Statement by Brad Wall on Michael Ignatieff

I am deeply troubled by Mr. Ignatieff’s assertion that he may choose to overturn the democratic result of the federal election.

While I understand that the scenario spelled out by Mr. Ignatieff is within the conventions of our Parliamentary tradition, the last thing our country and our still fragile economic recovery need right now is a period of instability caused by a constitutional dispute over who should be the government.

Morever, Canada is poised to solidify its position as an economic leader in a world that needs the food security and the energy security we can provide.  How can we take full advantage of this reality if we are distracted by interminable national political machinations and constitutional wrangling?

The party that wins the most seats on May 2 should be recognized as the government, period.  If that were to be the Liberals, I would join with other Canadians in accepting this result and recognizing Mr. Ignatieff as our next Prime Minister.  However, if the Conservatives win the most seats but come up short of a majority, I would expect Mr. Ignatieff and his party to accept that result.

The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians. Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.

Ironically, this election was caused by a confidence vote over “contempt for Parliament.”  I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election.

Getting to the fundamentals

If greed is universal, we can break down our approach in two distinct categories.

On the left, we look at relative prosperity, see the glass as too full, and take from others.

On the right, we look at our own prosperity, see the glass as half full, and make for others.

On the left we have the redistribution of wealth as we look to others and covet.

On the right we have the production of wealth as we look to others to please.

If helping is universal, we can break down our approach in two distinct categories.

On the left, socialism is charity without consent.

On the right, philanthropy is charity without coercion.

Danielle Smith endorses federal Conservative majority government

I heard this morning that Alberta Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith was endorsing Stephen Harper so I wanted to confirm.

20110409-111144.jpg

Confirmed the old-fashioned way… via SMS!

This is an interesting move for Smith. How does the political capital equation add up for this move?

Simple…

There aren’t many (if any) federal Liberals/NDPers in her camp and if there are, the trade-off is bigger. Stelmach is conflicted as Premier and his office won’t endorse a candidate because the Premier must work with the Feds no matter who is elected. But many Albertans are ardent federal Conservative supporters and view their current provincial government as a wishy-washy version of an ideal. Smith is suggesting to her fellow Albertans indirectly by her endorsement that the real conservative alternative is her as Premier and her party as government.