M103, Canada

M103 doesn't seem like it would have any relation to Alberta politics.  It's a federal motion and the Alberta government isn't involved.  The opposition parties haven't said anything (but people are baiting them on Twitter).  The problem I've seen is how many people are complaining about a federal motion that does not attack their freedom of speech is an attack on their freedom of speech.  That part is confusing. M103 is not.

Back in June of 2016, Samer Majzoub from Pierrefonds, Quebec started a petition that was sponsored by his MP, Frank Baylis.  His petition was simple; asking the government to "join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia."  The petition received almost 70,000 signatures.  The highest numbers (over 3,000) came from Ontario with 43,573, Quebec with 12,308 and Alberta with 7,760.  The government responded in December stating "(t)he Government of Canada condemns all forms of racism and discrimination, including Islamophobia".

The official text is below:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: 

(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; 

(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and 

(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

         (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, 

         (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To me, this seems like a reasonable request as the government has supported a motion and issued statements in the past on anti-Semitism... twice... or three times (and I only went through Google's first page). For comparison, the text of the anti-Semitism motion is below:

That, in the opinion of the House:

a) there has been, in the words of the Joint Statement issued following the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly  on January 22, 2015, “an alarming increase in Antisemitism worldwide,” including the firebombing of synagogues and community centres, the vandalizing of Jewish memorials and cemeteries, incendiary calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and anti-Jewish terror;

b) this global anti-Semitism constitutes not only a threat to Jews but an assault on our shared democratic values and our common humanity;

Therefore the House:

a) declares its categorical condemnation of anti-Semitism;

b) reaffirms the importance of the Ottawa Protocol on Combating anti-Semitism as a model for domestic and international implementation;

c) reaffirms, in the words of the Ottawa Protocol, that, “Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest;”

And the House further calls upon the government to:

a) continue advancing the combating of anti-Semitism as a domestic and international priority;

b) expand engagement with civil society, community groups, educators, and other levels of government to combat anti-Semitism and to promote respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding

 I just want to point out that there were no calls for Anti-Semitism to be defined.  In fact Irwin Cotler, the MP who brought the anti-Semitism motion forward in 2015, has suggested that "Islamophobia" be changed to "anti-Muslim bigotry" because it is "a misunderstood word".  To me, that makes it even more important that this motion should go through and perhaps the public could be educated to understand that "Islamophobia" is akin to "Anti-Semitism".

D.

PC Party Delegate Selection Meeting

Earlier in February I drove over an hour to attend a delegate selection meeting (DSM).  This is just one more of those things that I've never had the interest, and therefore the opportunity, to attend.  I'm glad I went, though, because it was a gong show.

The average age of attendees was around 59. I wondered as I was looking around the room if it was just older people who show up at these things. Then I remembered I do have something to compare it to. Do you know what the average age is at an Alberta Party event? I'd give it 38.  I promise to attend a Liberal and NDP event in the future so I can compare them as well but obviously, this is a problem for conservatives.

As I entered the designated locale, there were two people standing outside the doors.  "Jason Kenney?" One of them asked me.  "Uhhh" I stammered. I wanted that sheet, but I also wanted the other one and I didn't know how this worked. "Renewal?" The next guy asked while handing me a sheet. I smiled and took his sheet as well.  I entered the building and there were four tables set up for registration.  She found my name, checked my two pieces of identification and gave me a ballot.  Being my first time I filled it out right away since I thought I had all the information I needed.

The rules were reviewed for us and we were going to hear from each of the delegates.  They were instructed to not say anything disparaging about another campaign or candidate and I now wished I could attend more to see if that's a problem at DSMs or if it's just part of the rules.  Even though I'd already chosen my candidates, I was happy we were going to hear from them.  (((Gong)))

The delegates were going to come up one by one and none of them took their full minute. Due to their efficiency, I can put this into bullet points:

1. is not committed to any candidate.  He is waiting for proof that the person running will be a good premier.  He was in municipal government and says that in 10 years he had never had an unbalanced budget.  He said government needs to get used to working with what they have and getting the best value for their dollar. He was new to this process and didn't trust those who make big promises and statements because you can't give everyone everything. 
2. is supporting unity as it's the "only way".  A coalition, he said, was just another shady backroom deal like the last time that would alienate voters. After they unite we can then have our choice of leader. 
3. "Alberta fell apart" she said "and it scared" her.  She is a teacher. "We need to teach kids what PC Alberta is" (is that social engineering?).  She wants a fiscally conservative, socially responsible government.  She is on the Renewal slate.
4. this delegate was listed on both slates as a supporter (wish I'd seen that before I marked my ballot) and was excused from attendance for a valid reason so I have no idea what he stands for.
5. was an Albertan first and would vote to unite together as conservatives.
6. wanted to unify on bigger issues than "defeat the NDP" and she wanted to "do it right".  She also mentioned that she saw a lot of "Wild Conservatives" and "Progressive Rosies" in the crowd.
7. brought up a piece of paper, said she wouldn't take long and had a verbal vomit of "grassroots members, conservatives unite, end socialist government, grassroots"... Unity slate.
8. said it didn't matter who the leader was so long as they "talk to us".
9. is a long-time conservative and is pro-unity.
10. said "if we do the same thing in 2019 expecting a different result, we're kidding ourselves." He wants to unite under Jason Kenney.  He also noted that he was listed on both slates and that was evidence of the "top-down PC party" of the past. 
11. wants to unite before the NDP tears this province apart. 
12. says we need to be strong and get the province back where it should be. 
13. wants to unite the parties with the grassroots. There is no future with the NDP.
14. believed that uniting the right was "admirable" but he wanted the parties to "do it right". 
15. he wasn't sure who he was going to vote for but he wanted the party to "take time to do it right". 
16. said we won't survive under this socialist government and he believed the right leader is Jason Kenney.
17. was an oilfield worker whose son was a recent graduate in environmental science, his daughter was a nurse and his wife was a nurse. Conversations around his table were interesting but they all agreed about one thing: Rewarding free-enterprise and working ethically.  It is important to get a free-enterprise conservative party. 
18. was born and raised in Alberta.  She had worked in oil and gas for 25 years and was a grassroots conservative.  She is voting to unite.
19. was a long-time conservative who is concerned about property rights and what this socialist government will do with them.  She is voting to unite. 
20. was born and raised in Alberta and just wants a fair shake and a government who represents the grassroots.
21. says it is a nightmare in Alberta.  She wants a strong socially responsible conservative government.  She was listed on the Unity slate. 
22. supports Jason Kenney because unity needs to happen for everyone, even the progressive side.  After they unite, we can then elect the right person to run the party and government. 

In the end, I found the people listed on the Unity slate to be cohesive and on-message and the Renewal slate to be less certain of their stance; two stated they didn't know who they would support (and one was on the Renewal slate and wasn't sure why).  Two people were on both slates and the one who was there to speak his peace said he had no idea how he got onto the Renewal slate.  He felt this was evidence of the "old top-down PC party". Talk about disorganization; and embarrassment. Someone once told me to watch Jason Kenney's campaign if I wanted to see a well-organized, tight campaign; he was right (of course).

I spoke with delegate hopeful number one afterwards because I was curious as to how he was going to make his decision.  Unfortunately, he wasn't yet sure.  He'd spoken with Fildebrandt about the unity plan previously but he just wasn't sure if this was the right way to go.  He agreed that there needed to be something more concrete than "beat the NDP" but none of the plans put forward have any more than that yet.  I asked if he'd attended any Wildrose events and he admitted he had not.  I told him the atmosphere was much different.  They are relatively excited, I said, and I think it's because they don't feel like they have anything to lose. The PC events, on the other hand, are mixed; some people are excited, others are not. 

Delegate hopeful number one said his real worry was where the center mass would go; would they go center-left with the liberals? Center-right with the Alberta Party? Would they re-elect the NDP? He doesn't think they'll follow the united conservative party.  I agreed.  Think what you will about the Wildrose plus PC equals beat the NDP but people had a choice last election and they didn't choose Wildrose. Maybe they're counting on a lot of people "holding their noses" to vote Wildrose 2.0.  Or, rather, praying for it. 

D.

A Telephone Town Hall with Jason Kenney

On February 8, 2017 I tuned in for a telephone town hall with Jason Kenney.  I'd never participated in one before and I figured it might be interesting.  I was not disappointed.

I wrote previously about the Unite Alberta get-together in Calgary back in January and I attempted to give a semi-unbiased recounting of that event.  One story, which I tried valiantly to corroborate, but could not, involved a 12 year old autistic girl from Grande Prairie who was put into counselling after she expressed doubt about her gender.  Not only, Kenney said, was she put into counselling, but she was given a boy's name and treated as a boy at school; all without telling the parents.  I bring this up now because this time he told us she was from Calgary.  That's how the town hall began.

One caller kept referring to "severely normal Albertans" and wanted to ensure "Martha and Henry" could have a say in the new party.  Kenney reiterated another story from January about how he "gave up his only income and hit the road in his pickup truck".  This story is becoming easier for him to tell even though it's not true.  Most people (though apparently not his supporters) recall that he did not resign his seat as MP until the end of September, almost a full three months after he began campaigning.  But, whatevs, I'm sure.

He told us that Brian Jean is willing to talk merger.  If Kenney is given a mandate, he wants to put Alberta first.  He claims he wants no pre-conditions on unification other than members choose.  Then he brought up the most recent statement from Brian Jean that Mr. Jean wants the party to unite under the legal framework of the Wildrose.  Kenney stated that he had never considered the possibility that one party would capitulate to the other.  He expects the parties to respect both sides, that they come together as equals and in good faith, "just create a new party and make a fresh start".

Another caller said that she believed the parties must amalgamate to have any hope of beating the NDP.  Kenney told her that that's why he was doing this; it was why he gave up his only income.  He believes the NDP will do irreparable damage to free-enterprise if they are given another term.

The carbon tax was brought up again and he promised the repeal of the carbon tax would be Bill1 if they win in 2019.  Again he brought up the "U of A professor" and I can't help but wonder why he won't say Andrew Leach's name.  Kenney name-drops all the time... I find it odd that he won't name Andrew.

There was a question about Bill 10 and parental choice.  To his credit, Kenney told the caller that there was unanimous support for Bill 10 from both Wildrose and PCs in the legislature.  In his mind, Bill 10 itself was settled.  He would, though, look into how the Bill was being implemented in schools as he did not like how the NDP was doing it.

The next caller had a question about the level of PC debt and whether that debt would be a deterrent to the Wildrose.  Kenney admitted that the Wildrose have much higher donations than the PC party but that between the PC party general and its constituency associations, there was enough to pay off the debt.  Kenney said he was not concerned about losing funds through a merger because the PC's are not raising enough money.  While the PC's are raising around $10,000 per month, the Wildrose have been raising about $100,000.  He mentioned that his campaign had raised more than both of them (the number I heard was $630,000+/- from October 2016 to December 2016 though he did not name a number tonight). Then he went way out: "The CPC raised $7,000,000 last year; way more than the PC's and Wildrose combined"... as if there's some natural comparison between a national party and a provincial party in terms of fundraising capabilities.

The following caller asked about the progressives in the PC party.  "The right will unite" he said, "but how do we win progressives?"  Kenney told him that he wants to build a big, broad, tolerant party.  He says he's never called it "unite the right".  There were successful coalitions by Lougheed and Klein.  He said the united party will tolerate a certain degree of difference but that it will be free-enterprise.  "You cannot redistribute wealth that hasn't been created."  He's actually said this a couple of times now and I wasn't sure what to make of it.  It's acceptable to redistribute wealth in a good economy but not a bad one?  Redistribution of wealth is okay for conservatives but not for anyone else?  .....

The final question was regarding the merged/united party.  "Will we select either PC or Wildrose policies after they're forged into one party?"  Kenney said that he wants the PC party and the Wildrose to negotiate.  It should be voted upon by a clear majority of Wildrose members.  It would be a fresh start and a new beginning.  He told those on the phone to also purchase a Wildrose membership so they could have a say.  It's a strange day in politics, I think.

D.

Nothing has Changed for Wildrose

It was standing room only at a crowded town hall at the Strathmore Legion planned by the local MLA Derek Fildebrandt. "How many of you are PC members?" He asked.  One lone gentleman raised his hand.  The topic of this meeting was uniting the Conservative vote and it would probably help if other conservatives would attend.  Sometimes though, an echo chamber is all you need.

"I have a lot of respect for Conservatives in the PC Party" he said.  "There are some very good members who are strong Conservatives but the PC Party was hijacked by a faction of liberals who are scared they're going to have to go back to the liberal party."  The crowd chuckled so this might have been a joke.  He told a story about  walking to the legislature with Sandra Jansen and said she asked him if there would be room for liberal-minded people in a united conservative party.  He beat about the bush and told the crowd that any person who is for free enterprise is welcome in a united conservative party.

The people who attended were overwhelmingly in agreement that the conservatives should unite (with the exception of the aforementioned PC member).  Recall that this town hall took place in a rural riding, most of which, across the province, are stark conservative ridings and currently represented by a Wildrose MLA.  In these areas, they see the issue for what it is; the cities are more liberal than they are and their party won't form government without the cities.  Why do they want a united conservative party?  Because they don't have to give anything up.

The PC party has had success in the cities as well as the rural areas.  You don't get 44 years of one-party rule without assistance from the largest cities in the province.  To rural Wildrose supporters, there's only one way to win government; remove the progressive conservative faction.  When this was brought up by an audience member, Fildebrandt referred to the federal vote.  "More than 60% of voters chose the Conservative party federally".  Some, though, say that people vote for different things at different levels of government.

Does a united conservative party have a chance to beat out the NDP in 2019?   Of course they do, but progressive conservatives are still thinking about what this means for them.  They didn't support the Wildrose in the last election and some have no intention of supporting them in the next one.

Do the Wildrose want to take over the PC party?  Certainly.  Remove the vote split, one and one equals two and all that.  Looking at both sides of the debate, it's definitely not a worry for the Wildrose supporters; they're strong and they're united.  For them, nothing has changed.