The Steel City Grit (in exile)

Manifesto in defence of liberalism and federalism in Quebec

2007-10-11T20:29:00.000-07:00

A manifesto in defence of liberalism and federalism in Quebec
Globe and Mail web-exclusive commentary
October 11

The following comes from grassroots liberals and federalists for the promotion of liberal and federalist values in Quebec:

The current political situation is of grave concern to Quebeckers who share liberal and federalist values. The resounding defeat of the federal Liberal Party in the Sept. 17 by-elections and the Quebec Liberal Party's relegation to the bottom of the polls demonstrates not only that these parties are politically weak, but that the very existence of political liberalism and a resolutely federalist vision are threatened in the province.

As federalists and full-fledged Quebeckers, liberals (both independent and card-carrying) refuse to be defeated by this state of affairs; we are determined to overcome it. We take this position because of our attachment to liberalism — a political ideal based on the primacy of individual freedom; on peaceful and democratic changes in political, social and economic institutions; and on commitment to the protection of personal rights and civil liberties.

A liberal strain certainly runs through Quebec society. This movement has fought for modern ideas, social progress and economic development. It has relentlessly upheld the rights and freedoms of every individual. It has courageously promoted a spirit of tolerance, understanding and openness to the entire world, as well as Quebeckers' active participation in the building of Canada. The champions of the liberal cause have always distinguished themselves by their constructive spirit, their creative audacity, their tenacious defence of free thought and speech, their ceaseless concern for social equity. And among the most dearly held liberal beliefs is that each member of society must have access to opportunities essential to his or her fulfilment as an individual.

In contrast to ideologues who were focused on the past and insisted on isolating Quebec from the rest of the world, the liberal movement fashioned Quebec's modern identity. To Lionel Groulx's doleful cry of Notre maître le passé (Our master, the past), the liberal tendency responded with a resonant Notre maître l'avenir (Our master, the future) — an ideal proclaimed in 1944 by Liberal premier Adélard Godbout, the man who founded Hydro-Quebec, recognized women's voting rights and was the architect of free and mandatory education in the province.
Steadfastly devoted to the promotion of the French language and culture, the liberal tendency identifies with (and has always identified with) the words of the great liberal thinker and eminent forerunner of the Quiet Revolution, Jean-Charles Harvey: "French has a chance of survival only if it becomes the synonym of audacity, culture, civilization and liberty." Quebec's liberals cling to this idea more than ever at the turn of a 21st century characterized by globalization. In no way do we fear for the survival of Quebec's linguistic identity or culture.

Unlike those who constantly sound alarms about the so-called anglophone or immigrant menace, we fully trust that Quebeckers have the capacity to take their language and culture into the future.

The issues that now concern the planet concern us too. Liberalism embraces multilateralism. Great figures such as Lester Pearson and Lloyd Axworthy have forged Canada's formidable reputation in the world and advanced causes we hold dear, such as human security.
The liberal movement is alive and well in Quebec. We are proud to be part of it. Many of our fellow citizens share these ideals and values, but the precarious situation of liberal-minded parties threatens to weaken the voice of political liberalism — a voice that has contributed so much to the creation of modern Quebec, that has proclaimed ideals and values worth defending now more than ever.

This is why we are asking all Quebec's liberals to reassert their vision with boldness and self-confidence. Let us remain firmly committed to our convictions and ideas, but in doing so, let us always be open to adapting them to the challenges of today and tomorrow. So, let's roll up our sleeves! As our predecessors have proven throughout history, abdication in the face of difficulty and adversity is not a liberal trait. We pledge to keep that very same spirit alive, for the movement must strengthen its capacity to build a confident Quebec, one that can take its proper place in Canada and the rest of the world.

More than 350 Quebeckers have signed on to this manifesto, including: Jennifer Crane, public-affairs consultant, Pointe-Claire; Mary Damianakis, professional mediator, Baie d'Urfé; Stéphane Desjardins, pulp and paper worker, St-Jérôme; Jean-Pierre Dufault, agricultural worker, Brôme; Nathalie Goguen, journalist, Waterville; Catherine Grégoire, student, Quebec City, Daniel Laprès, freelance writer, Montréal; Philippe Legault, student, Laval; David Simard, master's student in political science (UQAM), Montréal; and Francis Tourigny, lawyer, Montréal.

---------------------------------------------
If you doubt that now is a time for rallying, take a look at this article from the same Globe. It may be fortunate for us that Gilles Duceppe is making liberalism's alternative very clear.

Gun crime in schools? Boys will be boys

2007-10-07T12:57:00.000-07:00

John Tory has taken advantage of a recent spike in school violence to rail against the McGuinty government:

“Dalton McGuinty has been missing in action for years when it comes to dealing with violent youth-related crime... A real leader would be doing everything he could to starve these gangs of new recruits and keep the most dangerous offenders off the streets."

His star recruit candidate Randy Hillier, however, sees things rather differently:

"...Political correctness and authoritarian rule bring the greatest harm and danger to children…Boys must be docile and learn to be passive, as masculine behaviour is outlawed and re-named 'bullying.'" (courtesy of apply liberally)

In other words, we shouldn't concern ourselves with young offenders. We should get off their backs. Because boys will be boys.

2007-09-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

Boy - that Jamie Caroll. How out-of-touch can one be? I thought everyone knew that in this country - particularly when it comes to representation - there is a racial-cultural hierarchy. English and French need to be represented by English and French. The rest are allowed to enjoy the ride.

The McRoberts-Frulla-Duddle trifecta (as I conceive it) must be flaming mad. Oh - and so
they are.

John Tory meets his star candidate

2007-09-25T18:59:00.000-07:00

CBC Radio, earlier this afternoon.

(Contextually, Tory has promised open war on Aboriginal land-claims protesters. He was talked down from symbollically burning the Ipperwash Report at a news conference, but remains steadily intent upon creating a race crisis in Ontario. Or... at least one.)

CBC HOST: Let's go to Frontenac County. John is on the line. Hi John.

CALLER: Well, John, I've got this issue. You've got Randy Hillier running here in LFL&A [Lanark-Frontenac- Lennox and Addington] and when he was head of the LLA and that's the Lanark Landowners Association for the rest of the province. He closed down the 401 three times. Once in London, once in Thousand Islands then the QEW when he did his tractor day to Queen's Park there. He gets invited to be candidate for the PC party, Shawn Brant does it once and he's in jail for two months without bail. And I see a degree of hypocrisy there. One rule for the white guy and one rule for the natives. Can you explain that?

JOHN TORY: I, I, I could do my best because I could tell you this much.

CALLER: Without the double-speak.

JOHN TORY: There won't be any double-speak. When Mr. Hillier was the head of the landowners and I was the leader of the PC Party and he had expressed no interest or had not approached us about being a candidate. I can tell you that I telephoned him before his first protest at which time he said he was going to block the highway and encouraged him not to do that, urged him not to do that. I said, look you can have the same protest by the side of the highway and in fact you'll see more people because they'll go by you as opposed to blocking the highway off. And I have said consistently, when it comes to what I've said about the rule of law for people who are obstructing highways or anything else, the law should apply to everyone. And I specifically mentioned the day I first took that position and laid out one rule of law for everybody that it applied to groups of farmers. I mentioned that. Or groups of environmentalists. Or groups of Aboriginal people. And so I've been very very consistent in that and Mr. Hillier would tell you that, I've phoned him and I've communicated with him any time he was going to do any protest of that kind and said don't do that there are other ways to protest without blockading highways. With respect to how he became the candidate, in our Party, the PC party, the candidates are elected democratically at the riding level. So Mr. Hiller came forward and put his name in and I think there were three or four candidates who ran for the nomination and he won.

CALLER: You don't vet these people at all.

JOHN TORY: I'll be very truthful with you about that. No double-speak. They’re all vetted to see if there is anything in their background in terms of brushes with the law or any of those kinds of things that would disqualify them form being a candidate it's done before the nomination process so that you don't, it's not too late and we looked at his entire background and I can tell you this man has had no brushes with the law.

CALLER: Whoa, back up. Back up. He's been incarcerated before.

JOHN TORY: Look at that, if that is true, I'm not familiar with that but I mean I can tell you there was a check on his background. What was he incarcerated for?

CALLER: I believe in the Cornwall incident.

JOHN TORY: Well, that's news to me.

CBC HOST: I'm just going to intervene here. We do want to get to some other callers as well. Thank you John for your inquiry.

a worthwhile evaluation of the debate

2007-09-23T10:21:00.000-07:00

Here is another example of why Ian Urquart is a journalist. He doesn't evaluate who 'won' the debate like it's a sporting event (and inevitably concluding that - like every other debate - "no knockout blow was landed"). He doesn't express amazement that the incumbent premier was "put on the defensive" by his opposition, or that that same premier was "still standing" by the end. He doesn't congratulate John Tory for "personalizing" his positions by ignoring facts/trends and citing individuals he met who had had a raw deal.

He actually takes a look at what was said.

It's just good journalism for a change. Because this, on the other hand, is complete nonsense written around a neat picture.

John Tory will clean your house

2007-09-12T16:52:00.000-07:00

The Toronto Star asks the leaders of each major party to note their greatest achievements in politics.

McGuinty: saving public eduction. Fine.
Hampton: keeping Ontario Hydro public. Whatever.

But John Tory, sweaty with integrity, knocks it out of the park:

"Helping people."

Specifically, a woman with a messy house.
[On a purely personal level, he smacks a bit of Jack Layton, doesn't he?]

In fairness, he notes that he has only been in political life for "3 or 4 years" (unfortunately a bold-faced lie.)

Also, he doesn't intend to become a "career politician." In that, I think he's going to be tremendously successful.

Is this a Premier?

2007-09-10T16:11:00.000-07:00

Overheard today some political commentators expressing surprise at John Tory's seeming lack of campaign instincts. Certainly there have been gaffes, both big (creationism in the classroom) and small (the linguistic innovation hereby dubbed Sprench).

[Come to think of it, the two cancel eachother out in some ways. If we are all to learn in separate ethnic enclaves, at least we can share in one mega amalgum language.]

Yes, there have been mistakes - but who's surprised? How quickly we forget Canada's first introduction to Mr. Integrity and Leadership. He was, of course, defending the use of that picture the right. In fact, he was just about the only person in the hallowed federal PC class of '93 who didn't feel any apology was necessary.

[Imagine if Kim Campbell had taken his advice and stood firm? What a disaster that election could've been.]

To paraphrase, is this a Premier?

Vacuousity of the Ontario NDP

2007-09-10T11:30:00.000-07:00

Howard Hampton predictably kicks off his campaign in Hamilton today, but I've got my hands full with the shrill Dippers in and around my new Toronto abode. There's a lot wrong with the Ontario NDP, but let's start with the petty stuff:

It is deeply embarrassing the way that a number of Dippers have endeavoured to make the MPP wage hike a defining issue of the new campaign. This intention is made pretty clear in any campaign speech I've heard so far. How stupid do they think Ontarians are?

On a practical level, the hike amounted to about $230 000. This is a blip in the finance of Canada’s biggest province. Single school playgrounds received more.

Then there are the principled implications. An independent body instructed the government that MPPs were underpaid, comparative to other legislators in the country. The government accepted the pay raise suggested to them.

And the NDP cries that there has been some ethical violation? Funny that – ‘equal work for equal pay’ sounds to me like an important principle of the labour movement. In fact - consciously or not - the NDP has adopted exactly the line that management often uses in disputes with unions: “a pay raise is unacceptable, because someone somewhere is paid less than you!”

To top it all, the silk-stocking dilettantes make a showy public display of donating their extra money to charity. I vaguely recall something in the Bible about that... As long as they don’t expect any rewards in heaven. [Whoops! - here I go scripting John Tory's political defence for him.]

This failed stab at populism only demonstrates how out of touch the NDP really is. I didn't get a 22% raise in wage. I would've liked one. But Ontarians face real problems. Let’s talk about those.

Liberals: sharpen religious schools message

2007-09-06T20:03:00.000-07:00

Further to my previous post, I just caught Dalton McGuinty on The Agenda. While generally quite good, he did evade answering directly why Catholics deserve publicly-funded separate schools while others do not. Steve Paikin pressed him on the issue, and not unfairly.

There's no reason to duck this question. If I were to direct the Premier's message, I would suggest that we be very plain. The McGuinty government wasn't the first to fund Catholic schools, and doesn't necessarily love it, but it is exceptionally difficult to take the well-established system apart without a major costs to current students and teachers. The question is what direction we ought to be moving, and the Liberal direction is towards an inclusive, pluralistic, wholly-public system.

Not a threat on the existing Catholic schools system, but a reasonable response.

don't call it a comeback, (plus public funding for illiberal institutions!)

2007-09-06T19:16:00.000-07:00

I'm now exiled in the Big Smoke, at least for a little while. Back to blogging after a long long hiatus, because it's election season and the getting's good.

First things first, the justifiably-deplored religious schools strategy of the Tories.

A year ago almost exactly, Janice Stein addressed similar issues in a dynamite article for the Literary Review. She asks the appropriate questions, of state-religion relationships already in place:

Women in Canada are guaranteed equal treatment and an equal voice in the determination of our shared vision of the common good. We respect rights and we respect diversity, but at times the two compete. How do we mediate these disputes? What to do about private religious schools, for example, that meet government criteria by teaching the official curriculum but segregate women in separate classrooms? Or segregate women in religious worship?...

These religious institutions that systemically discriminate against women often have legal standing and are therefore recognized, at least implicitly, by governments. How can we in Canada, in the name of religious freedom, continue furtively and silently to sanction this kind of discrimination?

She warns about the inadvertent effects of the sort of "shallow multiculturalism" which Tory espouses:

...one community does not necessarily learn about another and then multiculturalism can have perverse effects. It can strengthen the boundaries around each community and, in so doing, help to seal one community off from another. A Home Office report, issued in England after riots broke out in three northern industrial towns in 2001, found “separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks,” producing living arrangements that “do not seem to touch at any point.” Trevor Philips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, warned recently that much of Britain was “sleepwalking its way toward segregation.”

Liberals: Participate in National Day of Action

2007-06-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

The National Day of Action (June 29) draws nearer, and I want to encourage Liberals to get involved. This is an opportunity for Natives and non-Natives to stand together and register our discontent.

Canadians for Kelowna is organizing an event in Downtown Hamilton at Gore Park. It will be a nonpartisan affair, but I think it would be great if we get a solid Liberal showing. There is no excuse not to be on the frontline on this issue. More information about the event is available here. I'll post more as more details are deterimed.

Please come out! All are welcome.

Harper's QP gaffe

2007-05-31T15:46:00.000-07:00

I look forward to this afternoon's hansard record to appearing online. It will include a stunning punchline delivered by our Prime Minister, which I can only now transcribe from memory. In response to a Dion question about Defence Minister O'Conner's penchant for... well.. lies, Harper cried (approximately):

"The minister wore a uniform and served his country in the armed forces. Maybe when you do that we'll be interested to hear your opinion."

Bravo!, cried his colleagues. Raucous laughter squeezed out in the place of groans. Clapping all Conservative MPs could do not to slap their foreheads.

Ignatieff did manage to get let off a shot at the economist's personal service record. But the Liberals can be excused if they were caught flat-footed. This is quite a development. Afghanistan policy is open only to those parliamentarians who have personally served in the armed forces. This will be an intimate dialogue: 4%, or exactly 16 of the 399 MPs and senators, have served. O'Connor is the only member of cabinet with any.

This is not mean-spirited partisanship. It's just a really dopy, petty thing to say when you are getting beat. He was as shaken as I've ever seen him.

UPDATED:
The actual quote is:
"The minister of national defence is a veteran of the Canadian Forces. He has served this country courageously in uniform for 32 years. When the leader of the Opposition is able to stand in uniform and serve his country, then I'll care about his opinion of the performance of the minister of defence"

UPDATE (2):
A better treatment than mine from Macleans.

Massive developments at Caledonia and Ipperwash

2007-05-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

[Back from a very long hiatus, with none of my already fickle readership intact. Doesn't mean I can't talk to myself]

I'm compelled to post today because I want to emphasize that this is a big news day in the world of Aboriginal politics. First, the federal government announces a settlement offer with Six Nations. $125 million to lay to rest 4 of the 27 outstanding land claims, and end the reclamation at Caledonia. By my estimation, the specific claims targeted amount to approximately 39 000 acres. (I may be off here - I only know what I've read in the paper at this point, and the last claim identified in the Star could be one of a number of claims.)

Six Nations will probably not accept the offer. The protest has been about land and not money from the very beginning. Also, the land claim most pertinent to Caledonia is inexplicably left out. However, this is a hugely important development because of this simple admission on the part of federal negotiator Ron Doering:

"Canada has done an assessment and feels there was a breach of some lawful obligation."

The statement stands in stark contrast to previous federal positions:

“[Caledonia] isn’t a land claims matter. The actual root of the problem is not a land claim," for instance.

Or:

"Our position is that we have no outstanding responsibilities to Six Nations."

So what has changed? The 'assessment' is now complete? Well - it's pretty unlikely that the federal government knows anything now that it didn't know last February when the occupation began. These claims were researched for decades, and presented to the federal government between 1984 and 1992.

Instead, the feds have finally come to appreciate Six Nations resolve. They have grudgingly accepted that no other solution is forthcoming.

Imagine how much anguish - on the part of both Natives and non-Natives - would've been saved if the federal goverment had simply acted on what it knew was true, legal and just in the beginning.

I wish to make one more small point. All you conservative types who have argued so heartily with me over the last long months about how Six Nations land claims are bogus, make-believe, irresponsible: the actor you were trying to protect has capitulated. There's no debate left. You were wrong. Just wrong.

Meanwhile, in Forest, the long-awaited Ipperwash Report is released. Chief Justice Linden concludes that ex-Premier Harris did indeed dabble in racism. Absorb that, Ontario - especially in light of the current PC leader's shocking position on Caledonia. I think the strongest aspect of the report is that it recognizes that this really was never a policing issue.

I ought conclude with this important, nearly historic passage from the Report's Executive Summary:

"Building a better relationship with Aboriginal peoples requires that governments and citizens recognize that treaties with Aboriginal peoples are the foundation that allowed non-Aboriginal people to settle in Ontario and enjoy its bounty... These treaties are not, as some people believe, relics of the distant past. They are living agreements, and the understandings on which they are based continue to have the full force of law in Canada today." (emphasis added)

Unanimous Decision

2007-02-23T07:13:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court has ruled that security certificates violate some Charter rights. This was an easy decision, and it makes for very interesting times. I would've liked to have seen the Liberals take the lead on this one, but at least our path is clear from here.

The question is how might the government react to the ruling. The recent debate over the Anti-Terrorism Act suggests absolute intractibility. Harper has declared his willingness to take "any action necessary" to maintain Canada's post-911 national security regime. If he's serious, this could only mean the notwithstanding clause. This is still a relatively remote possibility, but the alternative is scuppering what has been the major definining effort of the past two weeks (i.e. 'strong' leadership on national security). Whether the security certificates were specifically debated or not, words will have to be eaten.

This could mean turning the tide of an argument we seem to be losing. Those who opined that our security regime doesn't violate the Charter were wrong outright. I wish that hadn't included so many Liberals, but alas. Our message now: strong leadership means standing up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

David Sweet Watch

2007-02-22T14:32:00.000-08:00

The ludicrous charade draws to an end (hopefully). David Sweet Watch is launched/revitalized. For those who don't know, Sweet is the Conservative MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale. He is a leader of the hard-line religious right. He is on a singular mission. He represents only those of whom he approves and this leaves a number of Canadian groups here in West Hamilton entirely in the cold. Where I come from this rules one out as a candidate for public office. However, through careful political silence he stole a riding which he shouldn't have had a hope at.

It is lovely to see concerned Hamiltonians taking matters into their own hands. It looks like there has been a lot of worthwhile effort on this. I plan on visiting the site early and often. I recommend the same. Marvel at what didn't make the news last election.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Elsewhere, Justin Trudeau announces that he will pursue the Liberal candidacy in Papineau. This is a legitimately steep challenge, and a great entry point. Pity - so many smarmy rank-and-filers were really looking forward to bellyaching about "the path of least resistance", not paying dues, etc.

Charest's autonomous regions

2007-02-20T09:45:00.000-08:00

Fine. Will Kahnasatake be invited? How about James Bay Cree country?

Tory gets his star candidate

2007-02-12T07:52:00.000-08:00

I commented many months ago about John Tory addressing the radical Ontario Landowners Association. He must have made a pretty strong case, as co-founder Randy Hillier has now elected to seek the Tory nomination of Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington. For the sake of review, Hillier's organization opposes any governmental encroachment. These include The Nutrient Management Act, Environmental Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Fish and Wildlife Act, environmental buffer zones annd drinking water regulations.

Here is the OLA's treatment of the Clean Water Act, for example:
"The perfect storm of injustice is tracking for, and is soon to converge over rural Ontario. Powered by the winds of deceptive environmentalism, and a rising tide of regulated fascism, the heavy squalls of social apathy approach, at the storms eye is Bill 43 "The clean water act." When the storm hits, pounding rains of tyranny will overcome the dykes and walls of common sense that surrounds and protects Canadians from injustice."

Hillier's own Lanark Landowners' Association decries "using taxpayer's dollars [to] support and promote Quebec, Native, Arts, Homosexual, Urban and Multi cultures." (Most of that isn't a sentence but the spirit of the thing shines through).

The association also dabbles in political leader satirizing. The federal Conservatives had "Mr. Dithers". The Liberals has "Mr. Muzzle" or something. The HLA has the cleverly rendered (see below) Dolly McGuinty. They refer to him as a her. Get it? Pretty sophisticated stuff. "She" (giggle) says stuff like "It's just not fair that people who don't have a degree and wear work-boots should be able to own land, and have guns, and vote, and scare us." Yup - they got his number.

John Tory undertook a concerted effort to moderate his party when he became leader. What is remarkable is that headed into the '07 election, the Ontario PCs have in some respects never looked more extreme.

$10 minimum wage makes too much sense

2007-02-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

It's time for a $10 minimum wage in Ontario. I've struggled with this for some time now, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the provincial Liberals ought to swallow their pride and throw their energy behind the NDP motion.

Imagine that, according to research done in 2002, someone has to work nearly full-time hours all year at $10/h just to remain above the poverty line. Of course, minimum wage jobs very rarely offer consistent full-time hours. So even assuming full-time hours all year, which is a rarity in the minimum wage world, we are condemning workers to live no less than 20% under the poverty line. Doesn't that make an $8 minimum wage seem terribly arbitrary, as well as insufficient?

Even more striking is the fact that a household with a single child needs to produce 75 hours of labour a week at $10/h to remain above poverty. This means 94 hours of work a week at only $8. Even if the child does have two parents, they each must somehow produce 47 hours of labour a week. With a child to care for, this is well beyond possible.

Some business Liberals have rejected the notion on impulse. The automatically-generated response is inevitably : 'think of job loss!' A reasonable protestation, but one which research doesn't bear out.

In 2003, about 85 Canadian economists and labour policy experts, including the former chief economist at TD Bank, released a comprehensive report which demonstrated that "Modern economic research has indicated ... the negative employment effects of minimum wages are negligible and can be overwhelmed by the positive impacts of minimum wages on labour force participation and consumer spending." This is the most recent, most comprehensive investigation of the issue, and its conclusions fly in the face of conventional business wisdom.

The same findings are echoed by the OECD, as well as a coalition of 650 US economists - including 5 Nobel Prize winners - who have nearly succesfully wrested a 30% minimum wage increase from Congress.

At worst, some studies have found around a 1-3% rate of job loss roughly corresponding with a 10% increase in minimum wage. However, this job loss is usually associated with teenagers, who have statistically less need for employment.

Another argument is that businesses will relocate if faced with a large hike in the minimum wage. The ludicrous aspect of this argument is that small businesses are supposedly the most affected, and small business don't uproot themselves. Boutiques on Queen East aren't going to up and head for Manitoba. Niether are the big minimum wage employers - fast food restaurants, etc. - going to abandon Canada's most populace province. That's just a bizarre assertion. Look to this case study of Washington State, if you need more convincing. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the US, and has experienced zero economic blowback. Small businesses have flourished and people come from neighbouring states for employment, which has meant Idaho has also had to raise the wage.

Finally is the peculiar distinction that some Liberals make between government programs and labour regulations. The suggestion is that businesses shouldn't be expected to socially responsible, becacuse this is the government's job. The welfare state has always meant a combination of labour regulations and government expenditures. A minimum wage hike is an alternative to extracting tax dollars from businesses then delivering them to the working poor through a vast circuitous bureaucratic network. A wage hike has the same effect, but is more direct, more immediate, more efficient and more logical.

It's easy to dismiss this as pie-in-the-sky NDP politic'n, but it is far more difficult to dismiss the facts. A minimum wage is completely arbitary if it doesn't guarantee against poverty. We can make sure it does that without incurring any serious costs. Indeed, we will be unburdening ourselves of the costs associated with the working poor - housing issues, health issues, etc. Expect more non-Dippers to come on board - starting, I predict, with Art Eggleton. This is a powerfully important issue, and one where partisanship should be put aside.

Margaret Wente - tell us what you know!

2007-02-02T09:26:00.000-08:00

Today Margaret Wente's legend grew just a little bit larger. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a vast network of scientists from around the world, released its landmark report. It predicts dire consequences if we don't take our green responsibilities seriously.

Why am I left so impressed with Margaret Wente? If she can stare down such an impressive array of scientists, then she must know something spectatcular. Just a couple days ago, via an online Globe and Mail conversation, she tantalized us with this:

"The scientific consensus certainly says that human activity contributes to climate change. But my own reading (and interviews with scientists and other experts) has led me to conclude that there is great uncertainty about what impact climate change may have, how serious it might be and what we can do about it. I think that climate alarmists have had a terrible influence on what should be a rational debate.
So chalk me up as a climate realist. Do we need to take climate change seriously? Yes. Is it a planetary emergency? In my view, no."

What is it that she reads? Who does she talk to? What does she know that all those world-renowned scientists in Paris do not? It's a fascinating thought. Firstly, she must have attended some impressive journalism school, if it equipped with the tools necessary to evaluate critically a complex scientific consensus. Most of them just teach you how to write.

I'm particularly fascinated with this secret panel of experts she seems to chair. Perhaps they meet underground, laughing at our deluded public and smoking their cigarettes (which they know actually cure cancer). Perhaps they meet on the ocean's floor. After all, they can tell you what the Confederacy of Dunces at the WHO will not - that humans are perfectly capable of living and breathing under water.

Or maybe she just fits squarely into the lineage of the "world is flat", "Darwin has lost his mind" types. The most difficult aspect of a conservative existence must be that as sure as you are about this one, you have to live with the fact that your kind has been on the wrong side of every debate in human history.

My response

2007-01-30T08:42:00.000-08:00

The "We didn't get the job done" ad uses what other non-Conservative people (Ignatieff) have had to say about Dion re: the environment. Although I think the ad is only moderately succesful, that's not a bad strategy. So if I was a campaign guy and asked to respond, I would adopt the same tactic. Let non-Liberals tell us about who Dion is and what he has done:

What kind of an environmental leader is Stephane Dion?

''If they try to smear him and say that he's somehow associated with past Liberal corruption, they're just barking up the wrong tree. If they try to say he was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up." - Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party

"[Stephane Dion] is a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, ...a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction." - Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP

"Mr. Dion has made the environment a key part of his... platform - correctly identifying that protecting the planet's ability to provide for us by stabilizing our climate and absorbing our wastes is one of the key issues of the 21st Century. " - David Suzuki

What kind of an environmental leader is Stephen Harper?

"In the last few weeks alone, the Harper government has broken promise after promise to the world. Our Kyoto commitments are critical and urgent, yet no plan exists to meet them." - Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party

"[The Conservative Clean Air Act] is a disappointment on the scale of a Rolling Stones concert. I mean, what were the policy wonks at Environment thinking? And how could it have taken so long – eight months – to hatch something that does not accomplish a single major environmental goal?" - MP Garth Turner, kicked out of Conservative caucus

"Stephen Harper not only opposes Kyoto, but he refutes the science. He’s back in the dinosaur era. Harper is just totally out of it" - David Suzuki

That all can't fit in a 30 second TV spot, but any combination would work.

opening salvo goes awry

2007-01-28T20:25:00.000-08:00

I went to check out the attack ads for myself. This one caught my eye. The ad alleges that Dion + his shadow cabinet equal a return to the old Liberal status quo. The title reads "Back to the Future". Did this strike anyone else as an odd mixed message? I think the future is where we want to go. Wouldn't "Back to the Future" in fact make for a good Liberal campaign slogan? i.e. Dion will get us back on a progressive track with regards to the environment, etc after Harper derailed us, etc. etc. I think what they meant to say was "Forward to the Past". But they didn't. Anyways, if this is what the CPC PR machine is churning out I think we might be OK. I may actually take next election off.

UPDATE: Someone else noticed first.

use your Oka-noggin

2007-01-25T15:11:00.000-08:00

The red tory exodus continues. Some members of the riding association of Okanagan Shuswap are in revolt, after shining star MP Colin Mayes' latest telling gaff. Mayes, Chair of the Parliamentary Aboriginal Affairs Committee, received a racist joke via email about a Native man at a Tim Hortons, to which he responded "Good joke". The character talks in 1950s Hollywood Injun broken English - "Want coffee." He is referred to both as "Chief" and later "Tonto".

Local media learned that Mayes was unavailable for a comment because he was en route to Ottawa. Unfortunately, said media outlet shortly ran into him on the street in Vernon. "I laugh because they're just grasping at straws," said Mayes. He said that if "good joke" was his response, "it wasn't intended as any sort of endorsement." Plus he had some family that weren't White or something.

We all know that this guy is the "jail reporters" guy. His wife also had this hilariously psychotic and ominous quote: "We know that we are being attacked by principalities and powers that are evil."

I see this sort of dopey racism fairly regularly. It's the stupidity that's shocking in this case.

Marc-Yvan Cote back in?

2007-01-24T09:19:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure I understand this at all. I don't know the story behind the story, and if Marc-Yvan Côté is an innocent and a fall guy then so be it. But if he isn't... "exaggerated" punishment? A life-long ban from holding a membership in the party? Believe it or not, people can go on to live fairly normal lives without pulling the odd Marie-P. Poulin email out of their junk folders. This isn't Buzz Hargrove - Côté hurt the party dramatically by acting exceptionally unethically. What do you have to do to earn a ban from the party? Why even unearth the issue now? This is very strange to me.

Gary McHale and the Maple Leaf

2007-01-19T07:15:00.000-08:00

I have an opinion piece in the 'Point of View' section of today's Hamilton Spectator. It's my effort to pre-empt an exceptionally silly protest set to take place this weekend.

The PDF version is here: http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/pdfs/20070119/A15.pdf

I always appreciate when the Spec gives me space to vent.

"when there is much light, the shadow is deep"

2007-01-18T14:04:00.000-08:00

New shadow cabinet unveiled today.

Favourite choice:
David McGuinty on environment. Simply because he's the best damn legislator available and this is the most important critic spot. Yes, outside of John Godfrey who holds the Chair, Marc Holland would also have been a good choice. But his combativeness (which I love - don't get me wrong) can also turn people off. McGuinty is just plain likable, and he will preserve the environment portfolio as a Liberal asset heading into the election.

Least favourite choice:
Nothing really upset me. Belinda's portfolio "Competitiveness and the New Economy" sounds tailor-made for Scott Brison, but this is splitting hairs.

Fairness.ca

2007-01-15T11:22:00.000-08:00

This isn't a timely post in any way. However, I feel I've ignored it long enough. Also, I may as well take advantage of the snow day I have been awarded (Southern Ontarians continue to labour under the misconception that they must withstand brutal and punishing winters. I continue to encourage them to visit Winnipeg, where they will be humbled before the terrible greatness of God. At least we haven't called in the army yet.)

Fairness.ca is a website launched by the Government of Ontario. The intention is to educated Ontarians of the cross we all bear. It is one response to a multi-party resolution passed last summer that called on the federal government to address the fiscal imbalance. Simply put, it's the last thing Canada needs.

The website provides shocking factoids that will leave you breathless if you carry an Ontarian pulse. For example, that Ontarians pay 43 cents of every tax dollar collected by the federal government. 43! But don't we only represent only aprox. 40% of the country's population? That's slightly more than our proportionate share. Next someone is going to tell me that people in the +$100 000 income bracket pay more taxes than their proportionate share of the population. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

It also pillories the so-called cynics with hard-hitting myth expositions. For instance:

Myth: The main reason that provinces are facing budgetary problems today is because they cut taxes to unsustainable levels in the 1990s, not because of a fiscal imbalance between provinces and territories and the federal government. (A very reasonable explanation that has been argued convincingly)

Reality: More than enough taxes are being collected from the Canadian taxpayer to sustain public services.

We'll take their word for it, I guess.

If you aren't fully convinced yet supportive quotations are provided... by Maritimers! Ta da. If Maritimers feel Ontario ought to get back more of what it sends to Ottawa, than surely there are no grounds to disagree. Never mind that those Maritimers belong to the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a right-wing free-market think tank (Fraser Institute on donairs) that is ideologically opposed to wealth-redistribution schemes.

No party has opposed this little endeavour. I nevertheless find it embarassing that a Liberal premier is behind something so simultaneously conservative and provincial.

It's high time the Federal HOC passes a multi-party resolution asking that the provinces recognize and respect the concept of Canada.

by-elections announced

2007-01-10T12:19:00.000-08:00

The Greater Hamilton region will see a by-election now officially on February 4th. Cam Jackson's former riding of Burlington is up for grabs. In the Conservative corner is Joyce Savoline, who wrapped up her apparently undistinguished career in Halton Regional Council to take a run at Queen's Park. The riding is something of a Conservative bastion, but if any Liberal is going to win it it may well be Joan Lougheed. After all, she may still be a member in good standing of the Burlington PC riding association.

It's an exciting time to be alive.

Outremont for Justin

2007-01-09T12:07:00.000-08:00

La Presse reports that Justin Trudeau may seek the Outremont nomination. Apparently his reception hasn't been entirely rosy. Well if he's got the Frulla/Lapierre-heads bristling he must be doing something right.

Every franchise player must face the opposition of conservative "trade the draft pick for a veteran role player" types.

For that matter, every Trudeau must face the opposition of medium-firm nationalists who proclaim him the end of liberalism in Quebec.

None of it should dissuade Justin from pushing onward, and I don't think any of it will.

Pikangikum faces ideological foe

2007-01-08T12:24:00.000-08:00

Today the Globe offers a poignant snap shot of Pikangikum, microcosmic representation of a social crisis far larger than itself. One Grade Seven class in one year sees six suicides. I daren't suggest that some sort of governmental action might be called for, lest the Taxpayers Federation reign scorn and indignation down upon my head.

The story at Pikangikum is housing, though. And Tom Flanagan, close friend and confidant to our Prime Minister, presents his version of the problem:

"Paradoxically, housing on Indian reserves is on average much newer than the general supply of housing in Canada, but it is also in much worse condition. People do not respect what they do not have to pay for, and they do not invest in the upkeep of what they do not own.

A drive through a reserve will show the sad results. Even though there may be a current housing shortage, derelict homes stand vacant, no longer habitable because they have not been maintained over the years."

It ain't our fault, get it! With some swift strokes of the pen, 308 Ottawa-based consciences are mericfully unburdened.

And it only gets better. If community ownership is the problem, the solution is of course a private housing market. So we parcel off pieces of treaty-guaranteed Reserves and sell them to the residents. You'd better believe it's going to work. If I steal your car and sell it back to you at a premium, you're going to appreciate it that much more. And if I make a pretty penny in the doing, so much the better.

The dispassionate political end of this is I believe there is an ideological battle raging within Indian Affairs. Thus far, Jim Prentice has lost more than he has won. The new housing agreement with Pikangikum will be a good indicator of who's really running this show.

On the human end, smarten the hell up Canada.

- Mike (SCG)

Strange Days

2007-01-07T21:56:00.000-08:00

Did I miss something, or has a leader from the most supposedly accountability-focussed parties/interest groups we've had, who was elected largely on accountability, who's supporters have at times considered the "terror" of the Senate in Canada enough for potential separation, now given two positions in the cabinet to unelected senators?

-Steve

Ignatieff as Deputy Leader

2006-12-20T00:52:00.000-08:00

Dion's naming of Michael Ignatieff as Deputy Leader was a great move, and I greet it with full approval. This is a man who garnered 45% of the vote of delegates at the convention to be leader, and more importantly, is an expert in a variety of public affairs, with an outstanding potential to be an effective MP. I think Dion's logic makes the most sense, having the most qualified people closest to him. And anyone who has watched Question Period recently, would probably agree that Ignatieff is likely to turn into a real force against Harper. Perhaps it is not unexpected, but I do believe he could have done otherwise without widespread unrest. The fact is, before the leadership race, before any camps, I was happy to have Ignatieff in this party, and I'm happy to have him up front. Look at our front bench now!

As for all this talk about the Art of War, well, it seems pretty illogical to me. The logical thing for Dion to do, if he were worrying purely about his "enemies" and viewed Ignatieff as such, would be to diminish his profile, as realistically as he could, not to put him in a position to potentially "outshine" the leader himself (assuming the factionalism people are referring to were present and people looked at it as a contest). No, if anything I'd say he took a chance in that strategic sense, but I have a higher opinion of Ignatieff and this team then to worry about all that.

What Dion did do is take someone who is eminently qualified, who could be a great ally, and put him where he belongs, helping this party stand up to the Conservatives.
Bravo.

-Steve

Speaker of the House

2006-12-13T23:59:00.000-08:00

Has anyone else noticed, over the last couple of years, how hilarious Peter Milliken is? On the one hand, I think the behaviour is so out of hand that perhaps something more could be done. I'm not really sure whether he could be more effective at that or not. I'll let someone else judge that. What I will judge is that in his own way, and you have to appreciate the bizarreness of this middle-aged man in the most staid of public roles making sarcastic cracks all the time (not that he's unprofessional, among the chanting and screaming), he is very amusing. Yet I'm convinced no one but me notices.

My particular favourites are when he refers to something along the lines of "please, the minister surely can't wait to hear what the member opposite has to say" or Wednesday's "it seems the holiday spirit has taken hold of some of the honourable members."

This is what you could call an exam weariness kind of post. There are actually quite a few matters in this party that have me pretty serious, but I also have very little time. Anyway,if strange cartoons of presidents weirdly morphed onto various things can cut it on Liblogs, than this is tops.

Turning forward the tide of Millikens, one post at a time.

-Steve

Red Green

2006-12-07T21:40:00.000-08:00

Interesting piece about Elizabeth May:

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is leaping to the defence of her newly elected counterpart from the federal Liberals, insisting she can work with Stephane Dion to challenge the policies of the Conservative government.

''If they try to smear him and say that he's somehow associated with past Liberal corruption, they're just barking up the wrong tree,'' said May in an interview on Wednesday. ''If they try to say he was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up.''

This speaks to a general impression I have formed of her. At the convention she appeared on a Paul Martin tribute video and said his speech at the climate change conference in Montreal brought her to tears, and that she had never been more proud to be Canadian.

What a remarkable and refreshing thing. A third party that actually has an interesting in doing something. A third party that is concerned with ends over means, accomplishments over self-serving illusions (ex. "Liberal, Tory, same old story").

The last Decima poll had the Greens 2 percentage points behind the NDP, if memory serves. I hope that trend continues. The Left is already destabilized and has always been - so the destabilizer might as well be someone with a constructive point. It'd make for a nice change.

Dion's Tuesday

2006-12-05T16:39:00.000-08:00

Good Decision. Don't pander to that emotionalism for one second. It's interesting that Gilles Duceppe takes a more liberal approach on this issue of citizenship, identity and belonging than does Jack Layton.

Not Great Decision. We are the party of the Charter. That means we don't believe it's up to parliamentarians to determine what rights are protected when. We mean to take that decision out of their hands. We don't put onus on our political leadership to talk Canadians into upholding rights. If there is ever a vote to whip, it's one like this.

Having said that, it's clear that this is purely strategic. By allowing a free vote we don't allow Harper to obscur the issue with that red herring ("muzzling MPs") come election time. I have difficutly arguing with that logic. It's just too bad that we have to play these games.

ELSEWHERE

$125 million cut from indigenous language preservation programs is a big deal, and it should command at least one question period. Canada gets the importance of language - particularly founding languages upon which identity is largely based. So let Prentice/Oda have it - they deserve it.

fin

2006-12-04T10:42:00.000-08:00

"[Stephane Dion] is a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.

And therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."

- Jack Layton

Surely I'm not the only one to dig up that quote, but I'm mentally exhausted and not feeling clever.

Final thoughts on the convention? I'm afraid that if I start I'll never stop. But quickly, nevertheless:

- Am I happy? Yes, absolutely. Today I've stepped away from the race itself and put everything back in context. This is a better party than it was when the marathon began. I felt three days ago that Kennedy or Ignatieff would've meant more radical renewal and progressiveness. I haven't changed my mind. But I am happy, nevertheless.

- It unfolded exactly, as far as I'm concerned, as it was most likely to. I was given the impression that there would be some intangible convention quality that could send it in any direction. Ultimately, though, the result was near-mathematically logical. The only surprise was how uniform Kennedy supporters moved. I went from Kennedy to Ignatieff but I was in a tiny minority. 91% delivered!

- I end this journey only more concerned with the Convention process. Not to be a Debby Downer - it's just absurd. People who voted for Kennedy (during Super Weekend) didn't vote for Dion, but that was the result. We lost the motion to move to a one member, one vote system. This is funny onto itself: we posit that party decisions are made by a small elite and that should change, then look for our mandate for change from that same small elite. They said no. Democracy in action, eh?

- Notwithstanding the above, what an amazing time I had! To share a room with 3 prime ministers, one future prime minister, the son of our greatest prime minister - not to mention the Romeo Dallaires, Mark Lalondes, etc. etc. Chretien's speech made the party feel invincible. Justin Trudeau made us feel that we can only get better.

- Visit www.climateliberal.ca . This is exactly what I wanted to see emerge. This is why the Liberal party is the national institution that has presided over every major challenge in this country's history. No one seems to notice that we said an angry 'no' to the candidate with infinitely the most ambitious environmental platform. Regardless, by the 4th ballot the environment had won either way. We are the Red Green party.

Convention 2006

2006-11-29T17:56:00.000-08:00

Here's hoping for a great convention. Cheers.

Dion and Lester Pearson

2006-11-29T01:23:00.000-08:00

Here's the more logical interpretation of Lester Pearson's legacy on the national unity file, that probably wouldn't surprise anyone but is worth quoting:

Under considerable political duress, Pearson accepted reluctantly a fair degree of administrative decentralization for social programs in areas of provincial responsibility...At no time did Pearson ever contemplate constitutionalizing this process of administrative devolution or asymmetrical federalism. [He was] an ardent Canadian nationalist, a clear-sighted internationalist, and a defender of national unity. Pearson's policies and practices in federal-provincial relations must be placed in the larger context of such pan-Canadian achievements as Medicare...and the Canadian flag.

However...

A revisionist interpretation of Pearson's handling of the Quebec question has been proposed...arguing that Pearson became a strong proponent of the two-nations theory of Confederation. Even more importantly, Pearson developed into a supporter of a Canada-Quebec conception of territorial duality because Quebec, in his view, constituted the homeland of the francophone nation...[Ken] McRoberts concludes that the Pearson years constituted a promising golden era in Canada-Quebec relations, and that it was destroyed almost singlehandedly by his successor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. ...Unforunately, Canada did not continue down Pearson's road....This interpretation has gained the support of [Quebecois academics] such as Guy Laforest and Stephane Dion...who champion the entrenchment of an asymmetrical Quebec-Canada federation in order to accommodate Quebec's political and constitutional distinctness.

-Michael D. Behiels, Lester B. Pearson and the Conundrum of National Unity, 1963-1998

This perspective has perhaps escaped proper national attention.

-Steve

Dryden/Volpe/Findlay of one mind?

2006-11-28T09:51:00.000-08:00

Although she seems to have softened her position, was not Martha Hall Findlay initially the only leadership candidate to refuse any recognition of a Quebecois nation, however qualified? If nothing else, she seems profoundly uncomfortable with the idea.

That would make 3 out of the 4 also-rans (somewhat) natural Kennedy backers, no? That's got to mean something. Surely Dryden and Volpe, at least, could not go to Dion now. They both voted against the tide to defeat his bill.

This is to say nothing of all those Trudeauvian federalism who understand now how limited their protest options are.

The Globe article that gives Dion momentum down the home stretch is about 36 hours out of date, as far as I'm concerned.

_____________________________________

A wonderful by-election result in London last night! Dianne Haskett was vaulting into 'most hateable Canadian politician' status but had her momentum stomped. In the climate change-less Xanadu that was her recent home of Washington DC, she never could've dreamed she would be bested by the Green candidate. The NDP was ravaged, and why not? They are markedly less necessary today then are the Greens.

enough said

2006-11-27T13:01:00.000-08:00

I just turned CPAC on for no longer than 2 minutes. During that time I heard Peter MacKay refer to Canada's "Two founding nations" and stress that "it [the Quebecois nation] goes way beyond language and culture." Do we need any more evidence that this is an ill-conceived, poorly defined, exlcusive and regressive motion? If we want to do symbolic politics right, the only answer to this is no.

Gerard Kennedy has done a great thing for a lot of Liberals.

enter young foxes

2006-11-25T17:33:00.000-08:00

Say whatever you want about this leadership race, but if nothing else that is a Liberal future to be thrilled with.

alternative dug up

2006-11-24T19:28:00.000-08:00

In the course of some thesis-related research I came across a constitutional preamble proposed by the federal delegation to a constitutional committee in June 1980.

It contained recognition of Canada's "distinct French-speaking society centred in though not confined to Quebec." Wordy, yes, but it hits on all fronts. "Nation" can be substituted for "society" without altering its meaning.

It says what Harper's motion wishes to say, without relying on a unarticulated redefinition of words like "Quebecois" and "Quebecker".

nationhood denied - the nation motion process

2006-11-24T08:26:00.000-08:00

There is an element to the Harper/Dion "nation" clause that I think is being missed. Regardless of its substance, painstakingly analyzed, the process itself is inherently exclusive and denies recognition to Canada's other marginalized identities.

Yesterday, I had the fortune to discuss the development with about 10 Mohawks and Onondagas from the Six Nations of the Grand River. The consensus in the room was that waking up to "PM Recognizes Quebec as a Nation" headlines amounted to a "kick in the teeth." It's an interesting perspective coming from those who understand better than most the importance of nation and recognition. But it's not difficult to understand.

The ongoing occupation at Caledonia was engineered for two reasons, essentially. Firstly it was to assert a legal land claim. Secondly, along with all other collective action of the Six Nations, it served to demonstrate in clear and unequivocal terms the Iroquois remain nations, and that Canada has no choice but to reconcile itself with this fact.

How did Canada respond? The federal government didn't go anywhere near the Six Nations. They downloaded their responsibilities to the province, which by its nature could not conduct nation-to-nation negotitations. The province, in turn, characterized the issue as one of policing.

Canada deals with nations; Ontario polices Ontarians. The actions of both levels of government obliterated the national claim.

One women told a particularly troubling story. Her son was on the occupation site for six months. Because his role was first aid, he carried a two-way radio on him at all times. Caledonians discovered the frequency, and whispered death threats and racial epithets at him sometimes 24 hours a day. The Canadian national anthem became almost unbearable, because it was hurled at him with such hate from behind clenched teeth at every rally. He - and to this there was general agreement in the room - felt unable to enter any building that flew the Maple Leaf. In his mind, it would also fly next to signs that read "Get a Job You Dirty Indians".

He left the site for another reserve further north. The entire 5 hour train trip there he trembled. He was terrified of the White Canadians passengers.

Contrast this experience to what has transpired in Queen's Park this week. A party committed to the dissolution of the Canadian state introduced a motion that would recognize one nation at the expense of other identities. The Prime Minister himself responded with a tweaked motion that didn't necessarily pose as great a threat to individuals outside the nation. We scramble over ourselves to congratulate eachother for demonstrating yet again our tolerance for diversity. We might have our differences, all agree, but we are part of one big family.

Not only does the motion lack clarity and prudence, it reinforces a very old model under which Canada is defined by conversations between English and French. Someone will point out that nothing in the motion inherently denies the nationhood of First Nations. This is not the point. And neither have we solved the problem by adding an aboriginal footnote to sweeten the pill, as per Charlottetown. If we are to wade into such extraordinarily important and delicate discussions - because we are writing the national character of Canada, as well as Quebec - then it cannot be done ad hoc. It cannot be done simply to appease the one group that is able to make the most noise. It's offensive, and we should be beyond it.

-Mike (SCG)

Quebecois VS Quebec: meaningful compromise?

2006-11-23T16:04:00.000-08:00

If the motion tabled by Stephen Harper is representative of Stephane Dion's compromise, I'm heartily disapointed.

In brief, the motion is purportedly superior to Bloc/Quebec Liberal motions because it defines a nation of Quebecois rather than the nation of Quebec.

I am one of many who argue that a sociological nation is undeniable, but that we run into problems when we confer nationhood on the province of Quebec. The Harper wording purports to solve this problem. How I haven't a clue. A nation of Quebecois can mean only one of two things:

EITHER
1) 'Quebecois' is intrinsically a territorial denomination. Like "Ontarian" denotes inhabitants of Ontario, it denotes inhabitants of Quebec. If this is the case, no compromise has been made. The nation in question is still the province of Quebec. This is still, assumedly, the mythological civic nation. This motion is identical to the others.

OR
2) 'Quebecois' is used to denote only those that belong to the pur laine sociological nation which is being addressed. If this is the case, where are the rest of the inhabitants of Quebec left? New Canadians, Cree, Mohawks, Anglo are denied full status as participants in the province. Further, French-Canadians outside of Quebec have their claims to nationhood obliterated.

The Harper/Dion compromise is no more worthy or our support than its predecessor motions.

new treason of old ideas

2006-11-22T09:59:00.000-08:00

I'm ultimately glad this essay was written. I did feel that many were taking wild liberties with Trudeau's legacy for their own ends (although I certainly don't include Justin in that company). I also believe that liberties are being taken with Ignatieff's position.

However, does Apps make a convincing case that positions of Ignatieff and Trudeau are entirely reconcilable? The answer is a resounding no.

I wish I had time to take the essay proposition by proposition. I unfortunately do not, so I will comment as succinctly as possible.

This is not synthesis of the two men's ideas that it purports to be. Apps introduces himself as an unrepenting Trudeauite, but his meandering generalization of the Quebec fact often departs Trudeau profoundly. One example I can quickly recall is his discussion of French Canada outside of Quebec. French Canadians, according to Apps, understand that the best guarantor of their "founding nation" status is the heaping of recognition upon the province of Quebec. What is this, if not Trudeauvia repented? Just one example of many.

The meat of the piece hovers over the question of "ethnic" vs "civic". Apps reminds us that Trudeau believed in building civic nationalism as a tool to curb the ethnic variety. Fair enough. However, in noting that "all rational thought depends on the ability to draw useful distinctions" he fails to distinguish between the civic nation of Canada and the civic nation of Quebec. Trudeau did indeed seek to build civic nationalism in Quebec, but a civic nationalism that regarded Canada as the fundamental civic unit.

Why are we "faux Trudeau acolytes" concerned with the civic nation of Quebec, if civic nationalism implies identityless tolerance? At simplest:
a) Are we deluding ourselves? Trudeau reminded us that nationalists can speak in such liberal, inclusive terms and believe themselves, but the national project carries certain inevitabilities. Before we can believe in a civic nation of Quebec, we need to demonstrate - in real terms, based on who practices nationalism in Quebec, who doesn't, and what each group wants - that there is no inherent identity imbedded in Quebec nationalism. This hasn't been accomplished yet.
b) What purpose does Canada serve the civic nation of Quebec? If Quebec has achieved a perfect political union under which all citizens are Quebecois in equal stead, Canada is only justified on a very shallow basis (short-term economic benefits, etc.).

In other words: a worthy attempt, but I'm not buying it.

no one saw this coming

2006-11-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

So the Ontario Anishnabe reserve Pikangikum doesn't have clean running water because of a unique cultural practice. They bury their deceased.

Jim Prentice has creativity - that cannot be denied.

The residents of Pikangikum must be looking forward to finding out why the community school that burned down 40 years ago hasn't yet been replaced. Perhaps the Ojibwa cultural propensity for living in houses hasn't left enough room?

sweatin' to the Tories

2006-11-02T18:13:00.000-08:00

Man, this campaign website is incredible. Just let the introduction play. If the music keeps looping I'm going to start working out to it.

Odd though that her CV neglects the last few years of her life. She must not have been doing anything of political relevance.

London North Centre will shortly have the Liberal representation it deserves, for the first time in a long time. But how Pearson will counter that flash intro, I don't know.

defeat the nation resolution regardless of your candidate

2006-10-31T07:30:00.000-08:00

Time to state the obvious: It is imperative that we take the leadership race out of the "Nation" resolution. It is far too important for us to be led down the garden path by our leadership loyalties.

Is it coincidence that - despite his career's record - all of Bob Rae's supporters have turned up on the non-recognition side? Is it coincidence that all the Ignatieff supporters that flocked to him out of Trudeauvian nostalgia have landed at the Nation end of things? No - what it is is absurd.

It's absurd particularly because the issue doesn't break down along leadership lines in the way that the media has purported. There is no Chretien-Martin here, no Trudeau-Turner. What you have on the surface is a bunch of Martins arguing with eachother. But it becomes even more complicated the deeper you dig.

First is Ignatieff, the resloution's champion. But is his position as pure as it has been construed? Here is a selection of relevant quotes over the course of his recent career:

"I don't want a community of communities. I don't want tribalism. I want a kind of moral individualism."
- UK interview

"Ignatieff, who keeps a photo of former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979) in his campaign office, warned that Conservative promises of more money and power for the provinces and a seat for Quebec in international circles could weaken the federation.

‘Canadians want a country. They don't want a community of communities,' Ignatieff said. 'I'm committed to the national unity of the country.’"
- AP

Some argue that Ignatieff has favoured the nation notion since Blood and Belonging. This is revisionist history. He has Quebeckers explain what Nationalism is to them, to which he writes "What can you say to such a deep myth?"

He warns of the impact of Bill 101, and how the Charter must not be compromised: "Individuals would lose this right of appeal, and the way would be open to majoritarian ethnic nationalism."

And then there's Mr Rae. Trudeau re-embodied, right? He could be, if we dismiss everything he said and did prior to mid-August. Bob on Quebec:

"The country would be in better shape if the Meech Lake Accord had passed.”

He wrote that Pierre Trudeau et al “[were] arguing in defiance of Canadian history.” Whilst many Liberals celebrate Trudeau’s achievements, Rae isolates Trudeau as the source of this federation’s ills: “…we have seen the danger of governing in the name of a theory.”

According to Bob, PM Mulroney “showed great courage and great energy in his defence of the country and I fully supported his attempts to further reform the Constitution…”

And the now famous:
"I always supported the notion that Quebec . . . is a nation, it is a distinct society, which we need to recognize in our Constitution and I have fought for that. The genius behind federalism is that we can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian."

The difference then becomes Rae's "We shouldn't open the constitution right now because it is dangerous" vs. Ignatieff's "We should open the constitution, but not until it isn't dangerous to do so."

This is an artificial dispute, manipulated by all sides. My suggestion is this: we attend the convention, we tear the resolution to shreds, and we send a message to whomever is our leader - that we don't need to pander, because we can think.

Justin Trudeau and Quebec

2006-10-26T07:50:00.000-07:00

Justin Trudeau weighs in on 'nationhood', with a gentle spanking. I really want to hitch my wagon to this horse.

Quebec Nation Resolution - imagined by Steelcitygrit

2006-10-25T10:52:00.000-07:00

This was a little late in coming.

WHEREAS bettering our short-term electability justifies triggering a long-term erosion of the legitimacy of the Canadian state

WHEREAS a scandal which had no inherent relation to any theoretical federalist camp cost us a close election, which has led us to adopt Separatist/Conservative revisionist history that claims the Liberal federal brand has been forever reviled in the province of Quebec

WHEREAS it is most politically expedient to ignore the small voices – James Bay Cree, Haudenosaunee, new Canadians, the old-stock Anglo minority - in Quebec

WHEREAS some cardboard groupthink intelligentsia call us bad names and it hurts our feelings

WHEREAS the French Canadian nation outside of Quebec will still be able to survive culturally, because anyone has the option of moving to Quebec

WHEREAS the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means less to us then does the purported slight 20+ years ago of a minority of Quebec’s elected representatives that belonged to a party committed to the dissolution of the Canadian state

WHEREAS Trudeau is responsible for a close referendum result in 1995, more than a decade after Canada rejected his federal approach and attempted “recognition”

WHEREAS we lack the intellectual and intestinal fortitude to confront the ideas of Separatists head-on, and instead hope that agreeing with them will scupper their legitimacy

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada recognizes Quebec as a Nation.

Fortier has no excuse

2006-10-23T20:16:00.000-07:00

First off, the appointment of Michael Fortier to the cabinet expressly contradicts Harper's position on the issue in the election. He said he would not appoint cabinet ministers, not that he would not appoint them unless he thought it a good idea later on.

This is a practice not without precedent. However, the convention is clear, these appointments must run at the first available chance. Here's Graham White from the Canadian Democratic Audit (let's not forget how much Harper hates the "democratic deficit"):

"A powerful constitutional convention...ensures that once appointed to cabinet, ministers must in short order win elected office...While it is permissible to serve in cabinet without a seat it is not permissable to do so for long. Ministers appointed in this fashion must soon secure a seat."
(from "Cabinets and First Ministers")

It is not as if this convention does not allow PMs to bend the rules enough as it is. You must run, and not only if you can win! White gives the example of Liberal Pierre Juneau who was appointed, ran, lost, and resigned, end of story.

It is this convention that White cites as mitigating the undemocratic nature of such appointments. But my main problem is with the Conservative justification we are hearing, which is that Fortier said he would run in the next "general election," not by-election, so he's covered. So what? He knew his undemocratic plan from the beginning, way to go. That he said it is of no significance. He has no excuse for not running, other than pure political reasons, and this distinction is not one of any consequence. Last time I checked, unelected businessmen don't get to set constitutional convention with media statments.

On a related note, the timing of these byelections, right before the convention, is so calculated it is hard not to laugh.

*Above: Michael Fortier, star of CBS's "New Adventures of Old Christine."

-Steve

Ignatieff's Indigenous Agenda

2006-10-23T14:01:00.000-07:00

Ignatieff today released the details of his plan for Aboriginals in Canada. It's worth a read. Much of it is genuinely exciting.

The Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Reconciliation Act is as dramatic a suggestion as any that he has made this campaign. It is an opt-in formula, which recognizes the varying capacities of each First Nation at this instant. By transferring the responsibility of citizenship issues, it rights a dramatic and farcical wrong that has survived a century and a half.

The Treaty and Land Claim Agreement Commissioner is a fine addition, but not the radical overhauling of the land claims resolutions process that is badly needed. It doesn't alter the power imbalance. If it was coupled with active support - financial and otherwise - for First Nations pursuing their claims, it would make for a decent start.

Unfortunately, the ticker headline on CBC Newsworld today was (approximately) "Ignatieff promises to revitalize the Kelowna Accord" - which is the position of every single Liberal leadership candidate.

There was much good on this front from Dion recently as well. Again, he unfortunately developed no media traction.

Commissioner of Official Languages

2006-10-19T23:45:00.000-07:00

Graham Fraser has just recently begun his tenure as Commissioner of Official Languages. I'll admit I'm not incredibly well-versed on the guy, but from what I've seen he seems a great fit for the job and has the potential to reinvigorate our commitment to bilingualism in Canada.

Not sure if it was more one of those slipped through the Conservative cracks deals or not, but I commend the appointment nonetheless. What's the line in those Vonage commercials? Ah yes, one smart decision among many, many stupid ones...

-Steve

something in the water

2006-10-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

Ontario Libs introduce the final element of a universally applauded clean water iniative. The same Tory MPs that sat at Queen's Park during the Walkerton crisis vote in opposition. So does the NDP. John Tory can't even show his wide crimson face.

I think we'll be OK come Fall '07.

lame

2006-10-16T07:24:00.000-07:00

What a bust. Not quite a million man march. I guess the white man must soldier on, and continue to bear his oppression.

Meanwhile, Gary McHale can return to Richmond Hill and start talkin' what he knows.

debate notes - Dion is angry, etc.

2006-10-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

Dion demonstrated today two tendencies that have quietly underrode his candidacy from the beginning.

Firstly, amongst the top 4, he is the business candidate. This is something he's made no secret about; ask him what is the most important aspect of his campaign and he will always indicate the economy. Any suggestion of new money from any of the other candidates always rises his ire. I think some people support him for precisely this reason, but I also think this tendency has simply been missed by many.

Secondly, he is a sallow apologist for the most recent Liberal governments. His Environmental exchange was a small, petty, angry defence of his mediocre record. This is inexcusable. I've made the point before - now is for renewal, not deference to past 'accomplishments'. If our message next election is that we need no new measures for the environment, that we did everything right, and that we have only Canadians to blame because they cut our tenure short - then we will get laughed off the ballot.

In fact, let's leave politics alone. If we can't do better than we did controlling emissions, then life on this earth is doomed. Ignatieff-esque oratory melodrama? Perhaps, but true nonetheless.

His exchange was just extraordinarily thoughtless. His critique of Ignatieff's sustainability framework, against which all legislation will be measured, was that we don't need an act, we just need leadership. He presents this approacch simulatenously with why this approach doesn't work. If everything hinges on leadership, then Stephen Harper can come along and scupper all of Dion's hard work - as Dion so often indicates. Were an act in place, any leader could be brought to account. None could choose to ignore a fundamental commitment to sustainability. I just wish Ignatieff had pointed out this weak-as-water reason.

And has his English gotten worse? It never used to bother me.

The only positive was his closing statement, during which he delivered a few sweet spanks.

On the record - Kennedy is my clear second choice. I still don't like the "enterprise/new liberalism" meaninglessness, but he looked smart, comfortable, and self-assured. I wish I could've listened to his French, instead of a CPAC translater who sounded like he was dying.

Bob Rae reminded us that he helped bring down Joe Clark and usher in the all-imporant 1980 Trudeau government. He failed to mention the relationship he had with Trudeau: the cynicism, the philosophical opposition, the political problem-causing, the mutual detestation. I know he was largely joking, but the truth is he has quietly assumed some Trudeauvian credit for political expediency and it makes me see red.

"We one four straight." - Dryden. Very sweet.

Ignatieff has an ability to connect any question at all with Canada's greatness and our patriotic duty to build civic sharing, to breath the free air, and to achieve our potential as human stewards of the planet Earth.

Today's Ignatieff speech

2006-10-13T14:08:00.000-07:00

Whoa. Someone's talking about social policy? Chock it up to inexperience, or a lack of political instincts. He's going to have to start pretending this is a US presidential election, like the other candidates/Liberals at large - rather than waste our time with something as petty as domestic poverty.

Apologies to Dryden and Kennedy: in fairness, both have produced social policy. They just gave it up after a while when faced with such a profoundly apathetic Liberal public.

Convention 2006 - LET IT BE THE LAST

2006-10-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

This is a mostly recycled post about the shortcomings of the delegate convention. I think it merits reposting for two reasons:

- I have considerable bitterness welling up inside of me as it becomes increasingly clear that I won't be attending. Witness my first foray into electoral politics:
a) In the contest I had the best chance to win, I appeared on the ballot as a female. This effectively disqualified me, as far as I can reason. b) Approximately everybody I signed up to support me couldn't vote. I submitted their forms in a block (indirectly) but none of those forms were ever filed. Why not? Where did those people's cash membership fees end up? A mystery for the ages.

- It has been suggested that in one riding in rural Quebec, Bob Rae elected 14 delegates on the power of 2 votes. This is new evidence of just how absurd the delegate convention system is, and how easily it can be manipulated.

So here goes.

We all seem resigned to a leadership convention, and I'm not entirely sure why (other than that the Liberal party has a rep for hanging behind the curve). It's a hell of a fun weekend (or so I've been told *sniff - I haven't been for reasons soon to be discussed). But it is an imperfect institution for a number of reasons.The federal parties have persisted with this restricted-access model for the most part, but the tide is beginning to change.

How is it restrictive?

- priced out of the range of many (including students, retirees on fixed incomes, and others that form that voluntary backbone of the party). Entry fees, accomodation, travel - we're talking 2+ months of Steelcitygrit's rent.

- A single geographic location (or two, or three) is obviously limiting. Extra travelling onus falls on those that already feel removed from the process (Northerners, Maritimers possibly, Westerners possibly). The last thing Canada needs is its federal parties exaggerating regional cleavages.- need to be elected as a delegate

- not the expression of representative democracy it purports to be. It would work, if delegate candidates received support on the basis of who they supported. But we find that this is often not the case. According to Carty et al in Rebuilding Canadian Party Politics: "Data from most recent leadership contests in the federal Liberal and Conservative parties indicate that a substantial majority of convention delegates are chosen for reasons other than their preferred leadership campaign." The most common admitted reason for electing a delegate? "how active a delegate candidate has been in party affairs" (Read: how long have I known him.)

What is the result of all this? An unrepresentative and slanted few deciding for all. This isn't just theory. Carty et al find that "delecates have typically been disproportionately male, well educated, financially well-off, and young."

The process is quietly anti-democratic. This stands alone as reason to re-evaluate conventions.But it isn't the only reason, in this Liberal case particularly. A new process would serve both to bolster flagging morale and heal over riffs. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that a more direct process is one of the best possible ways to revitalize the party membership. The on-the-ground types are given something to get excited about.

Secondly, the convention can skew results in such a way that sows ill will. Given the intense, face-to-face nature of the convention, delegates may be less willing to commit to an outside shot. The delegate is a legitimate personality, and thus has to pay a personal price for commiting herself to a losing candidate (or commiting himself against a winning candidate). While nominally a secret ballot, nothing is truly secret on the convention floor. As a result, one witnesses the Paul Martin leviathan at the last convention eviscerate all competition in a way that doesn't fully reflect the feelings of the absent rank and file. People leave feeling less than satisfied - and we've seen what that can become.

So what are our options? There are no shortage of models to draw from. A US style primary is problematic, but offers some inspiration. The provinces have forged a path such that we may comfortably break from history without risking catastrophe. Perhaps a primary to determine who appears on the convention ballot? Perhaps a pure exercise in direct democracy?This is a worthy debate, regardless of what emerges. As US political scientist (or something) Herbert Kitschelt reminds us, "the way parties conduct their internal life sends a message to voters about what kind of society its activists and leaders aspire to."

My addendum, after witnessing this current race unfold, is that a single first-past-the-post vote may not do. I can see why we don't want someone with 29% support to assume leadership without any consensus building. But why not two ballots, seperated by a couple of weeks? In France, this is how president's are elected. The first vote determines the top two candidates, the second determines the leader. This would allow for two streams of support to coalesce. It's worth a look.

history of interloping in Afghanistan

2006-10-05T07:30:00.000-07:00

I don't know what conclusions Rabble.ca's Murray Dobbin intends us to draw from this argument, but he presents a very compelling reason to remain in Afghanistan. His column - "How the West Destroyed Afghanistan" - briefly casts the last 20+ years of Afghan history. He enumerates just how often America has involved itself in the affairs of the Afghan people, destabilizing a potentially democratic regime and enabling the Taliban.

This is precisely why the relativism of the NDP makes no sense. It is easy to realize the Taliban is a terrible thing, because it is a terrible thing of our making - and a very recent one at that.

When the Americans faced a short-term security threat, by way of the USSR, they imported, armed, and supported the Taliban. When they no longer saw involvement in Afghanistan as in the national interest, they promptly left their mess and went home. The Afghan people paid a very bitter price.

This is the social irresponsibility inherent in leaving Afghanistan now. We have reduced the country to utter dependency. We are now to declare that our interest lie elsewhere? That our troops would be better used to protect arctic sovereignty, as Jack Layton has suggested? That's an easy decision for us to make - we don't have to live with the ensuing civil war, nor the potential abuses of another undemocratic and illiberal regime.

Perhaps we should indeed recall, as Dobbin urges us, the words of Benjamin Franklin: 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

Ontario will manage

2006-10-04T14:09:00.000-07:00

Dalton McGuinty ought to set a precedent, and cheer this car emissions iniative. Is Ontario being singled out? Of course. But the only thing more absurd than suggesting Ontario shouldn't be targeted specifically on climate change is suggesting that Alberta shouldn't be targeted specifically on climate change.

The Conservatives are being laughably soft on Alberta - that criticism is deserved many times over. But let's not follow this 'not in our backyard' pattern. As tempting as it is to play the victim for once, we are sending all the wrong messages.

Ignatieff for Leader: A Progressive Choice

2006-09-30T03:20:00.000-07:00

This is my official endorsement of Michael Ignatieff.

I apologize for the delay but I felt it necessary to leave my co-blogger's endorsement time to be read. I will say that while I am pointing out the assets of this candidacy, we at Steelcitygrit have been far from dogmatic, and I have never been unquestioning in my support. I have critically assessed Ignatieff since the beginning, and I feel my endorsement is the more credible for it. If I am promotive, it is because I see much to celebrate in this candidacy. As should we all.

While a decision based on intensive research and contemplation, at the core of my support are two key aspects of Ignatieff's candidacy: his socially progressive political vision, and his attachment to a pan-Canadian citizenship based on equal rights. This is a vision of Canada as more than the sum of its parts.

My co-blogger did an excellent overview, and so I will take a somewhat different approach. Consider them complementary.

The argument that I make in favour of Ignatieff, and which I think is emphatically true and yet being lost in this debate, is that his is a progressive vision, on the centre-left of Canadian politics. And far from abandoning this party's history, if you actually look at his platform and his ideas, it is clear that his leadership would be far more of a return to our roots than a departure. His view of Canada has nothing in common with Stephen Harper's, and that many a better qualified commentator than I has misunderstood this does not make them any less incorrect.

It is here that I am breaking with the orthodox interpretation of this race. To that I can only say it is alarming the degree to which this race has been misread. This is not the candidate of the right. Let us look in some depth to prove this.

Ignatieff's platform on the environment is as forceful and forward-thinking as anyone's, if not more so. He is actually attacked for wanting to do too much to address this issue.

In the realm of social policy, where the rubber meets the road in talk of progressivism, Ignatieff has been truly liberal. It is he who brought the term social justice back into vogue in this party. He has also put aboriginal issues at the forefront since the beginning. He speaks of getting over the welfare wall, lessening EI waiting periods, tackling child and rural poverty, as well as a working income tax benefit. Ignatieff demands federal action in affordable housing, and has written about the rights of children more so than most, not to mention backing national child care. His on-record support for same-sex marriage dates back to a time when many even in this party were not on board, some of whom now have the gall to suggest that he's not liberal enough.

In all this he sees an important role for the federal government, suggesting it become the "ultimate guarantor of income security for all Canadians." He argues for increased federal spending where it is needed, while others insist on worrying first about staying out of even shared jurisdictions. This is not a domineering federalism, but it is not a provincialized one either. Ignatieff will defend an effective federal government. And he can do so by pointing out the truth about our federation, that in fact revenues have shifted far in favour of the provinces, and that a further devolution will unnecessarily weaken federal capacities. As he says, "Liberals use revenues to strengthen what we hold in common, while Conservatives cut taxes and weaken the bonds that tie us together."

Ignatieff's regional development policies are inspiring. He speaks of Atlantic and Pacific gateways, and most importantly addresses the de-population of our regions (such as the Maritimes) as a negative development, not an inevitable one. He rejects the prevalent philosophy that we can do nothing, nor should we, to stem an exodus from the regions of this country.

On foreign policy, I will not speak at length about, say Iraq, but note Mike has done so below. I will say that this is not an Achilles’ heel for Ignatieff. It is here that he is perhaps needed most, because the false moral relativism of the new left appears to be dangerously alluring in its simplicity. His ideas here are in the greatest tradition of liberal internationalism while reflecting the reality of the 21st century. We cannot in conscience speak of tragedy in Darfur, or Rwanda, and turn a blind eye to it elsewhere. This is not a license for never-ending intervention, but rather a basic belief that we can be guided by the principle that if we believe in the importance of individual agency (or dignity as agency as he says), and human rights at home, we cannot expect far less abroad. Ignatieff would still, as he says, be very cautious with the use of force. The logical conclusion of Romeo Dallaire's experience in Rwanda, an outcome which I'm sure many self-professed progressives in this party have shaken their head in shame, is Ignatieff's philosophy, and nowhere is that clearer than in Dallaire's endorsement of him.

We are being bombarded with false dichotomies. The Liberal members that opposed the Afghanistan extension, save Bob Rae (who's position is far closer to the NDP's), made it clear at the time that they did so out of disagreement with Harper's tactics, not on principle. To say now as public opinion sways that this was somehow a divide between hawks and doves is dishonest. As to our goals there is also a false divide. This is not an issue of one side saying we need reconstruction and the other (Ignatieff) only military. There is nothing radical in a Kennedy suggesting we must win the hearts, minds, and stomachs of the Afghani people, when Ignatieff has said since the beginning the focus cannot be solely military-based.

On the constitution, I must admit I have not been thrilled with Ignatieff's position and I assure you I have assessed it as critically as anyone. I will also do Ignatieff the respect of not simplifying his position as many of his supporters have done by clamouring to praise every special status movement since the 1960's. This is a post in itself really. Basically, I am hopeful that Peter Newman's point, that Ignatieff is not rejecting Trudeau's vision, but building on it, is correct.

This does not appear to me to be necessarily the antithesis of the Trudeau position. His opposition to the Mulroney constitutional debacles, which was well-founded and so worthy of discussion, was based on several factors. On distinct society he largely feared the nature of it as an interprative clause which may overrule the Charter. While we cannot know Ignatieff's thinking entirely, we do know that he has called for "an affirmation of the supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms..." Trudeau feared not just the symbolism of constitutional amendment but the content, particularly the intensively devolutionary bent of these documents. Ignatieff has stated outright that this is not his goal, that Quebec possesses the powers it requires already, and with regards to the other provinces that the federal government cannot be further weakened.

Another enormous problem with Meech and Charlottetown was the federal government's abdicating of its role. They bargained for nothing in return. Ignatieff has listed several requirements right at the outset, including constitutional recognition of the federal spending power, federal role in national citizenship, constitutional bilingualism, the charter provision, and a strengthened national economic union (ie. reduced barriers to internal trade, literally an example given by Trudeau as what should have been sought by Mulroney).

I think there is merit to saying that this should not be opened, and the fact that others have since started arguing for this process to achieve aims opposite Ignatieff's intentions proves he may not be able to control the agenda. I don't think that is alarmist or defeatist. However, I have tried to show that Ignatieff's vision seems reconcilable with this strain. Elsewhere, Dion is at heart a decentralist in an already decentralized federation. It is well and good to strongly say you will leave the issue alone, but he will not strengthen Canadian citizenship in the process. And with Bob Rae, who despite as recently as August suggesting constitutional change, is now saying he will leave it alone, we are not given a superior option. He has simply said he will deal with each issue one at a time. So with him we would likely face the devolution of Charlottetown , and the dangers to a national citizenship of opening this can of worms, without the advantages of Ignatieff's position. Rae is not offering a way out of this dilemma. A piece by piece constitutional mess is no panacea.

Politically, I strongly believe it is with Ignatieff that we have the greatest chance of forming a government in the next election, and stopping a Conservative reign that cares little for the traditional conception of the social fabric of this country.

Of course I would prefer he had more direct political experience, as would he I'm sure, though I am quick to point to Trudeau, a veritable outsider. To this we are told, "ah but he had 3 or so years in government" (Ignatieff will have around one by convention time but I digress), and apparently that makes all the difference.

To that I am compelled to ask, had there been a leadership race in 1965 should Trudeau not have run? Would we be better off as a country having passed on him? Did his experience so greatly contribute to his subsequent years in power as to make his time unworkable without them? I hardly think so. Lack of "experience" (a lifetime dedicated to reporting on, and participating in global political issues counts for quite a bit in my book) may be a problem, but does it nullify everything else? I think not.

Bob Rae speaks of winning, and uniting the team, over the importance of ideas. Ignatieff obviously has ideas in spades. And as far as uniting the team, as a precursor to winning, it should be noted that Ignatieff has the majority of support in caucus by quite a bit. These people are LITERALLY the team that are somehow more likely to unite behind Rae, unbeknown to them I suppose. Why chose ideas or electability when you can have both?

Ignatieff's candidacy does not ask of us to abandon idealism in the face of political pragmatism. I give no quarter to any suggestion otherwise, with Ignatieff I honestly feel I am able to do both.

He presents us with a leader who has the potential to ensure what seems very fragile at this point, the indivisibility of Canadian citizenship. This means the opportunity not to face great disparities dependent on where we choose to live, and an improved standard of living for all Canadians. This vision does not quash regional identities, but rather ensures that on a fundamental level, we share in a truly national experience. It is here that Ignatieff's greatest potential lies, and it is this for which he needs our support.

Let us be bold.

-Steve

Mike endorses Michael before it is too late

2006-09-28T17:26:00.000-07:00

What follows is a (very) lengthy account of how I came to declare as an Ignatieff delegate. I don’t see the utility in simply telling you that he’s my guy. It’s more constructive to outline my thinking specifically. I hope it compelling that I have explored some of the same questions and doubts that his detractors have, so deeply that at times I ceased calling myself an Ignatieff supporter, but have emerged more excited by his leadership than I have been in my short political life. If this endorsement seems strangely late, it is because I’ve taken this decision very seriously. I’ve been critical of Michael when I felt it warranted, as well as congratulatory of the others. I wanted to be sure, and I am.

This is the opinion of only one steelcitygrit blogger. I'll leave Steve to offer his own endorsement.

As always, I will explore policy first.

Firstly, foreign policy (although I’d rather that it takes a back seat in this contest to social policy, etc. it hasn’t – so I will play the cards I’ve been dealt). Here I am unequivocal. Ignatieff stands to save the liberal Left. He did a remarkable thing before entering politics, when he broke with the ironclad academic paradigm. He was wrong about Iraq – really bad intentions can’t produce good ends. But he is right elsewhere. Let us stow that most basic of polemic fallacies – guilt by association – and examine the content of his philosophy. He argues that the liberals have always stood to uphold some basic commitments. This is the nature of constitutionalism; this is the nature of domestic social justice. What, then, is inherently left-wing about this newfound relativism that now runs our show? We fight so bitterly for these moral truths at. Why do we abandon them across political borders? The NDP position, which some leadership candidates seem unwilling to distance themselves from, is a sort of isolationism that Canada has never known. By removing ourselves from Afghanistan (no, this is not expressly the position of any Liberal leader, but some have left that door open) we are creating a precedent under which we must sit out the Darfur expedition. It is real politik position, in a strange way. The suggestion is that it would be nice to help the Afghan people, but it’s too hard so we won’t. When has this ever been a leftwing position? Blood and Belonging, Virtual War, and numerous other Ignatieff pieces explain with crystal clarity and impeccable execution why intervention is at times a moral necessity. In breaking with the nouveau Left, Ignatieff has kept faith with Canadian foreign policy of the past.

Other candidates have contented themselves with lobbying open-ended questions. Are we winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis? Is the mission unbalanced? These are important questions all. But a leader needs to answer questions, as well as ask them. Ignatieff has called for a renewal of diplomacy and reconstruction efforts, along with all the others. He has projected the right message: if this is a good mission done badly, let’s do it right. But we can be adamant in our support.

Elsewhere, he has called for Canada to meet Pearson’s benchmark by dedicating .7% of our GDP to foreign aid. Also, he has shown an understanding of the effects agricultural subsidies at home can have on farmers in the developing world. Why this hasn’t been picked up, I don’t know. But it is an important message.

Finally, on the domestic end of security, he has called for the abolishment of security certificates. Said certificates are an absolute stain on our party’s reputation. Ignatieff, by virtue of his absence, has the credibility to undo that legislative mistake.

On to environmental policy. Here my thinking has evolved in recent months. Where not long ago I would’ve regarded it as less than decisive, I’m one of the many that are beginning to feel that this must be THE issue. That is nearly impossible deny on any rational grounds. Ignatieff’s platform is gutsiest, in a way that the other candidates don’t even try to deny. Instead they warn us of the political fallout that is to result. Firstly, if we are today to prioritize politics over effective environmental policy – as is explicitly suggested by most other candidates – then we shouldn’t be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. The carrot isn’t going to get us there; the stick needs to come into play. Everybody recognizes this. If we don’t carry it out, it’s cowardice. Nothing more. Secondly, there is reason to believe we are approaching a watershed in public opinion regarding environmental policy. How else can one explain the massive commercial success of an Al Gore powerpoint presentation? Canadians are genuinely embarrassed that the Conservative party is abandoning Kyoto. But they don’t see the Liberal party as an alternative, and what reason have we given them to do so? Do not underestimate the Canadian people. Many are willing to bear short term pain, in order that life on Earth can be brought back from the precipice. Ignatieff’s platform asks this of Canadians. No one else is willing to engage the public in the same dramatic fashion.

Quebec. Here has Ignatieff caused me to suffer most. My support was shaken soundly during the “nation” debate, and nearly scuppered during the constitutional debate. Ultimately, I will continue to question and oppose what I have seen so far. But there is nuance in Ignatieff’s position that has been largely missed. Having searched his words and writings over time as carefully as I have, I feel confident that I am not acting as an apologist. I will always contest that word “Nation” when it is applied to the province of Quebec in its entirety. However, the “civic nation” label that Ignatieff uses is of some comfort – despite the way it has been interpreted by some. It, alongside his same-breath recognition of our Indigenous First Nations, suggests an understanding of the multinational and multiethnic nature of Quebec as well as Canada. He doesn’t engage in the sort of “two solitudes” mythologizing that we see with others – even if his supporters do. Ultimately I regard his position with reference to his competition. Rae is famous for his fervent and vitriolic opposition to Trudeauvian federalism. Dion is one of the most successful devolutionists in Liberal federal history, and did everything he could as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to give us an extra-constitutional Meech. In this company, to call Michael a decentralist is disingenuous. “Nation” recognition or not, he will protect federal jurisdiction in a way it hasn’t been protected for two decades. There is also a vein of liberal individualism that runs through his vision. This is something that this blog will develop sometime soon.

Social policy is the forgotten domain in this leadership contest. It’s unfortunate, as many candidates – Kennedy and Dryden particularly - have been ambitious and offered innovation. Once again though, Ignatieff has stood out. He will reengineer child care support so that it is once again means-tested. He will consolidate student aid programs so that the federal government can take a direct hand in post-secondary education that cannot be interfered with. He will offer tax relief to lowest-income brackets. He will extend EI benefits to mothers and fathers This is good stuff – practical but effective.

Michael has written with insight on the issues facing our Indigenous populations. He describes Aboriginal self-government appropriately as a nation-building exercise. He has been eloquent in his defense of the Kelowna Accord. A complete Aboriginal policy platform is not yet available, but we have reason to believe that this is an issue Ignatieff will prioritize. He has intimated a desire to topple the Indian Act altogether. This should be an absolute requirement for our new leader.

Finally, the superficial stuff – electability, leadership qualities, etc. I think sometimes lost in all of this is just how remarkable it would be to claim as our head of state an internationally-regarded scholar, a critically acclaimed writer. Imagine sending to the U.S. or U.K. a leader that is already recognized as a brilliant man and a personality. Here the Trudeau comparison is undeniable. Project 30 years in the future, and I can imagine my contemporaries recalling that “love him or hate him, you were proud to call him your own.” What other candidate promises that much? In truth, Trudeau had nothing like the international renown that Ignatieff has, at least at the outset of his political career. This is an opportunity for Canada, singular in history.

Does he have political strikes against him? Undeniably. But the worst mistake we can make as a party is settling for the guy with the least immediate downsides. We tried that with Paul Martin and it didn’t work, and that was at a time when it seemed we couldn’t lose. That was at a time when we didn’t need to win debates, when we didn’t need to advance ambitious policy, because we were nearly unopposed. Now the Liberal party needs to strike a dramatic chord, to demonstrate in loud tones why we are something new. The ability to capture imaginations, to garner headlines cannot be underrated.

Will the other parties try to pillory Ignatieff for his time outside of Canada, etc? Of course. But Canadians react against this sort of unsophisticated, ad hominem campaigning. We bore painful witness to it ourselves this past election. Once again, we mustn’t sell Canadians short.

Would it be preferable if Michael had the opportunity to spend two years in cabinet, or at least in the House? Certainly – and he will tell you the same without hesitation. But as he rightly notes, politics operates by its own calendar, its own clock. And shortly its bells will sound. Michael Ignatieff’s time will have come.

- Mike (SCG)

RIP Court Challenges Program

2006-09-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

[If this post seems particularly formal, it is because I stumbled ass-backwards into a weekly politics column at McMaster's The Silhouette. My pieces appear complete with a vaccuous, mouth-breather headshot and everything. I'm nestled in amongst all the "what's the deal with facebook?" type columns. It's embarassing. Anyways, this is installment 3.]

Consider it a formal introduction. Stephen Harper reminded Canadians what conservatism in government truly means on Monday, with the announcement of spending cuts across the board. Treasury Board President John Baird exhumed a tried and tested cliché not heard since Mulroney’s 80s: “We are trimming the fat and refocusing spending on the priorities of Canadians.”

Baird assures us that the cuts were done strategically; the programs that suffered were those that generated little returns. A closer examination will find that half of that is true. These cuts were strategic indeed. One stands out particularly – one that speaks volumes about this government’s true agenda.

On Monday, Stephen Harper quietly engineered the elimination of the Court Challenges program. What is Court Challenges? It is – was – an arms-length institution that provided financial backing for rights claims. Essentially, through this program the government funded disadvantaged groups to challenge it on rights issues.

The program was introduced in 1978. At that time, it was intended to protect minority language rights exclusively. Later, it was expanded, so that it applied to all equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It’s been an essential tool in many landmark equality cases. Certainly, without Court Challenges we would not yet have same-sex marriage. It provided considerable support to the gay rights organization EGALE. Its subsidies allowed EGALE to manage massive legal costs while pursuing its equality claims in court. The eventual result was a Supreme Court decision that the current definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

Aboriginal groups, too, have relied heavily on the program. Land claims, residential schools reparations, racist legislation: First Nations have an endless need to access the court system. However, endemic poverty makes this extraordinarily difficult. Without financial aid, pursuing Charter rights is simply impossible.

It’s no wonder that far-right organizations have called for the disbandment of the program. Theirs is not a concern for fiscal responsibility. Gwen Landoldt, vice-President of the anti-gay, anti-abortion REAL Woman of Canada makes her point with gusto:

“You have homosexual and radical feminist activists doling out funds to their own activist organizations without the slightest public accountability

Iain Benson, a lawyer that often represents the religious Right, says the program was susceptible to “…blatant favourtism… It’s the politically correct groups that get the funding.”

The program would not generate such vitriol if it had not been successful in bringing about equality rulings. We begin to read new meaning in Harper’s decision. It is presented as a cost saving measure – the lesser of the conservative evils, as it were. But it underscores a far more odious design.

Harper’s aversion to minority and Charter Rights is no secret. He has mused publicly about invoking the notwithstanding clause – so that he might override rights in, say, repealing same-sex marriage. Here is a far simpler, softer option. There is considerable political capital at stake when a prime minister engages the constitution in open battle, after all. Harper intends, instead, to use the back door. If Canadians are unable to access the Charter, via the courts, then it is rendered effectively toothless. Where previous governments paved a road from the disadvantaged to their Charter justice, Harper is now tearing up the tarmac.

The Conservative defence is not as reassuring as it intends to be. Baird argues that “…if the government thinks that laws are unconstitutional, it should change them. They shouldn’t be providing subsidies to lawyers to do their work for them.” He would have the legislators solely responsible for challenging the laws that they themselves pass. This begs the question that why would a government pass laws if it deemed them to be unconstitutional?

The message, at simplest, is “just trust us.” Are we to heed this advice? Are we to bow our heads in deference, content that our government will look after all of us all the time? This defies the very purpose of having a constitution. Our Charter was enacted so that all citizens would be able to challenge their government and could not be ignored. This is an ability we should protect zealously.

There is more afoot in Ottawa then the mere pinching of pennies.

- Mike (SCG)

keep wackos out of Caledonia

2006-09-25T10:19:00.000-07:00

A planned rally on Six Nations land currently held by the provincial government is causing tremdous concern amongst both Six Nations and Caledonian residents. The organizers: co-founders of the organization "Caledonia Wake Up Call". That is Mr and Mrs McHale, a couple from... Richmond Hill?

What exactly is their cause? A sish to bring stability back to their home community? Well, no. They live north of Toronto. Do they wish to bring an end to the various road blocks, etc that threaten economic viability in Caledonia. Well, no. Those have been disassembled already. Perhaps they feel the Six Nations need to be removed so that development at Douglas Creek can continue. Well, no. The provincial government has purchased the disputed land in full, and is now in the process of transferring title to Six Nations.

So what drives this computer programmer - from Richmond Hill - and his wife to go to such lengths, in organizing their "March For Freedom"? Hmmm...

I won't link to Caledonia Wake Up Call's website, because I have no interest in generating any traffic in that direction. I will provide some highlights, so that we might build a profile.

Otop the page is a dramatic bar, bearing - inexplicably - the seal of the American Department of Homeland Security. "For Our American Viewers", the McHales have provided today's Terrorist Threat Advisory. Thougthful. This makes more sense when we discover, further down the page, that they have contacted that same Department about "Native Homegrown Terrorism" at Caledonia. The letter provides our first insight into the minds behind the rally. (It's unclear who the author is but he seems intimately linked with the "March For Freedom") Passionate, yes - if not John Locke:
"As you are no doubt already aware... [the protesters] are not exactly sunday school teachers."
It continues to list a laundry list of infractions on the part of the above:
"[They] threw officers out of a police car Grand Theft Auto Style... [They are] playing loud music... etc. Sounds like these events could be happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, doesn't it?"

Further down the webpage, they call for the OPP to be disbanded. Why? Because "they defy our democratic system, they overlook murder", etc. etc.

Elsewhere, in a distinctly freudian moment, they superimpose a KKK hood over the head of a Six Nations protester.

There are numerous allegations that this reclamation was "NEVER ABOUT LAND CLAIMS" but about a casino (of course). Etc., etc., etc.

I could dig up more but there is no need. Obviously these are irrational people, obviously there is no reason at play and only hatred. And there will always be people like this existing on the periphery. So why write this post, why give them a moment's thought? A couple reasons:

a) This organization is not the citizens of Caledonia. This organization is profoundly more dangerous, and offers a considerably greater potential for massive escalation. They cannnot be allowed to interlope as they would.

b) Why has Toby Barrett, MPP for Haldidmand-Norfolk-Brant, agreed to appear as guest speaker at the "March For Freedom"?

Toby Barrett: John Tory's "moderate" posse rides again

clearing up the Rae debate

2006-09-21T07:45:00.000-07:00

I'm willing to get past this donations issue soon, but first the slavish apologists require a response. This is not an issue of loyalty, or party fealty. Not at all. This is a values issue, in a practical sense.

In both the '06 and '04 elections, I chose the Liberal option. I didn't do it out of instinctual adherence to the Red and White. I didn't do it because I was auditioning for a job. I did it on principle because I believed it the party most capable of governing.

Bob Rae chose the NDP option. We can assume he did so on principle; he's a principled man. The NDP was closer to his political vision a few months ago then was the Liberal Party. That puts us fundamentally at odds.

It makes no sense not to take that into account.

- Mike (SCG)

Bob Rae running in the wrong crowds?

2006-09-19T19:30:00.000-07:00

I have trouble taking the Bob Rae donation allegations lightly. I have particular trouble after learning that one of the NDP campaigns he alledgedly donated to was London-Fanshawe. This riding , where Liberal Glen Pearson lost to NDP Irene Mathyssen, was personally one of my biggest disapointments of the 'o6 election.

From May 10/2006:

Glen Pearson - if I may sidetrack for a moment - is one of the great living Liberals. His CV includes serving as a firefighter for 28 years, founding the London Food Bank, consulting with all levels of government on poverty issues, and founding the organization Canadian Aid for Southern Sudan. Pearson travelled often to the Sudan. He build a YM/YWCA nearbye and was personally involved in freeing slaves - one of which he adopted as a daughter. He was defeated in London-Fanshawe by New Democrat Irene Mathyssen, whose CV includes 'good at being po-mo cynical about stuff' (paraphrased).

Glen Pearson is someone who makes you proud to be a Liberal. In my mind, this particular riding campaign was a microcosmic reinforcement of why I am a Liberal and not a New Democrat. And Rae - already noted at this point as a potential future Liberal leader - was there, bailing out his old friend Irene?

Is it unreasonable to cry foul? I can't usually be accused of demanding party loyalty too rigorously.

I'm willing to assume innocence, but this story should not go away until Rae indicates that this is a mistake.

- Mike (SCG)

UPDATE: Revisit the personal introduction that appears on Bob Rae's website:
I am a Liberal because I believe the Liberal Party represents Canada at its best: diverse, innovative, fundamentally decent.
Doesn't it grit your teeth just a little bit?

New Brunswick goes home again

2006-09-18T21:37:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Shawn Graham and the Liberal Party of New Brunswick for winning the premiership in a place very close to my heart. Bouctouche has given us a premier now, and perhaps another sort of leader down the selfish neo-conservatism that Lord had brought to New Brunswick and that still reigns in Ottawa. One down. Will we see a Liberal tide like in the 1960's? We can only hope.

Also, I see that David McGuinty has endorsed Michael Ignatieff. He is a strong MP, intelligent and articulate, and I've always been a fan. Not sure why this deserves blogging mention and not the enormous Romeo Dallaire endorsement (which seems to have been lost in the summer heat), but oh well.

By the way, did anyone else notice Ken Dryden finally shatter that woodenness on Sunday? His rant about Harper was outstanding. You can say all you want about how it was targeted for that effect, etc., but what's undeniable was the assurance with which he spoke. Good on 'ya Ken. Ignatieff seemed to enjoy it too.

-Steve

Dion and land claims

2006-09-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

Bits and pieces:

- I thought Stepane Dion was terrific on the Kelowna Accord question. He managed to take a fairly substance-less issue (only because all candidates are united in their support of the Kelowna Accord) and advance some very important ideas. He spoke of transferring land claims from the federal government to an independent body. This is necessary and long overdue. He also spoke of First Nations being able to self-govern outside of the Indian Act. These two ideas shouldn't become lost in the fray, and both seemed to have a significant thought process behind them.

I was taken by surprise. When I asked Dion about these two issues specifically some months ago, his response was very different. At that time, he didn't seem to see any need to re-evaluate our land claims proceedings, and he warned against self-government creating "provinces of 90 people." I'm glad to see he has made some revisions.

- If he wasn't so conservative, I'd fight and die for Scott Brison. If he ever abandons his business conscious ways I will belong to him. The East needs to produce more candidates.

- I heard Gerard Kennedy speaking again about his 'distinct' position on Afghanistan ["We should leave Afghanistan if we can't get a mandate that does honour and respect to the people of Afghanistan and to our troops."]. I frankly don't get it. If we (the Liberal Party) were in a position to pull our troops, then would we not also be in a position to revise the mission? We lead the NATO deployment. Isn't the mission whatever we say it is? If so, then let us not pander to the fashionistas. If it is a good mission done badly, then let's do it right. I don't know why that can't be our message.

Mini MI

2006-09-17T20:58:00.000-07:00

Every debate, Gerard Kennedy speaks faster and louder. I do like his emphasis on respect for people, however. Now there is real renewal.

"We won't just have aspirations - we'll actually be able to get them done!" He calls it "enterprise". What resonance! Magnifique.

I had a dream that I carried a 4-inch tall Michael Ignatieff around in my coat pocket. When I faced a decision, I'd pull him out and he would advise me. He was kind of sarcastic. What does that mean?

Canada's unsated constitutional needs

2006-09-14T16:57:00.000-07:00

I decided to sit down and list all the possible ways that we could alter our constitutional arrangement. Since the language of "need" is used often of late, I refined my list further. Any alteration that is not necessary was crossed off. I then divided the necessary into short-term and long-term needs. Here is the result:

Long-term Constitional Needs:

1. The elimination of the Notwithstanding Clause, so that entrenched rights are sheltered from majoritarianism, tribal assertions, etc.

Short-term Constitional Needs:

1.

oh.

'A fool for five minutes': Questions for Iggy RE:constitution

2006-09-11T12:09:00.000-07:00

Today I had intended on posting a detailed and forceful endorsement of Michael Ignatieff. After yesterday's developments and a lengthy conversation with my coblogger, I agreed that before I do that I must in good conscience ask a few questions. They are fairly straight-forward; I look forward to a quick response.

- How can Quebec be recognized as a distinct constitutional entity without eroding massively the supremacy of the Charter?

- How can Quebec be recognized as a distinct constitutional entity without initating a further devolution of governmental capacity?

- If we can maintain the preeminence of the Charter and the place of the Federal government, what are we offering Quebec in return for its assent to the Constitution?

- If the French Canadian Nation in Quebec is recognized legally, how can we guarantee the other nations and ethnicities in Quebec equal participation and recognition?

- How can we maintain and protect the Franco minority outside of Quebec, if the province is to become the French "Homeland".

- Why now?

- Mike (SCG)

Disquiet on the Left

2006-09-07T10:59:00.000-07:00

[Back now from the Great White North - no internet hooked up so my posts will still be slow in coming]

From my new home high above downtown Hamilton, I have a particularly compelling view of the Great New Democratic self-destruction. Here in Hamilton Centre campaign season never ends for the NDP. The Christopherson/Layton mustache is worn proudly at every street festival, etc. This is distincly less irritating this year, as their orange and green is almost overpowered by the bright red in their cheeks.

I loitered beside an NDP display table at a street festival today, and observed the bloodletting. The workers explained with less than their usual aplomb how the they're still interested in results for people - just Canadian people and no one else. Or how they don't think that Canadian soldiers want to be terrorists, but are manipulated by their American counterparts. Or how we oughtn't concern ourselves with recent cuts to social spending because there are 10 more New Democrats in parliament...so we should sit tight.

Here in what is lately an NDP bastion, they are on the defensive in a way that I have never seen before. Is it dawning on Canadians just how unprincipled and thoroughly political Jack's gang have become? Is it because the party is steadily advancing an isolationist foreign policy that has no precedence in 80 years? Either way it may make for the most interesting election dynamic next go-around.

- Mike (SCG)

Homeless cuts = results for people?

2006-08-31T10:24:00.000-07:00

The Conservatives' decision to cut funding for homeless shelters a couple weeks back is exactly the kind of thing that a Conservative victory raised the spectre of before the last election.

In London, services have been cut by $376,000. This follows cuts to Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton, Halifax, and Vancouver (confirmed by the London Free Press and Mayor Anne-Marie Decicco, despite Diane Finley's stick-handling to the contrary).

This is an alarming response to all of those who naively suggested a minority government would somehow entirely handcuff Stephen Harper, and that talk to the contrary was simply fear mongering. This is particularly true to of the many NDP (and some Green) supporters who rattle on about "liberal, tory, same old story" while enabling regressive moves like this. Not to mention Kelowna, child-care et al, this is but one more example of the "results for people" that the sacking of the last government has brought home.

-Steve

Note: Sorry for the delay there as I was moving, and my compatriot I believe is still off in the wilderness.

Bevilacqua's Automatic Supporters?

2006-08-20T22:04:00.000-07:00

A further thought on the Bevilacqua adventures of late:

Bevilacqua's comments regarding his support of Bob Rae filling up the chamber for the man support-wise is a bit off-putting. For one, this implies the instant switchover of his loyal supporters to Bob Rae. But of course? Well, that seems to be the reaction I've noticed, but to me it seems far from obvious that people supposedly enamoured of Maurizio's leadership platform would jump to the call of their leader when he's made such an unexpected move, especially before even officially declaring for him. Whatever similarities Bevilacqua sees in Rae, they can't be so instantly sensible to his former supporters. At the convention, sure, I understand this, but at this point, let us hope that we are not too deep into horse-trading over the backing the candidate that matches our own personal visions for the party. Some going to Ignatieff recently underscores this, though that is also a bit odd in some ways.

Is this naive? Not really. I don't for a minute suggest not factoring in a candidate's potential. After all, politics is indeed the art of the possible...to a degree (make sense?). It's a tightrope to be sure. But I'd say it's safe to say a former staunch Bevilacqua backer hasn't exactly been concerning himself or herself with the fastest route to victory.

-Steve

Bon Film!

2006-08-18T21:46:00.000-07:00

Just took in Bon Cop Bad Cop. I went for Colm Feore, the acting genius that he is (he can do it all, this was a far cry from the last thing I saw him in, Shakespeare's Coriolanus). I'll agree from the ads my feelings were the prospect of a big Canadian flick with Feore and Rick Mercer are appealing enough but the movie probably won't be very good. I'm glad to say I was pleasantly surprised. It is far better than the trailers make it look (and if you think they make it look good well then enjoy). Reviewers don't seem to like it? Well come on now, it is a buddy cop film not Denys Arcand, so we can expect some level of cliche, etc. But this is true only in small, harmless doses (not that we don't get enough cliches from someone like Cronenberg without him getting called on it).

I'm not usually into this genre, the Shanghai noon movies, for example, keep up at night lamenting a world where Owen Wilson is taken so much more seriously than Luke Wilson, but this is a solid flick. Funny and engaging, and Feore and Quebec actor Patrick Huard are great. Bilingualism lives!

A fun movie that even were it not well done would still be gold for bringing Canada's best actor to the screen once again (sorry Paul Gross).

Go see it! Do it for Colm, do it for Canada.

-Steve

Clear Day Thunder

2006-08-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

Just a note: Steelcitygrit will continue to be updated, so don't take us of your to-do list for the next little while (on which I'm sure we are mighty high). That being said, as I am moving in the next few days, I may get disconnected, or be staggeringly busy, however that will be the only reason we should lose your rapt attention and not the fact that the dog days of summer are arriving and bringing with them very little material.

We will, however, have to endure without Mike's rabble-rousing and ahead of the curve commentaries, for the time being.

-Steve

dark sky sanctuary

2006-08-15T17:49:00.000-07:00

I will be disconnected for the next two or three weeks. The majority of that time will be spent on Manitoulin Island, where the water is clear and the land unceded. Judging from the sort of response I've been getting lately, I feel that this is a blow the Liberal blogging community will be able to overcome. Perhaps in my absence my recently-returned co-blogger will repopularize SCG with his rapier wit and deft analysis.

- Mike (SCG)

Maurizio, we hardly knew ye

2006-08-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

So Maurizio Bevilacqua has dropped out of the race. This surely is a good thing, with no offense to the candidate but out of deference to the “workability” of the race itself. I am seeing little impressive reasoning behind these apparent "profile-raising" runs and the fact is anyone who saw the leadership debates realizes these numbers have made the race much less engaging. They've also stood in the way of our old hobby horse here at Steelcity of policy over platitudes (actually, we're okay with platitudes at this stage, but let us at least generalize about policies). There are a few more that seem to have little business in this race at this point, obviously. That is not to say that we should be pushing people out because the media or even real support has anointed someone else. The difference is between running against great odds to further a legitimate vision and running to get a cabinet portfolio.

Maurizio's throwing of his support behind Rae is surprising because if Bevilacqua was in the race to represent what he felt was an under represented (I'll stay away from the dreaded left-right red herring he and other candidates have thrown out) shall we say fiscally cons-oops, sorry now-prudent agenda, then is that where Bob Rae stands? ...Interesting how dropping the supposedly ideological terms blurs the lines, isn't it? Because who doesn't want to be prudent... Anyway, does this suggest Rae's sympathies lie with a continuation of the more rightward (a hell it's unavoidable) shift, at least in fiscal matters? Perhaps not, as any support is welcomed. Yet he was attractive enough to Bevilacqua. And if we are questioning the personal motivations involved, well, all I can say is there are other frontrunners so that is no automatic explanation. Though I don't mean to overstate its importance too much, we should certainly be thinking about this.

-Steve

fiscal unbalanced

2006-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

I don't know if there is a worse idea for "solving" the fiscal imbalance. The federal government has offered to automatically jettison any surpluses to the provinces.

The Conservative Party ran on a platform to reduce the federal government's capacity to govern. This we knew. But this proposal is particularly odd, nonetheless. Is it not typically the Conservative position to condemn such disincentivizing? Is this not the epitomy of fiscal irresponsibility? The federal government no longer has cause not to spend in the short term. If it isn't spent, it is lost regardless.

Neither are the provinces encouraged to govern responsibily. They are now free to cut taxes and reduce capacity with National Post-like zeal. Amongst themselves, they can commit whole-heartedly to tax competition with teenage male bravado. They can do so confident that Papa will be there to cover their losses and soften their mistakes.

There are aspects of this plan that fit the larger Conservative agenda more closely. They would effectively eliminate any option of a National Project now or in the future. Such major watershed iniatives require bankrolling and years of careful accumulation. But this is all out of the question now. We can expect from our federal government what we have now and then progressively less. Also, this is an equalization tact styled after the conservative child care tact and others. That is - no more is asked of the rich, no more is expected by the poor.

I was starting to let my guard down on this one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody blows like the Argos

"Nation" question trips up Lib Leaders again

2006-08-10T07:13:00.000-07:00

Let yesterday's debate in Quebec City serve as a rebuttal to anyone that would suggest Meech Lake is a dead issue. In fact, this question of "Nation" - which for our purposes is synonymous with "Distinct Society" - is fast replacing Adscam as the key issue in Quebec. Thus, it is alarming to read our candidates' responses. Most, it would seem, played dangerous games.

[Disclaimer - at this point I only have this Globe and Mail article to base my post upon. As such, I recognize that some context is probably lost]

Bob Rae, firstly:

"I always supported the notion that Quebec . . . is a nation, it is a distinct society, which we need to recognize in our Constitution and I have fought for that," Mr. Rae said. "The genius behind federalism is that we can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian."

This is typical fare from Rae. This is his true North, and we have every reason to believe it is a central element of his platform. The last sentence raises questions, particularly. It is difficult to deny, but what is its relevance to constitutionally enshrining Quebec's Nationhood? If Quebec is a province, then everyone in Quebec can be both Quebeckers and Canadians. Genius indeed. But if Quebec is a Nation - which is to say, if the province of Quebec is handed over lock and stock to the French Quebecois Nation - then we forfeit that phenomenon. Haitians, Mohawks, Cree no longer qualify as Quebeckers because they don't fit the National profile. Suddenly, the personage of Quebec is divided between Quebecois and Canadian. This is federalism failed.

Now Dion:

Mr. Dion argued the recognition of Quebec as a nation should not give the province any privileges. There would always be debates and friction in a country as diversified as Canada, he argued, and recognizing Quebec as a nation would serve to reinforce Canada's diversity. "Let us not allow the separatists to dramatize our disagreements and squash our successes," Mr. Dion said.

Mme. Dion takes a safer tack. The direct quote at the end resonates very well. In fairness, however, the Meech Lake process that Dion supports did exactly what he warns against. It extinguished the success - or the perception of success - that should've accompanied the introduction of the Charter. It dramatized our disagreements on a truly cinematic scale.

I must also disagree vigorously when he suggests that "recognizing Quebec as a nation would serve to reinforce Canada's diversity [not his words]." Recognizing the Franco Nation that exists within Quebec would do so. But what we're talking about is specifically and exclusively recognizing that Nation at the expense of the other Nations, the other peoples that share Quebec. This is not to mention the Franco Nation outside of Quebec, which also stands to lose in recognition.

Finally, Martha Hall Findlay:

"I have difficulty with the word nation. . . . We need more discussion about this," Ms. Hall-Findley said.

I am not prepared to crow with pleasure at this, as may be expected. Once again, I allow that she obviously said more than this and I don't know what it was. However, while she is right in doubting the word, her approach is exceptionally dangerous. One is left with the impression that she isn't yet willing to be so generous. This cannot be our message. Our mission is not to withold from the Quebecois. Our mission is to listen to the small voices in Quebec. When we refuse to equate "Nation" with the province of Quebec, we need to do so with a detailed explanation of our motivations. We do so on behalf of diversity, and that must be made crystal clear.

Constitutional Law 101

2006-08-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

Just one more example of how enforcing the "Rule of Law" in Caledonia is anything but:

Renowned constitutional law expert Peter H. Russell said yesterday that while he has great regard for the judge, he knows of nothing in law covering injunctions that would extend a judge's authority to actually step into the negotiations and bring them to a halt.

"I can't see how that would be in his powers."

Russell, now retired from the University of Toronto's political science department, said the issue of native occupancy of the land is a government policy issue. The federal and provincial governments have decided removing the natives "would cause grave disturbance of the peace and ... perhaps a halt to the negotiations," he said.

He also said both governments had the option of asking a higher court to review Marshal's original injunction.

Russell also said "there is no higher law (in Canada) that says failure to deal with a court order is (more serious) than the treaty rights of an aboriginal group.

"I do not know of any constitutional principle that would elevate respect for (an injunction order) of a judge over and above constitutional treaty rights."

(From The Hamilton Spectator)

Those who know the law know that Russell is someone to listen to.

UPDATE: Others have been listening to Russell. Justice Marshall is going to wake up tomorrow with a big black eye.

Gasoline

2006-08-08T11:23:00.000-07:00

John Tory gets the war he wanted. He has been in Caledonia so much recently it's almost a second home. Will he resume his soapbox on mainstreet, to fiddle while it burns?

One way to register one's opposition to a long and expensive Ipperwash Inquiry: Refuse to learn anything.

And o’er the past Oblivion stretch her wing.

Liberals to Re-evaluate Middle East?

2006-08-04T11:02:00.000-07:00

This is a bad loss for Liberals. It is, in part, the fault of some questionable poses struck by the Bob Raes of the world.

But it is not a failure of our foreign policy. Such thinking is innate of exactly the sort of party we don't want. This is the sort of thing we deride Stephen Harper on - consolidating obtainable political support through policy.

For the most part, this is all academic. We've landed in a pretty popular place on the Middle East question. But those who wish to advance political costs as reason to re-evaluate our position are wrong in spirit and practice.

Christina Blizzard Calls Out Anti-Canadian OPP

2006-08-04T06:25:00.000-07:00

Does anyone remember Christina Blizzard's coverage of Ipperwash, particularly the recently concluded inquiry? How she abhorred such a frivolous political grand stand. Her message was clear throughout: the death of Dudley George was a personal tragedy (very generous of her) but one must not reach conclusions about the nature of the First Nations relationship with law in Canada. The OPP was put in a difficult position; mistakes were made. But the griping must stop!

Funny how things have changed. Disturbed, perhaps, by the lack of dead unarmed protestors at Caledonia, she has had to reevaluate her earlier appraisal of the OPP. Perhaps she had it all wrong! The OPP is not the great grey neutral justice dispenser of her original imagination. Nor is it in any way unfriendly to First Nations interest - she is still certain about that. Instead, she reaches a new and most plausible understanding: that the OPP deals in reverse racism. White people are intimidated when they seek help. Natives light babies on fire, overturn cars and generally have a good time. Sure, there are none of these incidents on record as happening at Caledonia. But with a police force so rabidly anti-Canadian, it's impossible to know what's been really going on.

Fascinating. We know that:
- Aboriginal people are overrepresnted in prison by 6 X

- While Aboriginal youth comprised approximately 5% of the Canadian population, 33% of youth in custody are Aboriginal

- Aboriginal accused are more likely to be denied bail

- more time is spent in pre-trial detention by Aboriginal people

- Aboriginal accused are more likely to be charged with multiple offences, and often for crimes against the system

- Aboriginal people are more likely not to have legal representation at court proceedings

- Aboriginal offenders are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated than non-Aboriginal offenders

-Aboriginal clients, especially in northern communities where the court party flies in the day of the hearing, spend less time with their lawyers; as court schedules in remote areas are poorly planned, judges may have limited time to spend in the community

-Aboriginal Elders, who are also spiritual leaders, are not given the same status as prison priests and chaplains, in all institutions

- Aboriginal people often plead guilty because they are intimidated by the court and simply want to get the proceedings over with

Would any of this lead Christina Blizzard to conclude that Aboriginal people have a very unhappy and unbalanced relationship with the law? That there is some deplorable inequity there? Not in a million years would she arrive at such a thing. That's fare for the guilt mongering Toronto Star tea drinkers.

But treat a legally iron-clad land claim for what it is, and she is willing to conclude - in the face of all the above - that that inequity belongs to the White residents of Caledonia.

Of course, Blizzard is not yet finished. She lurches drunkenly from one logical pratfall to the next. With breathtaking audacity, she writes months worth of columns decrying unequal application of the law and failure to protect property rights without ever once alluding to the fact that this is the Six Nations position entirely - and then characterizes the Six Nations position as "rabbit-hole logic".

The land claim itself doesn't even appear in a footnote. This in and of itself shouldn't surprise; she reserves her right to "rule of law" reductionism. This means nuance is not a friend.

She compares the Native protesters to Hezbollah, with barely a blush:

"Look, I'm, not suggesting anyone is blowing up anyone up in Caledonia. But the provocative and violent way in which the native protesters made their demands in Caledonia could, under other circumstances, have led to a far different outcome."

I suppose the message is that it is fortunate the Citizens of Caledonia didn't respond to the rocket barrages in the same way that Israel did. This comes as a mild surprise to anyone who has witnessed the occupation. I'll be frank here, I don't recall any rockets at all. No guns. No bats. No Molotov Cocktails. No suicide bombings. I remember the Clan Mothers, who continue to operate the occupation. I remember how they and non-Native women from Caledonia enforced a strict decorum code. And anyone who broke it - on either side of the protest - would face reprimand from their own.

There was a tire fire. I suppose that's an act of war on par with targeting civilians for violence.

It has become Blizzard's standard practice to embed a corroborating quote from John Tory in each of her columns - al la Party press releases. His steely blue eyes and broad shoulders have obviously won over her heart. That, and his willingness to stand up to the anti-Canadian OPP and their radical tribal allies, the Queen's Park Liberals. A quick review of his high in protein, light in reason grandstanding and one can see the immediate appeal. He recently called out the Liberal government for negotiating a peaceful conclusion to the occupation. Well - that wasn't quite it. Instead, he suggested that negotiations be haulted until Six Nations protester left the land (which now belongs to the Province). So we should negotiate the end of the occupation - but not until the occupation ends! Here is the rabbit hole logic of the Middle East alluded to before- "no ceasefire will be negotiated until [X] ceases to fire."

He has also called for an inquiry into the handling of Caledonia. I seem to recall that Blizzard had a thing or two to say about the last inquiry:

"When McGuinty became premier, the Ipperwash inquiry became yet another way to discredit the previous government. That's too bad, because this shouldn't be about politics. It's about a terrible tragedy, and how we can avoid anything like this from happening again."

"Then two years ago Dalton McGuinty's new Liberal government calls a judicial inquiry under Mr. Justice Sidney Linden to probe the death. So now we've had 18 months of testimony, scores of government-funded lawyers, 100 witnesses, a made-for-TV movie and a $13.5-million tax bill. And what was the crucial testimony yesterday? Whether or not a former premier used the "F" word.Give me a break.... "

The message is clear. One unarmed protester shot dead. This is a trifling matter and the world must move on. But Caledonia - it has a tire fire.

...the language of farm, city and love

2006-08-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

Now is a great time for a leadership candidate launch a strong and substantive agricultural policy. This should serve as a good reminder for Liberals. The solution that farmers are seeking is, at simplest, a big government solution. Conservatives and farmers do not make natural bedfellows to the extent that is sometimes imagined. It's not a stretch, then, to expect a major Liberal revival in the country. We don't have to sell out our social liberalism - merely take our social justice agenda past city limits. So let's see it.

[Please turn up your thermostats Ontario]

worth the wait (well - maybe not entirely)

2006-08-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

Obviously the real issue here is how long this was in coming. That's not something I would refute. It really made no sense in the first place. It only became stranger when his campaign was so completely and bizarrely unresponsive to the public fallout that was being created. To release something now only makes the whole thing more bizarre and troubling.

Nevertheless, this is the best statement issued by any politician in Canada. He doesn't waste much space with a superfluous argument about how Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorism. He rather assumes this from the outset. If we could all do the same we'd save a lot of time.

Neither does he play any post-modern games. He places the blame for the conflict's eruption squarely on Hezbollah's shoulders. However, he doesn't stop here. Instead he recognizes the real issue that exists beyond this fairly straightforward assignment of responsibility. That is - that Israel needs to think of more than simply its justification. If the loss of Humanity in Lebanon is not apparently negative enough, than its significance is expressed purely in terms of how damaging it is to Israel ultimately. This is an argument rooted in real politik rather than human security, but it is done so in an effort to find an audience. This spirit is conveyed in the statements of most of the others, but there is a commendable degree of clarity here.

Secondly, he is more clear than others on Canada's role. He acknoledges our practical restraints, and offers a plan based on our capacity.

When I read this, I see more than I did in the statements of most others. I hear echoes of Janice Gross Stein, Ignatieff's friend and fellow giant head. But, as I say, its content needs to take a back seat to its incomprehensible delivery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tonight I deliver a speech to a bunch of older Greater Ipperwash area white people about how the Six Nations occupiers at Caledonia are merely upholding law and order. Pray for my soul.

Policy Depth Chart 1: Carbon Tax

2006-07-31T13:45:00.000-07:00

I'm going to try over the next little while to break down the positions of leadership candidates on a few important issues. These will be the issues upon which a number of clear positions have been stated, some in opposition to others. I will divy the candidates into their respective camps and link to relevant policy statements, as I am able. I will include in those camps the positions of others outside of the race, in an effort to provide some extra-partisan context. Feel free to comment if you feel your candidate is misrepresented - I'm happy to update and revise.

Today is the issue of whether a Carbon Tax should be imposed. At the outset, it is necessary to recognize the ambiguity of the term and the nuance which I will clearly be ignoring.

If I were a wise cultivator of readership I would've picked something more popular (like the great raging debate that currently seeks to answer that age-old question of "If a family member is dying or sick, how closely related must one be to legitimate missing a radio talk-show appearance). Nevertheless...

CARBON TAX

Hard Pro Candidates -
Michael Ignatieff

Soft Pro Candidates -
Ken Dryden (if all other efforts to achieve Kyoto standards fall short)
Caroline Bennet (the Carbon Tax approach can be investigated)

Other Proponents -
Jeffrey Sachs
David Suzuki (by proxy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soft Con Candidates -
Stephane Dion (Has "always opposed" an out-and-out Carbon Tax, but flirts with other "polluters pay" iniatives)
Bob Rae (It's "sensible" to tax polluters, but a single region can't bare unequal pain)

Hard Con Candidates -
Gerard Kennedy ("A carbon tax would only serve to divide Canada along regional lines")
Scott Brison
Hedy Fry ("Carrots work better than sticks")
Joe Volpe
Maurizio Bevilacqua ("It is certainly not an option for me")
Martha Hall Findlay

Other Opponents -
Ezra Levant ("class warfare, jealousy, anti-capitalism" - he doesn't disapoint)
Stephen Harper

Agnes McPhail, Ken Dryden, and debts unpaid

2006-07-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

- All more-women-in-politics reform isn't necessarily good more-women-in-politics reform. Let's consider this beauty offered up by Ken Dryden, which I expect Sheila to pick up on at some point. It is not just absurd but more than a little offensive to suggest that women are kept out of politics because they can't cope with foul language in the House of Commons. I'm reminded of Agnes Mcphail. When a male colleague suggested she had no place discussing penal reform, she famously responded:

"I'm gonna slap that f***ing smile off your fat face, you big-headed motherf***ker."

*(Agnes's words, not mine - I love Ken Dryden's face... and most of his platform actually. Damn good candidate but he's got this wrong)

- I received a noteworthy email recently. Someone had visited my Canadians For Kelowna website. On the site I include a quote from Michael Ignatieff:

"[Kelowna was] serious commitment, a matter of honour, a matter of justice. I'm sure we all agree to stand absolutely solid to convince Canadians that this is a debt of honour, this is a debt of justice and it's an investment in our future.”

Not bad, eh? The email tipster agreed that this was indeed sparkling oration. However, he wished me to note that when the House faced an opposition motion in late June to ratify Kelowna, Ignatieff was elsewhere. Couldn't make it to Ottawa on the day of the vote. His website suggests he was in New Brunswick. The good news is he managed to lasso a "stellar list" of New Brunswick MLAs, etc. C'mon.

Free advice for Ignatieff (which I seem to produce a lot of): In the run-up to Decemeber, your inexperience is going to be questioned. The only way to counter is to demonstrate how active you've been in Ottawa since your election. That means you don't miss a vote on a "debt of honour". It's also hard to "convince Canadians" that this is as important as it is, if bbqing in Quispamsis takes precedence.

- Encouraging signs of life from the Gerry K crew

"...His imagination for his facts"

2006-07-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

This is pretty funny stuff. I don't know why it hasn't been news yet:

...Canadian teachers developing internet resource materials about climate change have been left in limbo since the Harper government quietly shut down the main government website on global warming, www.climatechange.gc.ca on June 30. The government had provided tools for teachers to help them teach Canadian students about climate change, but all of that information has now been removed.

Mr. Holland said the government has abruptly shut down the site. Previous government news releases about climate change and other information about the issue have also been expunged from government websites.

A shocking control-of-information ploy? Perhaps, but one must have some sympathy. If you were an economist that wanted to argue in the face of such overwhelming scientific consensus, you have to level the playing field somehow. In this case, it is by eliminating fact.

I've really been sweating about this thing lately. So c'mon conservative commenters - make me forget about 1000 scientists. Tell me how a hot day in Saskatchewan 75 years ago disproves the climate change hypothesis.

Questions: Kennedy and Quebec

2006-07-24T10:56:00.001-07:00

In order to augment the efforts of my Steel City compatriot, I sent this email to the Kennedy camp today:

I administer a liberal blog - steelcitygrit.blogspot.com. I and others have been attempting to bring federalism into the leadership race discourse. Most of the other purported front runners seem to be advancing an approach to federalism - and Quebec particularly - that departs from the Liberal approach of Trudeau, Chretien et al. I believe this should and will become a point of focus in the race.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Kennedy has reserved extensive comment on this issue thus far. Many would love to know his position with regards to the Meech Lake/Charlottetown experiments, the notion of Distinct Society, and the "Quebec as a nation" question. If you could forward me relevant Kennedy comments, or refer me to where I might find them I would be very greatful. I will publish his comments on my blog.

If Kennedy does have an inclination towards a more symmetrical federalism, as some have suggested, than this is an opportunity to really distinguish himself from the field. I look forward to a response. Not to sound like a broken record, but this is an issue we need to zero in on.

My Leadership Race Wishlist

2006-07-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

What I want to see happen some time between now and December: a compilation of hopes and wishes.

a candidate answers a question about federalism with something other than reavowed support "a strong federal government and strong provinces."

a candidate answers a question about health care with something other than reavowed support for the Canada Health Act

a candidate answers a question about Caledonia/Native land claims or self-government with something other than reavowed support for the Kelowna Accord (which applies to neither)

we realize the absurdity of positioning an issue upon which there is essentially consensus - at least in practical terms - as the defining issue of the leadership campaign (Afghanistan)

Bob Rae demonstrates in clear and uniequivocal terms what makes him other than a New Democrat. This can be in terms of principles, process - anything.

Joe Volpe withdraws from the leadership race, crosses the floor, and resumes his old role as Immigration Minister.

We stop patronizing Martha Hall Findlay with our surprised approval (if she had absolutely no accomplishments to her name, no ability to speak publicly, no ideas, she wouldn't have put herself in this position)

a candidate positions his/herself in opposition to the Meech Lake decentralization that once galvanized the Liberal faithful and is now trumpeted by so many of our would-be leaders

we make a decision collectively - either we agree that effective energy policy can take precedence in the short term over electability in Alberta, or we ceased to pretend that this party is poised to get serious about the environment

We see a more substantial debate generally (Yawn. This comment has been made by everyone and his uncle. But it is us that allow these circumstances to remain. Only when we cease to manufacture enthusiasm everytime our candidate fires off some echoing platitude will this request be taken seriously.)

renewal, not deference!

2006-07-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

This Stephane Dion comment, via Calagary Grit vis-a-vis Michael Ignatieff and climate change, caught my eye:

He’s thrown out some ideas, but he didn’t even include a single word recognizing the work which myself and the Liberal government did on the climate change file or on our 2005 climate change proposal. When I travel to the Bahamas, they recognize the work Canada has done on Climate Change. I think it shows incredible disrespect for a new Liberal MP to come in here and ignore everything we’ve done.

Regardless of who is giving and who receiving, this is a sentiment that bothers me. Renewal is not about patting ourselves on the back. Canadians at large will not receive us well if we self-censor any criticism of the government that they just relegated to opposition. This comment is particularly absurd in that it doesn't refer to criticism, but rather to a lack of gushing praise.

Generally, Dion has shown an understanding of this. I appreciate his other instances of combativeness in the interest of finishing with a stronger party. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has been careful to preface nearly every comment with deference to a Dryden on child care, a Volpe on immigration, etc.

This should be a no-brainer: embuing the '05 Martin government with sacred cow status is only going to hurt the leadership process and the party

provinces reap what they sow

2006-07-12T11:20:00.000-07:00

This article notes a great little report due out on the fiscal imbalance.

It's what a lot of Liberals have been saying for a very long time (and what the Conservative government has been saying for a very short time - i.e. 6ish months).

The best thing about it is that Jim Flaherty is still to blame - although in his previous Queen's Park incarnation, rather than his present federal one.

www.canadiansforkelowna.ca goes live

2006-07-11T15:01:00.000-07:00

www.canadiansforkelowna.ca

The site is up at long last. With the relatively little time I have, this has taken longer than I hoped and required me to cease blogging for the most part. There are still a number of problems (one example: the graphical link html I give doesn't work yet but will soon). However, it is serviceable enough to announce.

Basically, the site provides a sketch of what the Kelowna Accord is all about. It provides facts, quotes, etc. It also suggests popular involvement and advocacy, and links to an online petition.

Please check it out and link to it (particularly after my graphical link html works). This is going to be a pivotal issue, and so far I received a tremendous amount of support from Conservatives, Liberals, Dippers, etc.

I will be getting in touch with the leadership candidates. All have paid the Kelowna Accord much lipservice and I hope they will be willing to involve themselves in this process.

UPDATE: The html code for that graphical link might now be working (hopefully). It works on this blog, anyways.

Ontario "wins", Ontarians lose

2006-07-07T09:33:00.000-07:00

Restrained jubiliation today as the ruling is handed down. No longer will the parents of children over six years with autism piggyback off of us hardworking, honest types.

Now, it isn't all good news. The children are still able to access the social and health services they need - after their parents surrender them to Children's Aid Societies. So to my compatriots at the National Post I say: it is a bittersweet victory. Make no mistake - we haven't yet reduced Canada to a pre-Hobbesian state of nature. Much work still lies ahead of us.

Perhaps the Canadian Taxpayers Federation should mark this as another national holiday - "Freedom From Helping People With Serious Medical Special Needs Day." I can imagine the gradiosity of the tickertape parades now. After all - some things are worth spending money on.

On a serious note, when I'm Prime Minister I'm going to levy a head tax on every card-carrying member of the CTF. Let some other PM apologize for me 100 years later.

Rae's record begs questions that have not been asked

2006-06-22T12:27:00.000-07:00

I will not discus Bob Rae’s record as premier. The truth is it’s not that relevant. I certainly don’t believe he could recreate his Queen’s Park disaster in Ottawa. The tendencies of one man simply can’t overcome that fiscal restraint that has become so deeply entrenched in the Federal Liberal agenda. His record poses electability problems, sure. In Hamilton and other cities in Ontario where the NDP are a threat we have used his name for years as indication of how bad things could get. It would be unfortunate to have to forego this argument, but nevertheless.

It is his values record that has been inexplicably ignored thus far, and requires a closer look. He is (or was, prior to Dion’s theoretical surge) billed as Quebec’s candidate. He has invited us recently - vis-à-vis other leadership candidates – to examine the current package in light of historical stances. I suggest that we do to him the same.

Bob Rae claims popularity amongst some Quebecois because of his past involvement in constitutional reform. Rae was a fervent defender of the Meech Lake Accord, and later, an architect of Charlottetown. This position – peculiarly untouched over the course of the leadership race thus far – leaves him dialectically opposed to many Liberals.

He has written extensively on these misguided endeavours. But one needs not wade into decade-old speeches. His website CV screams his support:

“As Leader in the Opposition in Ontario, I argued strongly in favour of the Meech Lake Accord, and as Premier of Ontario I helped negotiate the Charlottetown Accord. These experiences have led me to believe that Canada's strength lies in its diversity and in the realization by all of its citizens that no matter where in the country they are, they are part of a nation and belong to a community where their distinctiveness, perspectives, and traditions are welcomed. The federal government should set the example by working with provinces, citizens and communities to ensure that voices from across Canada are heard and considered.”

When asked what drives separatism, Rae is unequivocal: "The country would be in better shape if the Meech Lake Accord had passed.”

He has written that Pierre Trudeau et al “[were] arguing in defiance of Canadian history.” Whilst many Liberals celebrate Trudeau’s achievements, Rae isolates Trudeau as the source of this federation’s ills: “…we have seen the danger of governing in the name of a theory.”

Brian Mulroney, on the other hand, “showed great courage and great energy in his defence of the country and I fully supported his attempts to further reform the Constitution…” [By way of context, that last line was delivered at a speech celebrating great Liberal Alan McEachen. He was explaining his willingness to admit when even his most bitter enemies were right. Why else (this was a few years ago) would he be speaking kindly about a Liberal? Of McEachen Rae quips: “An opponent of George Bernard Shaw described him as ‘a good man fallen among Fabians’ and I have always felt that Allan J. was ‘a good man fallen among Liberals.’" Did Rae, at this time, have any inkling of what the future held? But I digress]

To suggest that Meech is history is wrong, outright. We are one PQ victory – nay, one ambitious PM only – away from reinvigorating the old debate. If my Liberal party became the party of a Distinct Society, and willingly flew in the face of all that Trudeau fought for, I don’t know where I’d turn.

This is a live issue, and one that Rae must answer to.

Suzuki Foundation weighs in on carbon taxing

2006-06-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

One legitimate apolitical perspective on carbon taxing:

From the David Suzuki Foundation:
Carbon tax makes sense for Canada -- U.S. has had one for years
June 15, 2006

OTTAWA – Canada should consider a broad array of tools to reduce climate change and pollution, including “polluter pay” initiatives such as a carbon tax, says the David Suzuki Foundation.

“A carbon tax is just a fair way of ensuring that polluters pay for their waste, so those costs aren’t passed on to the rest of society through damage to our health, environment and economy,” says Pierre Sadik, senior policy advisor for the David Suzuki Foundation. “Right now, polluters just dump those costs onto the average taxpayer.”

The idea of a carbon tax stirred up controversy in the House of Commons this week, but Mr. Sadik points out that the United States has already had a carbon tax for years, called the “Superfund.” Money collected through this modest tax on oil revenues is used to clean up toxic waste sites across the U.S.. Germany and the United Kingdom also have forms of a carbon tax.
“These initiatives all have different names, but essentially they are carbon taxes,” says Mr. Sadik. “The fact is – they work. They reduce pollution by ensuring the market reflects the true costs of these emissions on society.”

Polluter-pay initiatives like a carbon tax can be structured so that they don’t single out resource-rich regions of the country. Instead, they can be introduced wherever heat-trapping pollutants are emitted across the country.

“The revenue earned could help reduce the burden of pollution on our public health care system,” says Mr. Sadik. “And it could be used to finance new pollution-reduction technologies.”
Mr. Sadik notes that oil companies in the United States and Europe have still posted record profits, in spite of those jurisdictions having some form of carbon tax.

“There’s no reason why our federal government shouldn’t look at this kind of polluter-pay tool for Canada,” he says.

For more information, contact:
Pierre Sadik
Senior Policy Advisor
David Suzuki Foundation
Ottawa 613-594-5845 Cell: 613-799-8626

If I might save my Conservative commenters the trouble, their argument is as follows:
The Conservative Party of Canada's Communications Department knows something about this that the Suzuki Foundation does not.

I suppose I should extend that preemption to certain Liberal leadership partisans as well.

innocence lost

2006-06-19T08:34:00.000-07:00

We now know Bob Rae's "You won't hear a negative peep out of me" had an unspoken addendum ("unless I have a chance to win this thing".)

It was a ridiculous position in the first place. But still...

battling the Blues on all fronts

2006-06-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

The CFL kicks off tonight, and you have to love that new season feeling.

Tomorrow, one might spot me at the Rogers Centre, in my Black-and-Gold, teaching Torontonians how to be football fans.

But there is more than just football at stake. Pinball Clemons has been a quiet proponent of John Tory ever since he entered the political game. In fact, Tory wants to press Clemons into service perhaps even as a candidate. His easy smile will play well in the grand "red tory" deception that is to be the 2007 election.

Enter the Ti-Cats. Born of that great steel bastion of social conscience nestled under the mountain, they are not to be deceived by this mock-moderation.

Make no mistake: a victory for the Ti-Cats is a victory for progressive Canada.

the mileage clicking west

2006-06-15T20:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not qualified to evaluate a carbon tax. I frankly don't know how effective/necessary it may be. But I would make this comment: at some point, if we are ever to take environmental sustainability seriously, the oil industry will need to bear a price. That means some regions will be affected more seriously than others. Unfortunate but true. If it makes any feel better, same goes for the auto industry that keeps my city humming.

Prioritizing Liberal electability in the West is fine - but should it be considered a legitimate policy alternative? We just need to be sure that when (if) we are ever elected in Alberta, it is as the party that we want to be.

Canadians for Kelowna - coming soon

2006-06-14T09:31:00.000-07:00

Shortly, we will be going live with a new project - Canadians for Kelowna.

The concept is a simple one. We want to try to develop popular involvement in the pursuit of justice for Aboriginal peoples. This has remained a peripheral policy issue, despite what I believe to be a fairly significant popular will. We are going to try to tap into that will. The Kelowna Accord is no silver bullet, but it has given us a single cohesive policy document to rally around.

I hope to launch a website soon, that will accompany an online petition. From there, we can go any number of directions with it. It's to be a non-partisan affair - the issue is too important to play games with, and there are many in all parties who want to see this happen.

I'm posting this heads-up, as I'm really hoping for some support in the blogging community.

Cheers!

- Mike (SCG)