One of the favorite mantras of the Conservative party is that Justin Trudeau lacks meaningful experience and is not up to the job of being Prime Minister.

That's a serious charge and one well worth investigating.

Mr. Trudeau has a B.A. and a B.Ed. and worked for a nine years as a teacher. The Conservatives for some reason think that isn't much and especially like to point out he was a 'drama' teacher though that was only one area he taught. In addition to teaching drama, Mr. Trudeau also acted professionally (maybe his success as a professional artist galls the wannabe rock star in Mr. Harper).

In addition to these credentials, Mr. Trudeau studied engineering and began (but didn't finish) an M.A. in environmental geography. He served as chairman of the Board of Katimavik, running a multi-million dollar organization with roughly 900 employees at its peak. And, of course, he grew up in 24 Sussex Drive, travelled broadly in Canada and internationally and learned politics at his father's knee.

He was 37 when, in 2008, he was elected an MP. Five years later he became leader of his party.

Well, not exactly an overwhelming resume but not meagre either.

Let's consider the alternative.

Stephen Harper, born and raised in Toronto before moving to Alberta at age 17, has a M.A. in Economics from the University of Calgary, as we are frequently reminded. An M.A. does not an 'economist' make — especially since he never worked in the field. Indeed, an M.A. as a terminal degree doesn't quite make you anything. I should know, I have one myself.

Mr. Harper has worked in the private sector. He spent a brief time working for Imperial Oil, first as a mail clerk and then as a computer technician. In 1987 (age 28), he became policy chief for the fledgling Reform Party. At age 30, having lost the 1988 election as a Reform candidate, he moved to Ottawa to be the policy advisor to the first Reform MP, Deb Grey. There he stayed, until the election of 1993 when he was elected for the first time to the House of Commons at the age of 34. Four years later, after a policy dispute with leader, Preston Manning, Harper sort of left politics to become head of the National Citizens' Coalition, a right-wing lobby group. This was certainly his biggest job (though how big is uncertain — the NCC is highly secretive about their membership or staffing; their stated budget of $2.8 million would suggest a staff of 25-35) prior to his return to Parliament as leader of the new Conservative party in a by-election in 2002. He was now Leader of the Opposition. To this point in his life, he had never ventured outside Canada or the United States. Less than 4 years later he became Prime Minister.

Well, not exactly an overwhelming resume either — but apparently enough for the Conservative party.

But what about bench strength. Liberal bench strength is hard to judge — we have no idea who will ultimately get elected or join Cabinet if Trudeau forms a government. The current caucus includes both long-time political members (that is those who spent more time on Parliament Hill than off) but also a fair smattering of people with strong and varied non-political resumes.

The same thing can be said for the Harper cabinet.

The picture is slightly different when we look at the front bench — those half a dozen Ministers who seem to be the most significant in the current government and who will be leading candidates to replace him when he goes.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs) has played a prominent role in all Harper governments, holding major Cabinet posts and often being a primary government spokesman in the House of Commons.

John Baird was elected as an MPP in Ontario in 1995 at the age of 26. Prior to that he worked as a political staffer at Queen's Park. He was a Minister in the Mike Harris government before transitioning to federal politics. While I personally don't denigrate the job of politician (I'll blog about that some other time), there are those who might say: He never had a real job.

Jason Kenny (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism), a highly successful political operative who has wooed many new Canadians to the Conservative banner, actually started his political career working for the Saskatchewan Liberal party as executive assistant to Ralph Goodale. That apparently didn't suit him and at age 21 he started working for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, becoming its President a year later. The CTF is another secretive right wing lobby group with an indeterminate base of support. Officially it only has five members. Mr. Kenney studied philosophy at a Jesuit university in California but did not finish his degree. He was elected as a Reform MP in 1997 at age 29 and has been in Ottawa ever since. Sorry: He never had a real job.

Tony Clement (Treasury Board) has a law degree and actually practiced law for four years, though he seemed more occupied with organizing for the Progressive Conservative party in Ontario (he became party president in 1990 at age 29). Two years later, after an unsuccessful run for Toronto City Council, he became a senior advisor to PC leader and Premier Mike Harris. Elected as an MPP in 1995 at age 34, he served in Cabinet in a number of portfolios. He was defeated in 2003 and spent almost three years out of politics (if you don't count his unsuccessful bid to become the leader of the united Conservative party) working as a lawyer and small business person. In 2006 he was elected as part of the first Harper government. Okay: He did have a real job but didn't seem to take it very seriously.

Similar things can be said about the career of Peter McKay (Minister of Defence). He spent six years as a lawyer, including working as a crown prosecutor in Nova Scotia, before being elected to the House of Commons at age 32, taking over the seat previously held by his father and Mulroney Cabinet Minister, Elmer McKay.

Rob Nicholson (Justice) has been in the House of Commons longer than any of them — elected at age 32 in 1984, after working for a few years as a lawyer. He did return to the field of law after his defeat in the elector slaughter of 1993 but was back for more in 1997.

Both of them did have real jobs — though the job they had was exactly what is traditionally thought of as 'prep school for politics.'

Not all of the prominent Ministers in the Harper government are quite this callow. The late Jim Flaherty, didn't enter politics until age 46 after more than 20 years as a successful lawyer and partner in a significant firm.

His successor, Joe Oliver, had a solid if not spectacular career as an investment banker (though he spent part of that as a lobbyist for investment bankers) before entering politics in his sixties. I'm not terribly impressed with Mr. Oliver (having seen him perform in committee) but he certainly had a significant life outside politics.

There are others who have had solid to spectacular careers away from Ottawa — Lisa Raitt, Chris Alexander and to a lesser extent, Rona Ambrose — but none of them are front line players (yet).

On the other hand, we have James Moore (Industry). While by all accounts a bright guy (he too has an MA — obtained in 2011 while in office), Mr. Moore may have the least experience of them all. He spent a couple of years after university as a political staffer for the Reform party and as a radio talk show host, before being elected at age 24 in 2000. He's been in Ottawa ever since. Once again: never had a real job.

For reference:

Paul Martin, son of a long serving politician, did not himself seek public office until he was 45 after a long and successful career as a businessman. He also had a law degree.

Jean Chretien was a lawyer who was first elected to the House of Commons at the age of 29. He served there (occupying almost every senior Cabinet position) until 1986 after losing the Liberal leadership to John Turner (and government to Brian Mulroney). He left Ottawa if not politics and spent 4 years in the private sector as a lawyer and member of a number of corporate boards. Chretien's career was a significantly richer than Harper's (who has never held a Cabinet post except PM) but was still mostly political.

Brian Mulroney was politically active from his University days as a supporter of John Diefenbaker and later opponent of Joe Clark. Still, he had a long career as a lawyer and a business executive before becoming an MP in 1983 at age 44 (in the seat now held by Peter McKay). Oddly enough, long before he had tested the waters with the electorate he ran for leadership of the PC party — in a contest eventually won by Joe Clark.

Prime Ministers before this group had private careers ranging from thin (Clark) to extensive (Trudeau).

In conclusion, is Justin Trudeau too inexperienced to become Prime Minister? He certainly has a resume as good as or better than the current one did when he took office. Will he be a good PM? Only the electorate and time can answer that question.

In a fit of madness, I agreed to participate in a 'Blog Hop,' but only because I was asked by Marie Bilodeau, my good friend and fellow member of the East Block Irregulars. Anyone who knows Marie can attest to the fact that she is irresistible — the combination of infectious laugh and death threats does the trick.

Marie had already subverted the perfectly reasonable questions she had been given and proposed quite different ones for me to answer.

 Quote from Marie:

Sooooo, I received four questions, which I think are boring. They are as follows:

1) What am I working on right now?

2) How does my work differ from others of its genre?

3) Why do I write what I do?

4) How does my writing process work?

I personally would prefer hearing from you how you'd answer THESE questions:

1. What research would you conduct to write a scene in which squirrels become the sole proprietors of the Febreeze Empire?

2. If you could conjure one mythical creature to finish a book for you, which one would get to select the ending and why?

3. Bigfoot sex. Discuss.

4. What would you need to do to become the most prolific writer ever (can include crimes, questionable science and lack of morality).

Of course, I've been a subversive longer than Marie has been alive and I will answer both sets of questions simultaneously.

1.      As it happens I was working on a story that involved squirrels taking over the Febreeze Empire. I captured several squirrels (Note: don't put red and black squirrels in the same cage — they don't get along) and provided them with very tiny bottles of furniture cleaning fluid. Their lack of an opposable thumb made it impossible for them to operate the squeeze levers so I had to rig up a kind of harness they could manipulate with their tails. Disaster ensued. I've decided to switch to a series of mystery novels set in Paris between the wars. It requires more research but it is like to be a lot more fun.

2.      Anyone who has read my fiction knows that I have conjured up several mythical creatures — mostly modern myths such as HAL from the movie 2001 — to finish my books. How else would I know what the inside of a computer's mind looked like? And without the spirit of Sam Spade how could I merge the noir mystery and SF cyberpunk genres?

3.      I write what I do because I am obsessed with Bigfoot sex. Of course, they have to be consenting Bigfeet. {BIGFOOTS} Yeah, yeah, go back to the bedroom...

4.      My writing process involves recruiting thousands of unpaid chimpanzee interns working on thousands of keyboards. Now you know how I wrote a novel in Three Days.

I was supposed to recruit three people for the next round but when your condo is filled with warring squirrels, mythical creatures, fornicating Bigfeet {BIGFOOTS} chimpanzees, time is at a premium. It's a wonder I got this done on the day assigned.

Matt Moore and Geoff Gander were also roped into this effort. Go check them out.

In the interest of full disclosure, I currently work as a policy advisor to the Senator for the Northwest Territories, who, until a week or so ago, was a member of the Liberal Caucus. He is happy to sit as an independent Liberal in the hopes of having a less partisan experience.

I also was, for many years, an active member of the NDP and ran for them federally in 1979 and 1980. I've never been a Conservative though I did vote for Joe Clark once, while living in Calgary.

I've been working for the Senator since 2001 and have seen a lot of Senators come and go, not to mention a few Prime Ministers and party leaders.

Reforming the Senate was a priority of the Reform party — in fact the Triple-E Senate was one of the defining characteristics of that party. The Canadian Alliance continued to support it and it is the avowed policy of the new Conservative Party — though they focus on a single-E, elected.

A Bill to limit the terms of Senators and create a consultative electoral system (consultative because the Prime Minister remains constitutionally empowered to appoint Senators) was introduced as early as 2006. At the time the Liberals and NDP (not to mention various experts and the Department of Justice) suggested that the government should test the constitutionality of such proposals through a Supreme Court reference.

The government demurred and the Conservative party frequently claimed that the opposition was preventing them from passing the Bill into law. The fact is: the opposition does not determine when a Bill will be debated; the government does. For five years, various iterations of the Bill sat on the order paper — un-debated because the government refused to proceed to second reading.

Why? The cynical explanation is, unfortunately, also the most logical. Senate Reform — and the supposed opposition of other parties — was a tremendous fundraising tool for the party. Over time, Stephen Harper eventually acknowledged there as a need for more Conservative Senators (mostly to make the Chamber operate properly — the Liberal majority in the Senate blocked no government bills, though it did amend a fair number, usually for the better. They did find other ways to annoy the PM. Once he got the hang of it, Harper appointed more Senators than any previous prime minister, including, as we well know, Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin.

Perhaps, if he had used a blue ribbon panel to nominate Senators instead of his own poor judgement, the recent Senate scandal might not have happened — or been limited to former Liberal Mac Harb. I'm sure Mr. Harper would have enjoyed that.

Then we had the 2011 election and Harper's first majority. Passing Senate legislation should have been a piece of cake; he's used his majority to ram through far more contentious or outrageous legislation. But suddenly Mr. Harper was converted into a Supreme Court fan (remember he always claimed the courts were part of the opposition). Suddenly, he decided that a Senate reference was just the thing. It effectively delayed having to do anything (more fundraising opportunities) and gave him the out he was looking for — he can blame the Court when it quite rightly tells him he needs a constitutional amendment to make the changes he's proposing. Will he enter the lion's den of federal-provincial negotiations? Not likely, he won't meet with the Premiers at the best of times; I doubt if he has much stomach for the sausage factory of constitution making.

Whatever happened to the Conservatives forceful assertion that Senate Reform could be accomplished without an amendment to the Canada Act? Like all magical thinking it disappeared in the face of reality.

That brings us to the magical thinking of the NDP. They want to abolish the Senate. I've heard two approaches broached. The first is naive; the second silly.

The standard argument accepts that a constitutional amendment is necessary — though they insist that it will only require seven provinces with 50% of the population, when it is almost certain to require unanimous consent (the Supreme Court may prove me wrong but I doubt it). They argue that if they form a government they will have a mandate (with at most 40% of the vote) to abolish the Senate. Provinces would recognize the moral imperative and immediately sign on to the process without demanding other more difficult changes. Were they asleep during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord processes?

A 7/50 agreement will be difficult — only Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba currently support abolition. It is doubtful if any of the Atlantic Provinces would agree — it would impact their already diminished influence in Ottawa and, in the case of PEI, would actually reduce the number of MPs they have. As for Quebec, they are already suing the Conservative government over their more limited changes.

More magical thinking with respect to the Senate. It will be abolished because we wish it to be. Go ahead — close your eyes and click your heels together and see what happens.

At least that approach is grounded in some sort of reality. The other plan is simply crazy. Under this plan, the Prime Minister would cease to appoint Senators. When their numbers drop below 15, the Senate (under their rules, which they could amend), a quorum would no longer be possible and the Senate would, in effect, cease to exist. Never mind this would take until 2030 and require the NDP to be in power for 15 consecutive years (or persuade other parties to agree to their plan), what about the constitutional requirement to have all legislation passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate?

No worries: the Governor General would never refuse to give Royal Assent to an bill passed by the peoples' representatives. Maybe, maybe not — I suppose an NDP PM could appoint a compliant a Vice-Regal representative.

The courts are a more difficult proposition. Judges are required to uphold the constitution and would be hard pressed to agree to recognize laws that break the supreme law of the land. At the very least, enterprising defense lawyers would use constitutional arguments to defend any client charged under such laws. It could tie up the civil and criminal justice system for years.

As for me, I do believe in Senate Reform. An elected Senate is only appropriate in a modern democracy. However, every country with two houses (there are over 60 including every single Federal state) uses a different method of (s)election for the two houses. Different terms, different voting systems, and so on. In Australia, they use preferential ballots for MPs and proportional representation for the Senate; as a result the two houses have quite different compositions. Most assign different powers or responsibilities as well.

[NOTE: Abolitionists often point to New Zealand and, more recently, Ireland as places that abolished their Senates. Neither is a federation with the need to represent provinces or regions.]

This kind of reform will require a 7/50 constitutional amendment and maybe Canadian politicians will someday have the courage to enter that arena again (polls suggest Canadian citizens want them to).

In the meantime, what about Mr. Trudeau's proposal? It is more show than substance, no doubt, but it is not without substance either. A more non-partisan Senate where groups of independent Senators sit in loose caucuses of the like-minded could be quite effective as a house of second sober thought or legislative revision. The traditions of the Senate make it extremely unlikely they would oppose the will of an elected government — as long as they weren't elected themselves. Over time — if future appointments were made through a process similar to the Order of Canada or, for that matter, the Supreme Court — the Senate might become quite non-partisan and more acceptable to the public.

And that might make actual constitutional reform more likely. Not quite magical thinking on my part — maybe just wishful thinking.

Well, another year has slipped by and this poor old blog has been neglected once again. True I have been busy with the Bundoran Press Blog, not to mention Bundoran Press itself.  But that's my other life.

Writing has taken a bit of a backseat, too, though I did finish another Paris mystery novel -- By Dawn's Early Light -- in April and continue to hope to sell the first in the series in the coming year. More about that later.

I had three short stories appear in 2013 -- one co-written with my wife, Elizabeth Westbrook. You can find those listed elsewhere on the web-site. Our only other collaboration, a humorous piece that has been rendered obsolete by history, is available as a free download.

I won the Aurora Award for editing "Blood and Water," and was lucky enough to present Robert J. Sawyer with his Lifetime Achievement Award at the same ceremony. I attend 5 SF conventions -- next year probably only 4.

In addition to the vast number of submissions I read for Bundoran Press, I averaged a book every two weeks for a total of 26. My top five:
Neil Gaiman: The Ocean at the End of the Lane
Nickolas Butler: Shotgun Lovesongs
Willow Wilson: Alif the Unseen
Rex Stout: The Red Box
Robert J. Sawyer: Red Planet Blues

My favorite movies seen this year: Gravity; The World's End; Quartet; Silver Linings Playbook and Crazy Stupid Love (though The Hobbit, Star Trek into Darkness and Lincoln deserve mention)

I exercised less, drank too much, gained weight but generally became a better person -- one out of four ain't bad.

So, what about resolutions>

First, I will blog here once a month at a minimum. Hopefully I'll have something to say.
Second, I will carve out 5 hours every week for my own writing. My priorities: re-writes of By Dawn's Early Light, 6 new short stories and a good start on the 3rd Paris mystery.
Third, I will find a publisher and/or agent for In the Shadow of Verseilles.
Fourth, I will exercise more, drink less, lose weight and become an even better person.
Fifth, I will do something utterly surprising.

Check in at the end of the month to see how I'm doing.

The last eight months have -- without doubt -- been some of the busiest of my life. In addition to my day job providing policy analysis and advice to Senator Nick Sibbeston, I've also become a publisher, purchasing Bundoran Press from Virginia O'Dine. (Read about how that happened here.) While it has been great fun editing other people's work, it means I no longer have a publisher for my own science fiction. 

Before you weep too many tears for me, I should let you know that lately I've been focusing on historical mysteries. The first in this series -- set in Paris after World War I -- is now being considered by a major publisher, that is, they asked for the whole book and haven't rejected it yet. The second I finished on April 1 and will soon delve into re-writes. And I have had two SF short stories published this year and am working on several more right now.

Add in my freelance work editing a memoir and perhaps you'll understand why I haven't been blogging much lately (except as a publisher). Can't promise I'll do much better in the coming months but I will try.  If you feel a need to hear what I have to say, I will be sharing a booth with Ryan McFadden at Word on the Street in Toronto on September 22nd. I'll also be Editor Guest of Honour at Can-Con in Ottawa this October.

Just a quick note to tell you about my schedule at Can-Con. Hayden Trenholm, Marie Bilodeau, Derek Künsken.  

Fri Aug 31 1:30:pm -- 3:00:pm

Transhumanism: Where Do We- as Homo Sapiens Go From Here?

Crystal C

Western society is rapidly moving toward a time when many dreams of the transhumanism movement, such as advanced genetic engineering, prosthetics, organ/neuro-implants, and age retardation/reversal will become reality. The question is how society - including speculative fiction writers - will respond to this evolutionary change in human beings.

Brad Aiken Edward R. Rosick Hayden Trenholm James L. Cambias Jonathan Stars

Fri Aug 31 6:00:pm -- 7:30:pm

Ethics of the Near Future

Crystal C

Ethics is now being expanded to cover social responsibility (earlier CSR) and governance. Besides it is becoming more global, helped by modern communications. What will be the end result, and how will that affect politics and literature?

Hayden Trenholm Jonathan Stars Lisa C Freitag Tad Daley Tore Audun Hoie

Sat Sep 1 12:00:pm -- 1:30:pm

Climate Change and Society

Crystal B

Discussion of anticipated impacts of climate change: impacts to human health, lifestyles, national security, disaster preparedness, and critical sectors such as energy and food production. Will the changes impact all segments of society equally?

Ben Bova Doug Fratz Hayden Trenholm Jeffrey Liss Ramez Naam

Sun Sep 2 3:00:pm -- 4:30:pm

What Energy Sources Are Sustainable?

Crystal A

Scientific experts discuss the options for future energy, and the pluses and minuses of each.

Corry L. Lee Doug Fratz Hayden Trenholm Howard Davidson Ramez Naam