Edmonton-Sherwood Park Reveals a Pattern of Undemocratic Maneuvering

Last election the voters of Edmonton-Sherwood Park had a tough decision to make. This riding has been Tory for decades, but in 2008, they were forced to choose between two conservatives.

How did this happen?

The official story is this: after long time MP Ken Epp decided that he wasn't going to seek another term, the candidacy was up for grabs, and up until just a few weeks before the nomination process was closed, it appeared that municipal councillor Jacquie Fenske, was going to be acclaimed.

Enter Tim Uppal. An old Alliance candidate from the constituency of Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont. Uppal had been running unsuccessfully since 2000, but the Reform -Conservatives really wanted this man in the House.

He comes from an influential family who have been long time financial supporters of the party, and they would help to raise their profile with the Sikh community.

Former board members say Uppal didn't file his nomination papers until the last minute and stacked the nomination meeting in north Edmonton. This caught Fenske by surprise, since she was on the verge of being acclaimed.

"This is not right," says longstanding Tory Bill Noonan. "The party cannot run roughshod over the people. What happened here is not democracy. It's what happens in a banana republic."

Eight out of twelve board members resigned over this, and a former supporter of Jacquie Fenske, James Ford; decided to run as an independent with a conservative philosophy. He dubbed himself a 'Conservative with a Conscience'.

Uppal ultimately won by a margin of 1,678 votes, but he spent $ 84,329, compared to Ford's $ 34, 907. What's also interesting is that the NDP candidate Brian LaBelle, came third, with 6,339 votes, and he only spent $ 110.00. So it seems like a progressive riding after all. But again, voter apathy played a huge part, with only about 58% of those eligible, turning out to cast their ballots.

This is not the first time the Conservative Party brass has interfered with the nomination process. Bob Anders' riding is currently in the midst of a horrible feud, and Mark Warner, David Marler and Gordon Landon were all given the boot because they refused to toe the party line.

But I think there is another story here, besides just the abandonment of the democratic process.

A Clash of Conservatives From Within

The big conservative tent that Stephen Harper is presently acting as den mother over, is made up of two main factions. Social Conservatives (theocons), and neoconservatives, (neocons)

When Mike Harris (neocon) was first elected premier of Ontario, it came as a bit of a surprise, especially to him. But he had courted the kind of hokey, folksy type, knowing he didn't stand much of a chance in urban centres. This gave him the seats he needed but not much experience, much like Stephen Harper's first cabinet.

But he also brought on board, much to his dismay; a large group of religious zealots, at a time when there was no real Religious Right in Canada. Harris himself was not morally upright, but he tolerated them.

Ralph Klein in Alberta was faced with the same problem. He also had a large portion of his caucus who were what we now call social conservative. One of those was Stockwell Day, the self-proclaimed leader of the pack. According to Brooke Jeffreys:

Stockwell Day is seen by some right-wing conservatives as the representative of a dangerous new wave of radical extremists the party has attracted. (Hard-Right Turn, Harper Collins, 1992, Pg. 97)

This was of concern to Klein and his gang, but I suppose at the time they felt their hands were tied. Besides, Day was a player, when it came to dismantling social services; and even if his motivations were Biblical; at least he would produce results.

In Ontario, the PCs were also facing challenges with their theocons, but it never really became a huge issue. Mind you, when they were trying to 'Unite the Right' federally, not everyone was in agreement.

Dalton Camp, a longtime Tory strategist rejected the notion, especially since it was determined that the party would adhere to Reform principles. "Tories have principles too", he cried and added that the whole unification process was not only self-serving but ludicrous, particularly since the conservatism of Stockwell Day "is viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe." (Jeffries Pg. 381)

Back to Alberta and Peter Elzinga

Peter Elzinga had been a cabinet minister under Brian Mulroney, until he left federal politics to join the Alberta Legislature. He was one of the 'Klein Gang', and would later serve as Ralph Klein's chief of staff.

He was also one of the Tories concerned with the radical extremists represented by Stockwell Day. During this latest crisis, Mr. Elzinga supported the independent candidate, James Ford.

There is a movement I've been following that is growing in the U.S. called 'Conservatives for Change'. (there are two separate groups that seem to use that handle, but they have different agendas) The group I'm referring to are Republicans, who don't like the way the party is going since it was hijacked by religious extremists. Many of them claim to have voted for Obama.

During the 2008 Parliamentary crisis, when it looked like Stephen Harper's career might be coming to an end; there were several 'secretive' websites established, promoting candidates like Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice and John Baird. But they referred to themselves, or at least one did, as 'Conservatives for Change'.

Is there an underground network not happy with the hard right, religious extremism that now represents our current government? Are they hoping to bring forth genuine conservative candidates? I hope so. I'm so tired of this nonsense.

I bring this up in relation to Peter Elzinga, because Tim Uppal's biggest supporter was none other than Stockwell Day.

Instead of becoming more moderate, as some people mistakenly suggest that Stephen Harper is moving to the centre; they have actually taken on more theocons. Stephen Woodworth, Kelly Block, Joy Smith, Tim Uppal, to name a few.

James Ford independent candidate

I've read Mr. Ford's profile and he is a decent level headed guy. He has a blog, not really that active now, but reading his comments, I'm very impressed. A refreshing change from what now makes up the Harper government.

My campaign team has heard a lot of commentary during this campaign about whether or not we are really conservatives. After all; don’t you have to be a card carrying party member to be a conservative? Don’t you have to support all party decisions and actions? I don’t think so!

I have been a conservative for over 35 years. I have worked every campaign on behalf of the conservative candidate, both federal and provincial. I have served on constituency boards, attended conventions and all the other things a good active party member does. Many of my supporters have done the same ...

... Following the race we all found ourselves asking the same question; when the party is acting in an unconscionable manner, should we still follow the party line? Once you allow yourself to ask this question it leads to other questions. Questions like: when did MP’s become the party’s voice rather than the voters voice. If our MP’s are forced to follow the “party line” then who is representing us? That’s about when my conscience kicked in. That’s when I decided to stand up for what I believe to be right ...

Now that's a conservative.

Holy Crap. I've Never Seen Such Convoluted Nonsense in My Life. Thank You Tim Uppal

There has been a growing concern and anger over the abuse of mail outs, especially ten percenters by Members of Parliament.

I don't know if this was a problem before the Reform-Conservatives took power or not, but I had never received any before this year.

I live in the Liberal riding of Peter Milliken and he certainly never sent out any of this nonsense.

However, since the Conservatives are targeting this riding for Brian Abrams, I've had nine; each one more ridiculous than the last.

However, I must admit that this one by MP Tim Uppal takes the cake. It wasn't sent to me but a blogger in his riding, who claims to be getting these things on a weekly basis.

A Karl Rove tactic is to use key words. Things that will grab the attention of the reader and plant seeds of ideas. Also name association goes along with that. I remember another one with a question that went something like 'Do you support a Michael Ignatieff coalition with the NDP and Separatists'. Aligning 'Ignatieff' with 'coalition' and 'separatists', was more important than any answer to the question.

Logically the question should have referred to Ignatieff/Layon/Duceppe or Liberal/NDP/Bloc. But these aren't about logic.

If the Party was paying for this I wouldn't care what they asked. They go in the recycle bin anyway. But taxpayers are footing the bill for these, and it's got to stop.

And since I helped to pay for this one, I'm allowed to critique my purchase.

Full size for the face of this is here.

Right off the bat, I have issue with the headline 'Separatists Want to Legalize Euthanasia'. Why is this a separatist issue? Is there some kind of suggestion that they are trying to kill off the rest of us? As silly as that sounds, you have to wonder. Remember the old Reformers back in the day were involved with APEC, and harboured some animosity toward Quebec.

It's called playing to your base.

It certainly worked during the Parliamentary crisis of 2008, when Harper pulled out the 'separatist' nonsense to save his job.

The rest just provides the reader with the feelings of Mr. Uppal toward the issue, and though he had a misprint calling it Bill C-484 and not C-384, it was no big deal. He also asks his constituents whether or not he should support the bill. Fair enough. However, it's pretty clear that he had already made up his mind.

Then we go to the back, the full size of which is here.

WOW!

1. Do you believe all life is sacred and should be cherished?

It would be pretty hard to answer no to that, though I suppose if this was a question about the death penalty, some people might feel inclined to answer 'no'. Kind of a silly question, but I'll bite and answer 'yes'.

2. Do you agree that it is not the government's place to support ending life?

Very leading question. On the front he asked for input, but he's clearly providing the answer here. However, since the government can send us to war, and former General Rick Hillier claimed it was our military's job to "kill people" I'm not sure what he's looking for.

Although support ending life could also be an abortion issue, so I suppose I'll have to abstain.

3. Should a physician be forced to perform procedures against his belief?

Again, this sounds more like the abortion debate. Maurice Vellacott has used this approach, as have several others. I briefly read through the bill, and could not find anywhere suggesting that physicians would be forced to euthanize. It only stipulates that a physician must perform the procedure, meaning not your mailman. I also take issue with the use of 'his' when referring to the doctor. SB 'his' or 'her'.

That might sound picky but if we're planting seeds here ....

4. Is the government within it's rights to stop someone from committing suicide?

Boy, you're putting quite a burden on the government. Anyone is within their rights and duty bound to stop a suicide. We don't expect our government to run around policing everyone. But we're discussing euthanasia for terminally ill patients who are in severe pain.

I thought it was quite noble of Steven Fletcher to write an op-ed piece on the subject, and he brought up some very valid points. As someone who was on the brink of death, he knows what the tipping point can be. He abstained from the vote.

And yes life should always be the first choice, but if you've ever seen the suffering of a cancer patient, prolonging their life is often just cruel and selfish.

A topic this important cannot be thrown together on a mail out and expect a valid response. This was clearly just another Karl Rove push poll, aimed to score points, and not seek opinion.

In defense of Mr. Uppal, I have been keeping a record of these, and his is not the worst. I may even put them together in a book. They are not only a waste of our money, but they are an insult to our intelligence.