stifling any dissent in the process. Upset by this tacit betrayal of classic Reform dogma, the Calgary West riding was on a path to potentially run a candidate nomination process against Mr Anders. No sooner it seems was this considered than the high ups in the CPC swooped down from their headquarters and stopped the riding association dead in its tracks.  When asked about what appears to be internal strife within the party, national council president John Walsh commented “I am not interested in commenting on internal party matters.” Case closed.
(more…)

As parliament nears its end for the current session, some reflection on the most recent sitting is in order. What better way to start than with the release of today’s EKOS Research poll where we find, yet again, stagnation in voting opinions across the country. The breakdown is as follows with the numbers in brackets indicating the percentage of support from the last federal election: Conservatives- 36.5% (37.65%), Liberals- 26.5% (26.6%), New Democratic Party- 16.7% (18.18%), The Bloc Quebecois (in Quebec only) – 39.8% (38.1%), The Green Party- 11.3% (6.78%) and undecided were in the 14.6% range. These figures show what many political analysts have known for some time, and that is that the electorate is not as volatile as it has been in the past. The biggest change is the rise in support for the Green Party, which jumped almost 6% from the time of the last election. It should be noted that the Green Party always tends to garner more support in a non-election year than it does during an election. The NDP’s numbers are down a bit too, but are actually trending upwards in recent months as a result of their stance on the Harmonized Sales Tax.  All the other numbers are relatively unchanged.  So what does this mean in real terms?
(more…)

Our parliamentary system is constituted in such a way that the government must maintain a majority of support in the house to pass legislation. This is not a problem when one political party wins a majority of the seats in the house, i.e. the Chretien Era. In this capacity, the government can pass all the legislation it wants with minimal or no responsibility to the opposition parties in the house. In the case of minority parliaments, of which we have seen for most of the past decade now, the government needs the support of at least one other party. Should it not obtain this support, the government must call an election. So far, the Harper government has managed to be defeated in the house without losing the confidence to govern the country. Sound confusing? Actually, the government can only be forced to call an election if it is defeated in a motion of confidence. This can simply be a motion that states that the members of the house have lost confidence in the government, or it can come with the defeat of monetary bills, tax bills, or budget implementation bills.
(more…)

The last several weeks have seen the development of the Afghan detainee story unfold in multifaceted directions.  First we had the testimony of senior level bureaucrat Richard Colvin, whom after serving a stint in Afghanistan and numerous other positions as an overseas diplomat and being “promoted” to the top intelligence position representing Canada in the United States, comes before the Special Committee on the Afghanistan Mission and describes what some of us had already known: torture is going on in Afghanistan. Several international organizations have already reported that the NDS (National Directorate of Security) was torturing or allowing the torture of detainees handed over by Canadian soldiers. Colvin places this on a backdrop of poor documentation and negligent attention to warnings from him to the Canadian government and senior military officials.

Upon confrontation in the house the government has switched their stance on this issue numerous times. They began by saying that there were no allegations of torture and, at least at first, lambasted Colvin as a rogue bureaucrat who could not be trusted. This wouldn’t have sat well with the always micromanaging Stephen Harper, whom I’m sure doesn’t want the opposition to get a foothold on anything, and the frame quickly changed from criticizing Colvin, to criticizing the credibility of the reports and not the person. This shifted again when Harper came back to referring to Colvin’s reports for a period of eighteen months as mere “evaluations.” In my honest opinion, this constant reframing of the governments narrative calls into question the complicity of senior PMO officials, ministers and even the Prime Minister. There are simply too many questions left unanswered here. We know that the Liberal Government signed a transfer agreement some weeks before losing the election in 2006/2007, but what about before then? What kind of agreement was in place before the Conservatives took power? I think a full scale inquiry dating back to the beginning of the war and our operations in Afghanistan is necessary so we can have a proper examination of the level of accountability that existed in regards to the transfer of detainees.
(more…)