The bile and the rhetoric are back in Ottawa already, mere weeks after all the talk about creating a new spirit of cooperation because we're all in this together during trying economic times. That is going out the window because the Conservatives want to trim $30M in handouts to the political parties; it's the arts funding cuts all over again, except this time it's due to sheer navel-gazing on the parts of the opposition parties upset that they'll no longer receive the majority of their funding from the government instead of going out and earning it from regular people who are their nominal supporters.
With the economic situation in the country maybe not quite as sound fundamentally as we would have hoped, with the dollar still fluctuating, with voter fatigue running high among everybody except for Montreal Canadiens fans who vote 4 or 5 times a day for the NHL All-Star Game Starting Six, they're threatening to bring down the government and have an election!
After all the hand-wringing that the last one was hailed as "unnecessary" and "Harper broke his word," with all the talk of the need for fiscal restraint, despite the fact that the people have spoken only 7 weeks ago, despite the fact that the Liberals have no leader and no platform and no money, the Liberals want to have an election.
Nothing would say "we don't give a damn about stability" in a time when stability is urgently required more than having an election. Economies rely heavily on political stability in a country. When a country is going through severe political turmoil, investors tend to take out their money and look elsewhere. There's a reason that only the gullible send their money to Zimbabwean princes: they're afraid of putting it into that country's economy because there's always the threat of the government seizing all the assets for itself. Should Canada be plunged into its second election in the last half of 2008 it will send a signal to investors that the country is panicking in the face of this economic crisis, and they will respond by removing their assets and plunking them into the United States or Europe or Asia. We will lose out severely if we succumb to the folly of the moment.
Showing posts with label Canada's Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada's Government. Show all posts
28 November 2008
25 August 2008
Election Fever v.235
The Canadian media has long been obsessed with an election; this is not news to anybody that has turned on the TV at any time since about March 2006 (they gave the Conservatives something of a honeymoon after their January win). There have been daily suggestions that the opposition will topple the government or that the government--in defiance of its own professed desire to govern until the fixed election date in September 2009--will indeed manufacture its own demise to head to the polls in search of a majority against a weak-willed and indecisive Liberal leadership. Consequently, people have largely tuned out, burned out about election talk after numerous false threats and empty promises that we'd be heading to the polls at any time with our five-weeks notice. It's a sad state that people are sick of an election when the election has yet to actually take place; the only thing one can compare Canada's election fever to is the hockey world's never-ending wait for Mats Sundin to make a decision about his playing future. You can be sure that, in both cases, when the trigger is finally pulled and a concrete decision made, people will sigh a collective sigh of relief, say "it's about time that's over with," and finally be able to get on with their lives.
It is with all of this election impasse in mind that we turn to today's latest threat, this one coming from "senior Conservative sources." Supposedly we are now to believe that the Prime Minister is ready to go as early as September 5th, paving the way for a Thanksgiving election. You can insert your turkey jokes here. I'll begin with former Liberal "star candidate" Marc Garneau's proclamation that the Conservatives want an election now so that they can avoid talking about issues like the economy. Now, I realize that because once upon a time a Conservative Prime Minister said that an election is no time to talk about policy issues, therefore all Conservatives believe that an election is no time to talk about policy issues. But, come on, can we get serious for just a moment? Has Mr. Garneau not paid an ounce of attention to what's happening in the United States? The majority of airtime these days is devoted equally to how many houses John McCain owns and the economy! It's like 1992 all over again: it's the economy, stupid! If Mr. Garneau honestly believes that the economy won't come up during an election campaign, well, he's just another talking turkey.
Do I honestly think that there will be a Canadian election in 2008? No. I didn't think there would be one in the spring, summer, or autumn of 2007 when everybody in the media was banging that particular drum, nor was I eager to go for a winter or spring 2008 election. Here's the thing: the Liberals, the media, the Conservatives, the talking heads, just about anybody in the political class these days, has called the election wolf so many times that it's near-impossible to believe that this time they're actually serious about an election. What makes right now so different than June 2007? There's nothing that suggests the Conservatives or Liberals can score a majority, or that the result would be vastly different than the current status. So what would be the point? It all seems like much bluster and little real action. But this is to be expected, because when you're a turkey, nothing you say actually has to make sense.
It is with all of this election impasse in mind that we turn to today's latest threat, this one coming from "senior Conservative sources." Supposedly we are now to believe that the Prime Minister is ready to go as early as September 5th, paving the way for a Thanksgiving election. You can insert your turkey jokes here. I'll begin with former Liberal "star candidate" Marc Garneau's proclamation that the Conservatives want an election now so that they can avoid talking about issues like the economy. Now, I realize that because once upon a time a Conservative Prime Minister said that an election is no time to talk about policy issues, therefore all Conservatives believe that an election is no time to talk about policy issues. But, come on, can we get serious for just a moment? Has Mr. Garneau not paid an ounce of attention to what's happening in the United States? The majority of airtime these days is devoted equally to how many houses John McCain owns and the economy! It's like 1992 all over again: it's the economy, stupid! If Mr. Garneau honestly believes that the economy won't come up during an election campaign, well, he's just another talking turkey.
Do I honestly think that there will be a Canadian election in 2008? No. I didn't think there would be one in the spring, summer, or autumn of 2007 when everybody in the media was banging that particular drum, nor was I eager to go for a winter or spring 2008 election. Here's the thing: the Liberals, the media, the Conservatives, the talking heads, just about anybody in the political class these days, has called the election wolf so many times that it's near-impossible to believe that this time they're actually serious about an election. What makes right now so different than June 2007? There's nothing that suggests the Conservatives or Liberals can score a majority, or that the result would be vastly different than the current status. So what would be the point? It all seems like much bluster and little real action. But this is to be expected, because when you're a turkey, nothing you say actually has to make sense.
08 May 2008
What a Great Country
I'm glad that I live in a country where there is nothing more important happening than who the Minister of Foreign Affairs dated a few years ago. Apparently it's an issue of "fundamental democracy," according to Ralph Goodale. I have paid scant attention to the day-to-day political goings-on in this country in the past couple months, and seeing what I saw today helps me to realize that I'm clearly not missing very much. This is leadership? This is what is considered relevant? The "security issue" is about as thin a piece of ice I've seen the politicians of this country ever skate on as a major issue. This will surely pass within a day, and none will be better off for this bout of foolishness.
01 May 2008
Quote of the Day
There's a lot of talk in the media about the government's intention to scale back the funding it delivers to Canadian films. The Conservatives, being conservative, are naturally opposed to excessive violence, pornographic imagery, and other types of films that Canadians love to make and get paid by the government to make. The filmmaking industry is screaming censorship, an absurd charge when you consider that the Tories aren't talking about banning these movies; rather, they're talking about not funding them. If the films are such great ideas, surely these rich people can look to their rich friends to raise the money privately. I'm not overly supportive of government funding for any filmmaking, be it the most vile smut or your run-of-the-mill drama-comedy. The filmmakers are not doing any favours to their cause when they offer up blatantly contradictory statements. David Cronenberg has this gem of an offering:
"In essence, all Canadian filmmaking is independent filmmaking and we are very dependent on government money to have a film industry."
Nothing says indepedence like being heavily dependent upon the government to create something, eh?
"In essence, all Canadian filmmaking is independent filmmaking and we are very dependent on government money to have a film industry."
Nothing says indepedence like being heavily dependent upon the government to create something, eh?
24 March 2008
An Olympic Boycott is Worth Considering
Human rights are an issue very important to me. I make a monthly donation to Amnesty International, I work for women's rights through the White Ribbon Campaign, and I regularly denounce vile dictatorships which persecute, torture, and murder their own people. What is currently happening in Tibet is an atrocity, and is has many people calling for a boycott of this summer's Beijing Olympics. I have no love for the Chinese regime that suppresses the rights of its people, holds Taiwan hostage, and is now attempting to label the Dalai Lama, one of the world's great men of peace, a "terrorist."
Those of us who stand for human rights cannot turn a blind eye towards what is happening in Tibet, especially not for the sake of the Olympics. While sport is something which I regularly enjoy, and is a uniting tool for people all over the world, is it worth giving China a free pass on its repression in order to have the two-week festivities? China will receive billions of dollars for the Games, in the form of tourism and everything else associated with the Games. This is money that can be used towards further persecution.
Is it worth it?
What if the repression stops in the immediate term? When the event passes out of the news cycle, to be replaced by the latest issue du jour, what happens? Do we forgive and forget? What about the dead, estimated to be over one hundred already (though the official Chinese response places the figure closer to 20--still, one unjust murder by a government is an atrocity, so we're already at that point times twenty)? Do we say that their lives mean less than a sporting event?
It is time for some serious discussion, with our Prime Minister and the government at the centre of it, whether or not Canada should turn a blind eye to what is happening in Tibet and whether it should send its finest athletes to participate in the Beijing Olympics.
Those of us who stand for human rights cannot turn a blind eye towards what is happening in Tibet, especially not for the sake of the Olympics. While sport is something which I regularly enjoy, and is a uniting tool for people all over the world, is it worth giving China a free pass on its repression in order to have the two-week festivities? China will receive billions of dollars for the Games, in the form of tourism and everything else associated with the Games. This is money that can be used towards further persecution.
Is it worth it?
What if the repression stops in the immediate term? When the event passes out of the news cycle, to be replaced by the latest issue du jour, what happens? Do we forgive and forget? What about the dead, estimated to be over one hundred already (though the official Chinese response places the figure closer to 20--still, one unjust murder by a government is an atrocity, so we're already at that point times twenty)? Do we say that their lives mean less than a sporting event?
It is time for some serious discussion, with our Prime Minister and the government at the centre of it, whether or not Canada should turn a blind eye to what is happening in Tibet and whether it should send its finest athletes to participate in the Beijing Olympics.
02 March 2008
When Writers Stop Writing
I've identified myself--in part--as a writer for a long time now. Ever since I first got interested in politics I've found myself writing about it. Short letters to the editor, term papers, essays, a thesis, policy papers, discussion forums, this blog. It's what I do--have done--and it's a very large part of how I define myself. You'll notice that I haven't done a whole lot of that this year. It's not that I'm not paying attention or that I'm not interested, I'm just going through a period where I don't feel as though I have a whole lot to say, or much that is interesting. There's only so many times, I feel, that I can write about Stephane Dion's abstentionism and find it noteworthy. Normally the budget is a bit of a big deal. I can't really say that I found anything in there interesting enough to me to write at length about. That may be a problem, I don't know. After all, if you can't write about billions of dollars being spent by the government, are you really a politico anymore?
Of course I am. But I'm not as knee-deep as I was a year or two ago, certainly not neck-deep as I was when I was with the Liberal Party. It's interesting to look at the level of my participation--even when I was trimming lettuce in that awful store years ago I kept myself very involved in what was happening. I was engaged and connected; today I'm not quite the opposite, but the scale and scope has certainly been scaled back. I think a lot of it has to do with the, and I don't know if this is too strong a word, contempt I have for the political class in this country and the manner in which it approaches foreign affairs. That's another one of the areas around which I define myself, and having to constantly watch it being kicked around like a political football where the parties (and the media) hope to score points is pretty insulting. Harper is a great politician, sure, but he's no statesman. The opposition leaders barely qualify as good politicians. The city councillor wants to play field general with Canadians' lives in Afghanistan, and it makes my stomach turn. It's hard to take seriously people who discuss whether or not Canada should have tanks or armoured vehicles when we're in combat missions. Honestly, no matter what one thinks of Hilary Clinton's absurd pledge to be out of Iraq within 60 days of her administration, one can never honestly see her going on national television to state that American forces in places like Afghanistan or Iraq don't need tanks to protect them. It'd be utterly alien to that audience. So I've largely tuned out.
It helps that this government has demonstrated competence. It reminds me a lot of the Chretien days. People don't really pay as close a level of attention because they're more or less content with the job that is being done. Whatever little hiccups appear from time to time are smoothed over, the opposition media and parties have their little tempest in a teacup for the day, but Canada continues along, true, proud, and free. This is a hallmark of conservative government: no big projects, no glitzy and glamourous new spending sprees to get government more involved in the lives of citizens, no major initiatives. It's pragmatic. It's kinda boring, and maybe that's why I'm not writing as much as I used to, but it works.
Of course I am. But I'm not as knee-deep as I was a year or two ago, certainly not neck-deep as I was when I was with the Liberal Party. It's interesting to look at the level of my participation--even when I was trimming lettuce in that awful store years ago I kept myself very involved in what was happening. I was engaged and connected; today I'm not quite the opposite, but the scale and scope has certainly been scaled back. I think a lot of it has to do with the, and I don't know if this is too strong a word, contempt I have for the political class in this country and the manner in which it approaches foreign affairs. That's another one of the areas around which I define myself, and having to constantly watch it being kicked around like a political football where the parties (and the media) hope to score points is pretty insulting. Harper is a great politician, sure, but he's no statesman. The opposition leaders barely qualify as good politicians. The city councillor wants to play field general with Canadians' lives in Afghanistan, and it makes my stomach turn. It's hard to take seriously people who discuss whether or not Canada should have tanks or armoured vehicles when we're in combat missions. Honestly, no matter what one thinks of Hilary Clinton's absurd pledge to be out of Iraq within 60 days of her administration, one can never honestly see her going on national television to state that American forces in places like Afghanistan or Iraq don't need tanks to protect them. It'd be utterly alien to that audience. So I've largely tuned out.
It helps that this government has demonstrated competence. It reminds me a lot of the Chretien days. People don't really pay as close a level of attention because they're more or less content with the job that is being done. Whatever little hiccups appear from time to time are smoothed over, the opposition media and parties have their little tempest in a teacup for the day, but Canada continues along, true, proud, and free. This is a hallmark of conservative government: no big projects, no glitzy and glamourous new spending sprees to get government more involved in the lives of citizens, no major initiatives. It's pragmatic. It's kinda boring, and maybe that's why I'm not writing as much as I used to, but it works.
06 February 2008
Show Your Cards
Wow.
Hold onto your hats, because it's going to be a wild ride.
Harper has long said that Afghanistan is an issue over which he would be fully prepared to wage an election. It looks like that will be put to the test in the very near future. The future of the mission depends almost entirely upon what Stephane Dion's Liberal Party intends to do; the Bloc and the NDP have flat-out said that they'll vote against any extension. Will we see a repeat of the fiscal update? Will we see a major schism? Will the Liberals support their stated principles of humanitarian intervention? Stay tuned.
Hold onto your hats, because it's going to be a wild ride.
Harper has long said that Afghanistan is an issue over which he would be fully prepared to wage an election. It looks like that will be put to the test in the very near future. The future of the mission depends almost entirely upon what Stephane Dion's Liberal Party intends to do; the Bloc and the NDP have flat-out said that they'll vote against any extension. Will we see a repeat of the fiscal update? Will we see a major schism? Will the Liberals support their stated principles of humanitarian intervention? Stay tuned.
12 December 2007
Stream of Consciousness
Boredom is reigning supreme today, and after having entered "110753" and "31.5" into a computer a couple hundred times this morning I'm finding myself thinking that there has got to be more to life than this. So to help alleviate this, I'm going to keep this window open for a good chunk of the morning and pop in whatever pops into my head that may be discussion-worthy and press "Publish Post" at the end of the day and see what comes of it.
* I was glad to read last week that Iran gave up uranium enrichment for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon in 2003. So that means the Iraq War is now responsible for: getting rid of Saddam Hussein, compelling Qaddafi to forsake terrorism, establishing a democratic bridgehead in the Middle East, and getting Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. These are 4 very strong positives. It's unfortunate that there have been as many negatives to emerge as a consequence as well.
* Pursuant to my recent post on US Presidential 2008, I'm pretty much certain that if it's not Giuliani or McCain I'll be supporting the Democrats.
* Canada fancies itself a progressive country, and Halifax embodies that attitude. If that's true, why are Canadians and Haligonians seemingly very supportive of one of the following two tracks regarding prostitution: legalization or maintainig the status quo in which women are criminalized for being used as a thing? Seems to me that the real progressive countries, ones that are genuinely dedicated to equality, are taking the approach that regarding women as things to be purchased and then disposed of is an act of violence against them and is a criminal offence. You don't see Sweden, ranked #1 in the world in terms of gender equality, undertaking sting operations to throw prostituted women in jail. Progressive means moving away from failed policies towards new ones that positively affect citizens, does it not?
* Christmas shopping has been a lot more fun this year. I'm still glad I'm done, though.
* Environmental activists are mad at John Baird because he went back to a meeting that would potentially get results for the environment rather than stick around to take a browbeating from them. You just can't win, eh?
* I saw a trade rumour that had Saku Koivu and Michael Ryder being shipped to San Jose in exchange for Patrick Marleau and Jonathan Bernier. If Marleau and Bernier can score and avoid taking selfish penalties, it might not be a bad idea.
* I was glad to read last week that Iran gave up uranium enrichment for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon in 2003. So that means the Iraq War is now responsible for: getting rid of Saddam Hussein, compelling Qaddafi to forsake terrorism, establishing a democratic bridgehead in the Middle East, and getting Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. These are 4 very strong positives. It's unfortunate that there have been as many negatives to emerge as a consequence as well.
* Pursuant to my recent post on US Presidential 2008, I'm pretty much certain that if it's not Giuliani or McCain I'll be supporting the Democrats.
* Canada fancies itself a progressive country, and Halifax embodies that attitude. If that's true, why are Canadians and Haligonians seemingly very supportive of one of the following two tracks regarding prostitution: legalization or maintainig the status quo in which women are criminalized for being used as a thing? Seems to me that the real progressive countries, ones that are genuinely dedicated to equality, are taking the approach that regarding women as things to be purchased and then disposed of is an act of violence against them and is a criminal offence. You don't see Sweden, ranked #1 in the world in terms of gender equality, undertaking sting operations to throw prostituted women in jail. Progressive means moving away from failed policies towards new ones that positively affect citizens, does it not?
* Christmas shopping has been a lot more fun this year. I'm still glad I'm done, though.
* Environmental activists are mad at John Baird because he went back to a meeting that would potentially get results for the environment rather than stick around to take a browbeating from them. You just can't win, eh?
* I saw a trade rumour that had Saku Koivu and Michael Ryder being shipped to San Jose in exchange for Patrick Marleau and Jonathan Bernier. If Marleau and Bernier can score and avoid taking selfish penalties, it might not be a bad idea.
09 November 2007
Words of Wisdom
Now that the Harper government has announced its intentions to have a probe into the Mulroney affair, hopefully this will spell the end of the opposition parties' calls for a full inquiry. As I've already said, the amount of money required to put on a full inquiry far outweigh the amount of money involved. There is a possibility that the integrity of the Office of the Prime Minister is at stake, and that is something to be taken very seriously; however, I do not believe even that important principle can justify the costs of the inevitable witchhunt that an inquiry into Mulroney's dealings with no doubt devolve into. And I am not the only one. Jean Chretien, the most successful Liberal in the past twenty-five years, has this to say in his book:
So there you have it. The Liberals have got Harper to compromise somewhat from his earlier stance. They should let this be the end of it.
For the opposition parties, calling for a public inquiry is usually an easy way to dig up dirt or keep a hot issue on the front burner after they've exhausted their own supply of facts and questions...Very few of these inquiries in my experience have every been of much use, and those few were valuable only because they didn't turn into television soap operas. If there's a problem, you should face up to it and make a decision. If you need more information, you can always ask the department to give you a full report. If you need an independent point of view [RGM - as Harper is seeking] you can ask someone to carry out an investigation without a lot of fanfare...But it is the nature of public inquiries to get turned into show trials, kangaroo courts, and political entertainment. The rules of evidence don't have to be respected as they are in a court. There's not the same right of due process or even the same process to protect the innocent during the investigation into a possible wrongdoing. Scores of reputations are shattered for no good cause, people lose their jobs merely because their names happened to be mentioned in passing.
So there you have it. The Liberals have got Harper to compromise somewhat from his earlier stance. They should let this be the end of it.
07 November 2007
More NDP Pie-in-the-Sky Ideas
This evening's edition of Politics with Don Newman featured a discussion on the NDP proposal to abolish the Senate. Their talking head, MP Joe Comartin, said that, following a successful referendum, there wouldn't be any need to go the constitutional route to make the Upper Chamber simply disappear because, get this, the Prime Minister of the day would simply promise not to make any appointments. The idea is that once the sitting Senators hit the age of 75 and go into retirement, there will be nobody around to replace them, causing a failure to reach quorum and eventually to have a living body in the Senate. Well, that's about the dumbest thing I've heard all day. First, this proposal would mean that the Senate would still be around until 2037 when Michael Fortier hits the age of retirement. Based on the membership roster of today, he'd be the only Senator for a period of roughly 7 years following the departure of Liberal Senator Pierrette Ringuette (a Chretien appointment) on the last day of 2030. I'm sure that it'd be mighty cool for Mister Fortier to have the Red Chamber all to himself for 7 years, though.
Beyond the simple matter of timelines, however, the NDP is expecting its opponents to act with goodwill to such a pledge. In politics, relying on your opponents--dare I say, enemies--to play nice is suicidal, but then there's a reason that the NDP will never hold power. If you look at the current line-up, there are going to be a lot of retirements in the next few years. Approximately 25 current Senators will be out (including Kelowna's Ross Fitzpatrick next February) by the end of 2010. Do the NDP really think that Harper wouldn't engineer a couple dozen Senate elections to pack the chamber with Tories? Moreover, in the event of the Liberals re-acquiring power, would it not be almost expected of them to plunk in some long-time party members to ensure that they retain their long-running supremacy there? This is one of the many areas in which the NDP have their heads in the cloud, oblivious to the much less genial nature of real politics. "Oh, we'll pass a resolution and everybody will just honour the spirit of that." Yeah, good luck with that. It'll be either elected Tories or patronage appointment Liberals filling those forthcoming vacant spots in the years to come, not a gradually withering number of Senators until they can bulldoze the place.
The only way to achieve abolition of the Senate is via constitutional reform. I think we can all agree that there's no need whatever to go down that route. The NDP proposal is both impractical and naive. It should have been laughed off the set.
Beyond the simple matter of timelines, however, the NDP is expecting its opponents to act with goodwill to such a pledge. In politics, relying on your opponents--dare I say, enemies--to play nice is suicidal, but then there's a reason that the NDP will never hold power. If you look at the current line-up, there are going to be a lot of retirements in the next few years. Approximately 25 current Senators will be out (including Kelowna's Ross Fitzpatrick next February) by the end of 2010. Do the NDP really think that Harper wouldn't engineer a couple dozen Senate elections to pack the chamber with Tories? Moreover, in the event of the Liberals re-acquiring power, would it not be almost expected of them to plunk in some long-time party members to ensure that they retain their long-running supremacy there? This is one of the many areas in which the NDP have their heads in the cloud, oblivious to the much less genial nature of real politics. "Oh, we'll pass a resolution and everybody will just honour the spirit of that." Yeah, good luck with that. It'll be either elected Tories or patronage appointment Liberals filling those forthcoming vacant spots in the years to come, not a gradually withering number of Senators until they can bulldoze the place.
The only way to achieve abolition of the Senate is via constitutional reform. I think we can all agree that there's no need whatever to go down that route. The NDP proposal is both impractical and naive. It should have been laughed off the set.
31 October 2007
Tax Cuts a-Comin'
Me not being anything remotely approaching "expert" status on economic matters and which is better, a consumption tax cut or an income tax cut, let me still say that I'm looking forward to both. As a regular Joe working a 9-5, saving a few extra pennies on my morning double-double or anything else I want to go out and purchase is something I like. When it comes time to file my taxes in February, I'll be looking forward to getting more money back. It's a win-win, and the Conservatives know that measures such as this resonate with the people on a much deeper level than the chattering classes realize. Seeing Liberals going on and on about the GST cut being a stupid thing doesn't connect with people, especially those who have long enough memories to recall that once upon a time this party ran an election campaign (promise not filled, promise not kept, however) on abolishing the much-hated service tax.
Savings at the till + more money from the tax man = winning political strategy. I'm willing to wager that more folks who don't pay close attention to politics or the stock market will agree with Harper's position--no tax is a good tax--than that of the Liberals--a consumption tax cut is bad economic policy.
I should also mention the gadfly that is Jack Layton embarrassing himself on national television within minutes of Minister Flaherty's announcement. It's as if the man can speak only in platitudes, offering up grand-sounding statements that consist of very little substance. I personally laugh at the statement that the government, with its new tax cuts, is "continuing to lead Canada down the wrong path." When you look at the simple facts, that Canada is stronger today than it was two years ago (and due credit to the Liberals for their time in office on the economic management file), one year ago,and it's projected to get even stronger, saying that the country is on the "wrong path" makes one wonder what his agenda is. A strong dollar, a treasury awash in cash, investment coming into the country, sound resource management, paying down the debt, and general confidence are the hallmarks of Canada's economy right now. If that's wrong, baby, I don't wanna be right.
Savings at the till + more money from the tax man = winning political strategy. I'm willing to wager that more folks who don't pay close attention to politics or the stock market will agree with Harper's position--no tax is a good tax--than that of the Liberals--a consumption tax cut is bad economic policy.
I should also mention the gadfly that is Jack Layton embarrassing himself on national television within minutes of Minister Flaherty's announcement. It's as if the man can speak only in platitudes, offering up grand-sounding statements that consist of very little substance. I personally laugh at the statement that the government, with its new tax cuts, is "continuing to lead Canada down the wrong path." When you look at the simple facts, that Canada is stronger today than it was two years ago (and due credit to the Liberals for their time in office on the economic management file), one year ago,and it's projected to get even stronger, saying that the country is on the "wrong path" makes one wonder what his agenda is. A strong dollar, a treasury awash in cash, investment coming into the country, sound resource management, paying down the debt, and general confidence are the hallmarks of Canada's economy right now. If that's wrong, baby, I don't wanna be right.
24 October 2007
New Tory Strategy: Every Bill is the Speech From the Throne
Given that the Official Opposition has abdicated its responsibility to Parliament, Harper may as well really ramp it up and make every government bill a matter of confidence. Dion will have everybody show up but stay seating and thereby give him a free pass. He'll get the omnibus (and horribly named) crime bill passed easily, the vote on the fall mini-budget/economic update will go by without any fanfare, and if Harper wants to pass a resolution that refers to the Liberal Party as "weenies," well, that'll probably end up passing with unanimous consent and 95 abstentions.
Harper has maneuvered the Liberals to the brink of irrelevancy with his strategy to this point. He'll be able to mock them for probably the rest of this session of Parliament, saying that the Opposition has no stance on any of the government's five policy points and passing pretty much all of it with ease. After all, if one of those points is so odious to the Liberals when it comes to a vote, how can they justify voting against it in December or January or February when they sat on their butts when the government declared its intentions in October? Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe now command more presence in the House of Commons because they've made their respective party's position known, loud and clear. They all stood up to be counted while the men and women in red collectively behaved like Prime Minister Paul Martin: so consumed with how to appear that they're impotent to act.
From this point until the middle of 2008, every bill introduced by the Government is going to be connected to the Speech From the Throne in some way. Since the Tories got parliamentary approval for their blueprint, I can imagine that, in the name of consistency, the implementation of that blueprint shall receive similar approval. Since the main opposition party has taken itself out of the equation, Harper now has a de facto majority, which will make the coming months all the more interesting. Or, if you're a Liberal supporter, infuriating and contemplating why you voted for that green scarf-wearing weenie in the first place.
Harper has maneuvered the Liberals to the brink of irrelevancy with his strategy to this point. He'll be able to mock them for probably the rest of this session of Parliament, saying that the Opposition has no stance on any of the government's five policy points and passing pretty much all of it with ease. After all, if one of those points is so odious to the Liberals when it comes to a vote, how can they justify voting against it in December or January or February when they sat on their butts when the government declared its intentions in October? Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe now command more presence in the House of Commons because they've made their respective party's position known, loud and clear. They all stood up to be counted while the men and women in red collectively behaved like Prime Minister Paul Martin: so consumed with how to appear that they're impotent to act.
From this point until the middle of 2008, every bill introduced by the Government is going to be connected to the Speech From the Throne in some way. Since the Tories got parliamentary approval for their blueprint, I can imagine that, in the name of consistency, the implementation of that blueprint shall receive similar approval. Since the main opposition party has taken itself out of the equation, Harper now has a de facto majority, which will make the coming months all the more interesting. Or, if you're a Liberal supporter, infuriating and contemplating why you voted for that green scarf-wearing weenie in the first place.
13 October 2007
The Afghanistan Panel
My hat goes off to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for creating a panel of "renowned" Canadians to collaborate and provide a detailed action plan for what Canada should do vis-a-vis Afghanistan following the end of the current mission in February 2009. The four options provided by Harper clearly indicate that the mission will be significantly different than the one that Canada is currently conducting, which means that the NDP will no longer be able to trot out such ridiculous lines as "search and destroy missions" or, due to the timeframe, "fighting George Bush's war." No doubt they'll come up with new slogans to counter the legitimacy of these four key conceptualizations for Canada in Afghanistan in 2009 and beyond, straight from the mouth of the Prime Minister:
Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.
This is as close to the status quo as we will see. As noted by fine blogs such as The Torch earlier this summer, the PM has pretty much given up hope of getting an extension of the current mission beyond the current parliamentary mandate. What makes this concept distinguishable from the status quo is that it provides for the beginning of the draw-down of Canadian Forces personnel starting early in 2009 and continuing until some undefined time in the future. The focus will be on improving security in Kandahar by assisting the Afghan security forces to step up their training and on-the-job efforts. It's essentially adopting the "as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down" plank that the United States had previously used in Iraq, with little success due to lack of political will on the part of the Iraqi government to actually stand up. We know that the Afghan government has been more assertive, however, and that may lead to this approach getting a strong recommendation from the panel. Canada's police and military forces are well-respected around the world for their professionalism, and if we can impart those skills, insights, and abilities upon the Afghan forces, they will be in good shape.
Option two is to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar, which would require some other country or countries to take over our security role.
This would require a shift in resource allocation and, more significantly, compelling one or several of Canada's European allies to step up their efforts. The first part of that is much easier. Canada has a tremendous international aid program headed up by CIDA. They do excellent work, and this is the type of "niche" activity that Canada could really appropriate and make it a defining feature of Canada's foreign affairs. It is something that appeals to many Canadians that buy into the myth of the blue-beret'd Canadian peacekeeper handing out sacks of grain and stopping conflict by doling out hugs. It wins hearts and minds to have Canadians working hard to build schools, hospitals, working to mediate differences between competing factions, and basically doing anything that involves building the state and not shooting terrorists. I like the concept a lot because it would serve as a template for Canada building a reputation for nation/state-building in post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization efforts. This is an area that is going to be of increasing significance in the coming years and decades. The American military Leviathan is sans peer when it comes to taking down the bad guys and eliminating hostile elements, but it is less adept at building things back up to establish a viable alternative to the status quo ante bellum. I'm predicting a more stringently multilateral America starting in 2009--whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected--and if Canada is going to remain engaged in the world and doing democracy promotion-related activities, this is the type of thing that can make Canada a desirable ally.
However, the second half of this equation is where the problem comes along. Harken back to the 2004 US Presidential Election, when John Kerry was musing openly that a victory for him would cause an instantaneous shift in European attitudes to American-led operations outside of the European defence perimeter of NATO's traditional area of operations. He figured that he'd be able to recruit Europe into Iraq to assist in the reconstruction of that country. It was, and still remains, a fantasy. We simply cannot rely on Europe to provide robust numbers of troops to take on the heavy lifting in this "out of area" international effort. There is considerable talk in European countries participating in Afghanistan to withdraw their efforts and drastically scale back their activities in the UN-authorized operation to rebuild Afghanistan. I can't foresee anybody other than the British stepping up to take over the hard power operations in Kandahar if Canada decides it wants to focus strictly on reconstruction efforts. I don't even know about their level of interest, as Gordon Brown is seemingly less the liberal interventionist than Tony Blair. I would really like to see this concept being adopted, but it is predicated on a very shaky foundation. The realist in me can see the glaring problem of hoping for the best when it comes to relying on reluctant allies to adopt our current role. They have seemingly less desire to sacrifice blood and treasure for the sake of Afghanistan than we do, and that results in it being very unlikely that they would increase their participation.
Option three is to shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region of Afghanistan.
This option runs into the same problem as that faced in the previous conception. If we leave Kandahar, somebody has to step in and do at least as good of a job as we have done during our tenure there. It would have to be one of the major countries stepping in, because they are the only ones that have a force capability to send at least 2500 troops to the region. France doesn't even let its soldiers off their bases at night. It pretty much comes down to Britain or Germany at that point, and I don't know if we can convince them to take on Kandahar. We simply can't pick a new place and not ensure that some other country comes in to fill the void. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and unless we get one of our allies to take over Kandahar, some more nefarious entity (read: the Taliban) will unless by some miracle Kandahar is completely secured by February 2009.
And option four is to withdraw all Canadian military forces after February 2009 except a small contingent to provide security for our remaining aid workers and diplomats.
A.K.A. Cut and run. This is the preferred option of the NDP and the radical left. The hard work of reconstruction and stabilization in Afghanistan will almost certainly not be done by February 2009. These types of efforts take at least a decade, possibly even longer under the circumstances. There is so much work to be done in Afghanistan, whether we're talking about human security and human rights, stability, democratic institutions, and law and order. Like I said earlier, Canada does this type of job really well, and it would be a real shame to see our leaders decide to withdraw all of our expertise from Afghanistan to leave the job to others. I'm sure that other countries can do the job, possibly as well as Canadians, but doesn't it reek of abdicating responsibility and embracing the cocoon? In situations where we can help, and our assistance has been requested, there is a degree of obligation to do so. Yes, it costs money and it may cost lives, but the long-term benefits stand to be enormous. Waving goodbye to Kandahar and Afghanistan while the work is incomplete has a ring of immorality to it, and I hope that this option does not end up being recommended by the panel.
Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.
This is as close to the status quo as we will see. As noted by fine blogs such as The Torch earlier this summer, the PM has pretty much given up hope of getting an extension of the current mission beyond the current parliamentary mandate. What makes this concept distinguishable from the status quo is that it provides for the beginning of the draw-down of Canadian Forces personnel starting early in 2009 and continuing until some undefined time in the future. The focus will be on improving security in Kandahar by assisting the Afghan security forces to step up their training and on-the-job efforts. It's essentially adopting the "as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down" plank that the United States had previously used in Iraq, with little success due to lack of political will on the part of the Iraqi government to actually stand up. We know that the Afghan government has been more assertive, however, and that may lead to this approach getting a strong recommendation from the panel. Canada's police and military forces are well-respected around the world for their professionalism, and if we can impart those skills, insights, and abilities upon the Afghan forces, they will be in good shape.
Option two is to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar, which would require some other country or countries to take over our security role.
This would require a shift in resource allocation and, more significantly, compelling one or several of Canada's European allies to step up their efforts. The first part of that is much easier. Canada has a tremendous international aid program headed up by CIDA. They do excellent work, and this is the type of "niche" activity that Canada could really appropriate and make it a defining feature of Canada's foreign affairs. It is something that appeals to many Canadians that buy into the myth of the blue-beret'd Canadian peacekeeper handing out sacks of grain and stopping conflict by doling out hugs. It wins hearts and minds to have Canadians working hard to build schools, hospitals, working to mediate differences between competing factions, and basically doing anything that involves building the state and not shooting terrorists. I like the concept a lot because it would serve as a template for Canada building a reputation for nation/state-building in post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization efforts. This is an area that is going to be of increasing significance in the coming years and decades. The American military Leviathan is sans peer when it comes to taking down the bad guys and eliminating hostile elements, but it is less adept at building things back up to establish a viable alternative to the status quo ante bellum. I'm predicting a more stringently multilateral America starting in 2009--whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected--and if Canada is going to remain engaged in the world and doing democracy promotion-related activities, this is the type of thing that can make Canada a desirable ally.
However, the second half of this equation is where the problem comes along. Harken back to the 2004 US Presidential Election, when John Kerry was musing openly that a victory for him would cause an instantaneous shift in European attitudes to American-led operations outside of the European defence perimeter of NATO's traditional area of operations. He figured that he'd be able to recruit Europe into Iraq to assist in the reconstruction of that country. It was, and still remains, a fantasy. We simply cannot rely on Europe to provide robust numbers of troops to take on the heavy lifting in this "out of area" international effort. There is considerable talk in European countries participating in Afghanistan to withdraw their efforts and drastically scale back their activities in the UN-authorized operation to rebuild Afghanistan. I can't foresee anybody other than the British stepping up to take over the hard power operations in Kandahar if Canada decides it wants to focus strictly on reconstruction efforts. I don't even know about their level of interest, as Gordon Brown is seemingly less the liberal interventionist than Tony Blair. I would really like to see this concept being adopted, but it is predicated on a very shaky foundation. The realist in me can see the glaring problem of hoping for the best when it comes to relying on reluctant allies to adopt our current role. They have seemingly less desire to sacrifice blood and treasure for the sake of Afghanistan than we do, and that results in it being very unlikely that they would increase their participation.
Option three is to shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region of Afghanistan.
This option runs into the same problem as that faced in the previous conception. If we leave Kandahar, somebody has to step in and do at least as good of a job as we have done during our tenure there. It would have to be one of the major countries stepping in, because they are the only ones that have a force capability to send at least 2500 troops to the region. France doesn't even let its soldiers off their bases at night. It pretty much comes down to Britain or Germany at that point, and I don't know if we can convince them to take on Kandahar. We simply can't pick a new place and not ensure that some other country comes in to fill the void. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and unless we get one of our allies to take over Kandahar, some more nefarious entity (read: the Taliban) will unless by some miracle Kandahar is completely secured by February 2009.
And option four is to withdraw all Canadian military forces after February 2009 except a small contingent to provide security for our remaining aid workers and diplomats.
A.K.A. Cut and run. This is the preferred option of the NDP and the radical left. The hard work of reconstruction and stabilization in Afghanistan will almost certainly not be done by February 2009. These types of efforts take at least a decade, possibly even longer under the circumstances. There is so much work to be done in Afghanistan, whether we're talking about human security and human rights, stability, democratic institutions, and law and order. Like I said earlier, Canada does this type of job really well, and it would be a real shame to see our leaders decide to withdraw all of our expertise from Afghanistan to leave the job to others. I'm sure that other countries can do the job, possibly as well as Canadians, but doesn't it reek of abdicating responsibility and embracing the cocoon? In situations where we can help, and our assistance has been requested, there is a degree of obligation to do so. Yes, it costs money and it may cost lives, but the long-term benefits stand to be enormous. Waving goodbye to Kandahar and Afghanistan while the work is incomplete has a ring of immorality to it, and I hope that this option does not end up being recommended by the panel.
26 September 2007
Harper at CFR
Before I get into this, does anybody out there subscribe to the PMO mailing list? Are you also not getting any messages from them lately? **Update** Never mind, just received two of them this morning. Good job, old chap, on the surplus!**
Luckily, I do still receive the podcasts (yes, I listen to the Prime Minister on my iPod...Bush's weekly radio address too), and the latest release is Harper's speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York this week. It is a great speech, delivered in front of a highly intelligent audience, and the Q&A that followed the speech is equally impressive. For those who don't know, the CFR is the body that publishes the most influential political science journal in the United States, that being Foreign Affairs. So the questions they ask are top-notch IR/poli sci stuff, and they result in serious responses from a serious prime minister. It is a far cry from the usual sham that goes on when he is interviewed by the Canadian mainstream media.
In the early minutes of the speech, Harper spoke of the need to promote democracy in the world, as well as open markets, the rule of law, and political pluralism. A more democratic world will be a more secure world, in which people are more free to pursue their dreams without fear of repression from their government. To hear Harper talking about this is very welcome to me. His section on Afghanistan was inspiring while remaining pragmatic. He understands that all the social, political, and economic progress in Afghanistan will arise out of a secure state, and that further progress in Afghanistan will bolster the security of the state. When people have a stake in a brighter future, they will be more willing to defend it. At this time, Afghanistan cannot do so on its own, and Canada has a responsibility to help, and it is fulfilling that. I hope that when decision time comes next April, Canadians of all political stripes will look at the accomplishments we have made there and helped the Afghan people achieve, and realize that we cannot walk away from that prematurely.
To conclude, it would be fantastic if Harper spoke with such clarity and conviction when making speeches for domestic consumption. However, he can only give amazing responses to relevant questions, and that is something the Canadian media need to realize. The political theatre environment of Canadian domestic politics today doesn't exactly encourage the type of speech that Harper gave at the CFR. It's all about the soundbite, who can "get" who the most often and the hardest. To date, Afghanistan has not been treated with the seriousness it deserves. Opposition politicians talk about how Afghanistan wasn't among Harper's "five priorities" in the last election, or that because the work is hard we should come home, or any number of asinine things that are said with an eye on the next SES poll. When conducting foreign policy, domestic politicking should not have a place at the table. Doing what is right and in the country's national interest should be first and foremost among considerations as to what actions, if any, the state should take. Promoting democracy, in the Americas, in Afghanistan, and all over the world is in the Canadian interest, and the political wrangling of leftist opposition parties undermines that pursuit.
Luckily, I do still receive the podcasts (yes, I listen to the Prime Minister on my iPod...Bush's weekly radio address too), and the latest release is Harper's speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York this week. It is a great speech, delivered in front of a highly intelligent audience, and the Q&A that followed the speech is equally impressive. For those who don't know, the CFR is the body that publishes the most influential political science journal in the United States, that being Foreign Affairs. So the questions they ask are top-notch IR/poli sci stuff, and they result in serious responses from a serious prime minister. It is a far cry from the usual sham that goes on when he is interviewed by the Canadian mainstream media.
In the early minutes of the speech, Harper spoke of the need to promote democracy in the world, as well as open markets, the rule of law, and political pluralism. A more democratic world will be a more secure world, in which people are more free to pursue their dreams without fear of repression from their government. To hear Harper talking about this is very welcome to me. His section on Afghanistan was inspiring while remaining pragmatic. He understands that all the social, political, and economic progress in Afghanistan will arise out of a secure state, and that further progress in Afghanistan will bolster the security of the state. When people have a stake in a brighter future, they will be more willing to defend it. At this time, Afghanistan cannot do so on its own, and Canada has a responsibility to help, and it is fulfilling that. I hope that when decision time comes next April, Canadians of all political stripes will look at the accomplishments we have made there and helped the Afghan people achieve, and realize that we cannot walk away from that prematurely.
To conclude, it would be fantastic if Harper spoke with such clarity and conviction when making speeches for domestic consumption. However, he can only give amazing responses to relevant questions, and that is something the Canadian media need to realize. The political theatre environment of Canadian domestic politics today doesn't exactly encourage the type of speech that Harper gave at the CFR. It's all about the soundbite, who can "get" who the most often and the hardest. To date, Afghanistan has not been treated with the seriousness it deserves. Opposition politicians talk about how Afghanistan wasn't among Harper's "five priorities" in the last election, or that because the work is hard we should come home, or any number of asinine things that are said with an eye on the next SES poll. When conducting foreign policy, domestic politicking should not have a place at the table. Doing what is right and in the country's national interest should be first and foremost among considerations as to what actions, if any, the state should take. Promoting democracy, in the Americas, in Afghanistan, and all over the world is in the Canadian interest, and the political wrangling of leftist opposition parties undermines that pursuit.
06 September 2007
A Revived Agenda?
Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his intention to prorogue Parliament until mid-October. In addition to the Opposition's blathering that "several important bills will die" on the Order Paper, this gives the PM the opportunity to present a new Speech From the Throne and commence a new drive towards the next election--be it in October 2009 or sooner.
This is a very intelligent move on Harper's part. For the last several months of the 1st session under his stewardship, it appeared as though the government had no future plans beyond moving to complete its five-point program announced in the election campagin. Parliament drifted and sputtered towards the summer recess, and the Liberals were able to make some hay out of a government that was presenting no plan on Afghanistan, interprovincial relations, or any other issue that threatened to derail Harper. Much of this hay is of the cheap variety, and not likely to remain vital in an actual campaign, but it did ding--somewhat--Harper's image as being firmly in control of the situation.
With a new Speech From the Throne, Harper will be permitted to introduce a revised and current agenda for the government. It will almost certainly include Afghanistan as a major plank of the government's policy agenda. With Peter Mackay now at the helm at DND and with Maxime Bernier heading up Foreign Affairs, there is a renewed opportunity to make a clear, strong, and articulate case for Canada remaining in Afghanistan beyond the current mission in Kandahar's deadline of February 2009. The Opposition has been able to batter Harper over Afghanistan all summer, insisting upon more debates, serving notice to NATO regarding our intentions, and getting Canadian Forces personnel out of the most dangerous region of Afghanistan and letting our allies share more of the burden instead of remaining comfortably in their bases when night falls. I have severe doubts that Harper will be able to achieve the "consensus" that he seeks from Parliament to extend Canada's participation in Afghanistan's reconstruction and stabilization, but he may be able to eke out a different type of mission there in a more pacified region. What the consequences will be Kandahar and a potential Taliban resurgence there, we'll have to make sure to ask of our parliamentarians who want Canada out of that country.
Beyond Afghanistan, there's a lot of room to maneuver on a number of issues that matter to Canadians. No party has yet been able to claim a legitimate monopoly on the environmental file. Looking at health care in the 21st century has been less central to political discourse than it was throughout the 1990s. Post-secondary education is a political football that can be kicked around to attract younger voters. The economy is in good shape, will there be a push to further bolster Canada's international standing by signing some new free trade pacts? Perhaps a beginning of a campaign to get Canada back on the UN Security Council? Will there be some real initiative and imagination demonstrated regarding new international organizations, the push for gender equality to make up for the horrible public relations fiasco early in Harper's term, and raising Canadians' standard of living?
Of course, presenting a Speech From the Throne also gives the Opposition the opportunity to bring down the government and force an election. I can't see that being in the interests of any of the three parties, the Canadian people, or the government. Dion has shown some bluster and hinted that he may try to pull the plug--why I don't know, since he's even faltering on the only pillar of his "three pillars" strategy. If the government showed signs of a lack of direction, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP have been even worse. They've been highly critical of whatever offerings the government has made, sure, but they've not offered up a single alternative that has captured the imaginations of Canadians (a truly daunting task!) to shift public opinion in their court.
One thing is for sure: with the return of Parliament return also the talk shows, the pundits, the op-eds, and of course the speculation of an upcoming election. As a political junkie, this is my lifeblood, and I'm very happy to see that the forthcoming session offers considerable opportunity for all parties to make a significant mark.
This is a very intelligent move on Harper's part. For the last several months of the 1st session under his stewardship, it appeared as though the government had no future plans beyond moving to complete its five-point program announced in the election campagin. Parliament drifted and sputtered towards the summer recess, and the Liberals were able to make some hay out of a government that was presenting no plan on Afghanistan, interprovincial relations, or any other issue that threatened to derail Harper. Much of this hay is of the cheap variety, and not likely to remain vital in an actual campaign, but it did ding--somewhat--Harper's image as being firmly in control of the situation.
With a new Speech From the Throne, Harper will be permitted to introduce a revised and current agenda for the government. It will almost certainly include Afghanistan as a major plank of the government's policy agenda. With Peter Mackay now at the helm at DND and with Maxime Bernier heading up Foreign Affairs, there is a renewed opportunity to make a clear, strong, and articulate case for Canada remaining in Afghanistan beyond the current mission in Kandahar's deadline of February 2009. The Opposition has been able to batter Harper over Afghanistan all summer, insisting upon more debates, serving notice to NATO regarding our intentions, and getting Canadian Forces personnel out of the most dangerous region of Afghanistan and letting our allies share more of the burden instead of remaining comfortably in their bases when night falls. I have severe doubts that Harper will be able to achieve the "consensus" that he seeks from Parliament to extend Canada's participation in Afghanistan's reconstruction and stabilization, but he may be able to eke out a different type of mission there in a more pacified region. What the consequences will be Kandahar and a potential Taliban resurgence there, we'll have to make sure to ask of our parliamentarians who want Canada out of that country.
Beyond Afghanistan, there's a lot of room to maneuver on a number of issues that matter to Canadians. No party has yet been able to claim a legitimate monopoly on the environmental file. Looking at health care in the 21st century has been less central to political discourse than it was throughout the 1990s. Post-secondary education is a political football that can be kicked around to attract younger voters. The economy is in good shape, will there be a push to further bolster Canada's international standing by signing some new free trade pacts? Perhaps a beginning of a campaign to get Canada back on the UN Security Council? Will there be some real initiative and imagination demonstrated regarding new international organizations, the push for gender equality to make up for the horrible public relations fiasco early in Harper's term, and raising Canadians' standard of living?
Of course, presenting a Speech From the Throne also gives the Opposition the opportunity to bring down the government and force an election. I can't see that being in the interests of any of the three parties, the Canadian people, or the government. Dion has shown some bluster and hinted that he may try to pull the plug--why I don't know, since he's even faltering on the only pillar of his "three pillars" strategy. If the government showed signs of a lack of direction, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP have been even worse. They've been highly critical of whatever offerings the government has made, sure, but they've not offered up a single alternative that has captured the imaginations of Canadians (a truly daunting task!) to shift public opinion in their court.
One thing is for sure: with the return of Parliament return also the talk shows, the pundits, the op-eds, and of course the speculation of an upcoming election. As a political junkie, this is my lifeblood, and I'm very happy to see that the forthcoming session offers considerable opportunity for all parties to make a significant mark.
01 September 2007
Patting Themselves on the Back...
...for doing exactly what they're supposed to do and living up to the minimum standard of behaviour. That is the sentiment I get when I read this story about a Senator funding a $10,000 award for the "most honourable MP." There was, I'm sure, a time when MPs would have found the notion of handing out cash on the grounds of doing your job with a modicum of decency and civility, with only the public good in mind, to be something bizarre. Harry Truman would have scoffed at the idea of somebody wanting to line his pockets because he did his best to serve his country--and make no mistake, Senator Harry Truman would have won that award in the US every year.
However, in this era of gutter politics, one of their own has decided to reward the least-scuzzy politician. Nothing beats a friendly pat on the back from the unelected portion of the old boys' club, after all. If there was a behaviour report card for MPs, we would demand that everybody earned an A. With this purely arbitrary system, the one that at least strives to receive a B in a sea of Cs, Ds, and Fs (because let's face it, they'll be content to do the bare minimum) will be hailed as some sort of angelic presence in Ottawa, one that everybody should strive to be. There should be no need for a stupid reward such as this.
However, in this era of gutter politics, one of their own has decided to reward the least-scuzzy politician. Nothing beats a friendly pat on the back from the unelected portion of the old boys' club, after all. If there was a behaviour report card for MPs, we would demand that everybody earned an A. With this purely arbitrary system, the one that at least strives to receive a B in a sea of Cs, Ds, and Fs (because let's face it, they'll be content to do the bare minimum) will be hailed as some sort of angelic presence in Ottawa, one that everybody should strive to be. There should be no need for a stupid reward such as this.
14 August 2007
Do the Cabinet Shuffle
Something to break the summer doldrums in Canada's political scene.
The big moves from my personal interest POV:
Mackay to Defence - it's good that he is staying in a role with an international dimension. Though he didn't do the greatest job of publicly selling the mission in Afghanistan, I know that Mackay understands the importance of the mission and that Canada's participation can help tip the balance in favour of success in rebuilding and reconstructing that country. I actually just received some correspondence from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the mail today, and it's clear to me that he's on top of it. His new role at Defence puts him in a different position regarding Afghanistan, and I'm confident that he'll handle the position well.
Bernier to Foreign Affairs - I know that he's one of Harper's stars in Quebec. That's about all I know about Maxime. In some circles, it's seen as important to put a Quebec face on the most critical mission Canada faces diplomatically and militarily overseas. That's optical politics for you. Perhaps my "fellow traveller" Chuckercanuck can illuminate all of us on what we can expect from Bernier in this position.
Oda to CIDA - this one is a head-scratcher. She presided poorly over Heritage and Status of Women Canada. CIDA is the third pillar of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, so this is a promotion of sorts for Oda. My great concern is that someone who doesn't go to bat for women's rights in Canada won't do so strongly for the rights of women in Afghanistan. I hope to be proven wrong, but I'm very skeptical.
The other Cabinet shifts don't amount to much to me. It's putting new faces in new places, but seeing as most Canadians, myself included, can't identify many of these ministers in a police line-up, it's little more than some cosmetic work to freshen things up and get ministers more experience in different portfolios.
The big moves from my personal interest POV:
Mackay to Defence - it's good that he is staying in a role with an international dimension. Though he didn't do the greatest job of publicly selling the mission in Afghanistan, I know that Mackay understands the importance of the mission and that Canada's participation can help tip the balance in favour of success in rebuilding and reconstructing that country. I actually just received some correspondence from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the mail today, and it's clear to me that he's on top of it. His new role at Defence puts him in a different position regarding Afghanistan, and I'm confident that he'll handle the position well.
Bernier to Foreign Affairs - I know that he's one of Harper's stars in Quebec. That's about all I know about Maxime. In some circles, it's seen as important to put a Quebec face on the most critical mission Canada faces diplomatically and militarily overseas. That's optical politics for you. Perhaps my "fellow traveller" Chuckercanuck can illuminate all of us on what we can expect from Bernier in this position.
Oda to CIDA - this one is a head-scratcher. She presided poorly over Heritage and Status of Women Canada. CIDA is the third pillar of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, so this is a promotion of sorts for Oda. My great concern is that someone who doesn't go to bat for women's rights in Canada won't do so strongly for the rights of women in Afghanistan. I hope to be proven wrong, but I'm very skeptical.
The other Cabinet shifts don't amount to much to me. It's putting new faces in new places, but seeing as most Canadians, myself included, can't identify many of these ministers in a police line-up, it's little more than some cosmetic work to freshen things up and get ministers more experience in different portfolios.
02 August 2007
I like that the CTV website now allows comments on their stories. I've posted in a couple, one today and one yesterday about Darfur. The topic today though is one that I'd rather comment on at this time. Yesterday Russia announced its intentions to go on a major expedition up to the Arctic and plant a flag. The motive for this maneuver is to demonstrate their sovereignty over the Arctic and therefore lay claim to all of the untapped resources up North. CNN had a lengthy story about it yesterday and how it affected America's interests in the Arctic. They were strangely silent about what Canada felt about it, and today we learned why: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Mackay, is living pie-in-the-sky on the issue.
"Look, this isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory,'" MacKay told CTV's Question Period co-host Jane Taber.
The attitude of Mackay's comment, that the Russians are merely trying to put on a "show," is indicative of Canada's blase and naive view of the world. It's also interesting that he'd make a statement as he did about planting the flag and its irrelevance, given our recent dispute over Hans Island. I'm sure that the realpolitik crowd in Moscow is having a good chuckle from Mackay's comment. They'll be more than happy to put on a sequel, too. Maybe when they've got a nuclear sub roaming around in the Arctic Mackay will just say it's for partisan bluster among the KGB crowd.
Last year, when it was still of recent enough vintage to call it "Canada's New Government," the Tory leadership seemed to be really on the ball when it came to foreign affairs issues. They were clear-headed, principled, and right in unreservedly supporting Israel in its conflict against Hezbollah terrorists. They were strong on Afghanistan. They were strong on rebuilding bridges with Washington. Now, they've all but abandoned Afghanistan after the artificial February 2009 deadline. They're not taking a resurgent Russia seriously. There hasn't been a bilateral meeting between Harper and Bush in months.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that governing a wishy-washy country has rubbed off on the Tories.
"Look, this isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory,'" MacKay told CTV's Question Period co-host Jane Taber.
The attitude of Mackay's comment, that the Russians are merely trying to put on a "show," is indicative of Canada's blase and naive view of the world. It's also interesting that he'd make a statement as he did about planting the flag and its irrelevance, given our recent dispute over Hans Island. I'm sure that the realpolitik crowd in Moscow is having a good chuckle from Mackay's comment. They'll be more than happy to put on a sequel, too. Maybe when they've got a nuclear sub roaming around in the Arctic Mackay will just say it's for partisan bluster among the KGB crowd.
Last year, when it was still of recent enough vintage to call it "Canada's New Government," the Tory leadership seemed to be really on the ball when it came to foreign affairs issues. They were clear-headed, principled, and right in unreservedly supporting Israel in its conflict against Hezbollah terrorists. They were strong on Afghanistan. They were strong on rebuilding bridges with Washington. Now, they've all but abandoned Afghanistan after the artificial February 2009 deadline. They're not taking a resurgent Russia seriously. There hasn't been a bilateral meeting between Harper and Bush in months.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that governing a wishy-washy country has rubbed off on the Tories.
12 July 2007
Memo to Harper: Your New Friend Sided with Saddam
The Prime Minister of Canada is spending pretty much all of tomorrow with the King Abdullah of Jordan. By definition of his title, he is no friend of democracy. He enjoys his position of power because of who his father was. Moreover, his was the only Arab government that fully supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990-91. The King of Jordan is not a friend of Canada, and I am disappointed to see the Prime Minister setting aside an entire day to chum around with him.
Update: He added this in a post-meeting news conference: "We strongly support countries that support values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law." And Jordan, too.
Update: He added this in a post-meeting news conference: "We strongly support countries that support values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law." And Jordan, too.
25 June 2007
In The Headlines
There is no shortage of big-ticket news items today:
There is a major meeting happening in Egypt today involving the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. This is the first diplomatic initiative to occur since the election of Hamas last year. With Abbas flailing after losing control over Gaza, it is important that he be seen to be effective and still the real leader and champion of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. As always, skepticism and severely guarded optimism is the best approach, but that these parties are all talking again is a first step.
Tomorrow is Tony Blair's final day as the Prime Minister of Britain. America's best ally in the War on Terror and Tyranny is stepping down, and already rumours are circulating as to where he goes from here. The G&M has a story about Blair possibly being named a peace envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. This is a position that many have said previously would be the perfect fit for Bill Clinton, but Blair would also be tremendous in the role. He's an expert diplomat, calm and reassuring yet tough and principled, and would have the full support of the West. Here's hoping that it turns out to be true, because this is a leader that should remain connected to major processes.
Also, this is an example of why I like the Government of Canada more than its elected representatives. This analysis of the 2006 US National Security Strategy is one of the best that I've seen--and I've seen many...and even written one. There's a lot in this document that is pretty similar in its conclusions to what I wrote about in my thesis. It focuses, naturally, more on the implications of the NSS for Canada than I did (since I was writing from an IR perspective and not a Government of Canada perspective), and I was pleased to read that it concludes that there are "many positive signs" for Canada in the new overarching US grand strategic policy blueprint.
There is a major meeting happening in Egypt today involving the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. This is the first diplomatic initiative to occur since the election of Hamas last year. With Abbas flailing after losing control over Gaza, it is important that he be seen to be effective and still the real leader and champion of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. As always, skepticism and severely guarded optimism is the best approach, but that these parties are all talking again is a first step.
Tomorrow is Tony Blair's final day as the Prime Minister of Britain. America's best ally in the War on Terror and Tyranny is stepping down, and already rumours are circulating as to where he goes from here. The G&M has a story about Blair possibly being named a peace envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. This is a position that many have said previously would be the perfect fit for Bill Clinton, but Blair would also be tremendous in the role. He's an expert diplomat, calm and reassuring yet tough and principled, and would have the full support of the West. Here's hoping that it turns out to be true, because this is a leader that should remain connected to major processes.
Also, this is an example of why I like the Government of Canada more than its elected representatives. This analysis of the 2006 US National Security Strategy is one of the best that I've seen--and I've seen many...and even written one. There's a lot in this document that is pretty similar in its conclusions to what I wrote about in my thesis. It focuses, naturally, more on the implications of the NSS for Canada than I did (since I was writing from an IR perspective and not a Government of Canada perspective), and I was pleased to read that it concludes that there are "many positive signs" for Canada in the new overarching US grand strategic policy blueprint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)