Politics Geek

Liberal Convention Speeches

2006-12-02T12:11:00.000-05:00

Of all the speeches for the four front-runners I listened to last night, only Gerrard Kennedy's was worthy of note. He spoke with sincerity and passion and apparently was the only one of the leadership candidates to recognize that Liberals haven't been at their best and it's at their best that they will always beat the others. I've felt the same thing about Liberals since I jumped to the NDP in 1995. I'd like to see a Liberal party that actually cares about people again, not just in words but actions. Not just making promises, but keeping them. The Liberals got despondent in power, too used to it, and became aimless.
Ignatieff's speech was arrogant, his smiles seemed fake almost forced, and he overused cliches. Basically, it was empty of content. An academic who apparently never learned how to talk to an audience. Surprisingly, the media didn't seem to grasp much of this, expect one shining example from a surprising source, at least for me, the National Post.

Afghan president contradicts NDP

2006-09-22T19:09:00.000-04:00

A recent Reality Check on the NDP website pulled a quote from Afghan President Karzai's speech to the UN to suggest that the mission in Afghanistan isn't balanced:

"Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages. You do not destroy terrorism by launching military operations in areas where only the symptoms have emerged."

However, I think it's the NDP that needs a reality check. A Toronto Star article says:

In a direct rebuff to critics like NDP Leader Jack Layton who say the mission is out of whack, Karzai said Canadian efforts in Afghanistan are properly balanced between reconstruction and military support.

The remarks that the NDP quoted probably represent Karzai's opinion that there must be more than just military operations to help Afghanistan and there is. The Star article shows some of those accomplishments that Karzai discussed:

# School enrolment has shot up almost 1,000 per cent since the collapse of the Taliban, he said, with six million boys and girls in school today compared with just 700,000 boys who studied five years ago.

# Girls were not allowed to study under the Taliban but now fill more than one-third of the classroom seats.

# Unfortunately, insurgents have burned down 150 schools, triggering a decline in student enrolment by 200,000 since last year.

# The country’s per-capita income has doubled in five years but remains only $355.

It's nowhere near heaven on Earth but it's better than it was. Does Layton think that the Taliban would've allowed millions of girls to go to school?

Karzai noted, "“The tragedy of Sept. 11 showed in a terrible way the flaws of the arguments against helping Afghanistan. For one thing, it showed that, in fact, the cost of ignoring Afghanistan was far higher than the cost of helping it.”

NDP Wrong on Afghanistan

2006-09-14T13:32:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you've heard about it by now. At the recent federal NDP convention, the NDP passed a resolution calling for Canadian troops to withdraw from Afghanistan. I was one of many delegates who voted against this resolution along with Nova Scotia NDP MP, Peter Stoffer. Obviously, our stand was in vain since our leader, Jack Layton had already decided. It seems a little strange to me when a leader of a political party reverses a policy before the grassroots has a say.

As I understand it, it was just over a year ago that the NDP and Jack Layton, in particular, backed the Afghanistan mission. Now that stance has changed. Layton doesn't admit to a reversal in policy; however, he says what was a peacekeeping operation has become a war and one under American backing. His speech to the NDP at the closing of the convention is here.

I wish had a copy of Peter Stoffer's short speech regarding why we should support the mission in Afghanistan. If anybody can find me a copy, please let me know.

Here's why I think the mission needs to be supported:

1. We're not done. Their are remnant Taliban forces that need to be destroyed. Layton used to believe this too.

2. Afghanistan has a democratically-elected government which still needs our help.

3. The US is not leading the mission, NATO is. Of course, to many NDP members, they're on in the same, a point which is over-simplification at best, ignorance at worst. We are a member of NATO therefore we have certain obligations which include this mission. In NATO, an attack on a member nation is to be considered an attack on all member nations. On 9/11, America was attacked by Afghanistan-supported terrorists.

4. We are making progress. The fact that Afghanistan has an elected government and that the Taliban has been confined mostly to the southern areas of the country is proof of that. If the NDP believes the progress isn't enough, then they should be supporting more troops to finish the job faster.

5. Afghanistan is not Iraq. There were and are now terrorists or terrorist supporters in Afghanistan. Iraq has them now only because of the invasion. There were very few, if any, there before.

It also absolutely disgusts me that Layton opporunistically called a press conference to boost himself and the NDP stance by using the recent deaths of Canadian soldiers. That was absolutely uncalled for.

For those of us who think the NDP is a bunch of cowards, please keep in mind that not all of us voted for the withdrawal. One paper reported about 5% voting against it. I would say that it was closer to 10%. Not a lot, but considering the emotionalism and considering that a recent poll found the majority of Canadians also calling for the withdrawal, it's something. Despite my riding president expecting me to vote in favour, I did not. This was a crisis of conscience for me and nobody will ever make me vote against my conscience, regardless of the consequences.

A sad election tale

2005-12-30T19:44:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this (below). Sadly, there is much truth to it:

While vacationing on a ranch, Paul Martin gets thrown from his horse, lands on a rattlesnake, gets bitten and dies because the emergency room at the nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time. So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a Liberal around these parts, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in; I'm a believer." says Martin.

"I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from the Man Himself. He says you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity."

"But, I've already made up my mind, I want to be in Heaven," replied Martin".

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course; the sun is shining in a cloudless sky, the temperature a perfect 72 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful clubhouse.

Standing in front of it is his Dad, and thousands of other Liberals who had helped him out over the years---Pierre Trudeau, Jean Marchand, Pelletier, St Laurent etc., everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed. They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at the expense of 'suckers and peasants.' They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar.

The Devil himself comes up to Martin with a frosty drink, "Have a Margarita and relax, Paul!"

"Uh, I can't drink anymore, I took a pledge," says Martin, dejectedly. "This is Hell, son. You can drink and eat all you want and not worry, and it just gets better from there!"

Martin takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly guy who tells funny jokes like himself, and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like they pulled on the GST and Free Trade promises. They are having such a great time that, before he realizes it, it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Martin steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, he is in Heaven again and St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says, opening the gate.

So for 24 hours Martin is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money, and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or frat boy joke among them; no fancy country clubs and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor, he doesn't see anybody he knows, and he isn't even treated like someone special!

"Whoa," he says uncomfortably to himself. "Pierre Trudeau never prepared me for this!"

The day is done, St. Peter returns and says, "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for eternity."

With the 'Jeopardy' theme playing softly in the background, Martin reflects for a minute, then answers: "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this -- I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all -- but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. The doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial waste, kind of like Sudbury. He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Martin and puts an arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers a shocked Martin, "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank booze. We lazed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly, and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us!"

Tory campaign failing to gain traction with voters

2005-12-25T00:47:00.000-05:00

A mid-campaign poll for The Globe and Mail-CTV News shows that Canadians actually like the Liberal campaign marginally better than the one run by the Conservatives, despite positive reviews of the Tory effort as mistake-free and heavy on ideas.

I'm surprised the Tories didn't see this coming but then again, nobody seems to pay much attention to the NDP and they're the party that usually runs positive campaigns with lots of ideas. Last federal election I was working on the local NDP campaign, we had around 14-15 issue sheets we passed out from the federal office. We did well locally at 19% of the vote (that's 3.5% more than the national numbers) but still came in at third place. The Conservative candidate had essentially NO platform and came in second around 30% (I don't recall the exact number).

A positive campaign with lots of policy isn't a bad thing but alone it won't win an election. That's because of the same reason that negative advertising works. During an election, you need to set your candidate and party as being different from you opponents. Policy can help with this but only to a certain extent because you can't really make your specific policy plausible without successfully criticizing the other guy's different policy.

Being positive helps the governing party since it's to their advantage to make everything seem OK. Nobody wants to get rid of an incumbent MP who has been doing alright. For the opposition it's better to emphasize what's wrong as a result of the governing party and just be positive about what you'd change to make it OK again. The Globe article says pretty much the same thing:

"[The Conservatives] have to get that general protest sentiment back up there," Mr. Gregg said. "The cornerstone of any opposition party is unhappiness with the status quo. It's the oldest cliché in the book, but it's true. Governments defeat themselves."

Of course, the real groundwar will be in the new year. Until then, Merry Christmas to everyone!

Format changed for election debates

2005-11-30T22:55:00.000-05:00

In most past years I had pretty much ignored US elections. They seemed just so... dirty. With the scary choices Bush made in his first term, I paid a lot of attention to the presidential debate last time around. Imagine my surprise to find that US debates were polite; what you would expect Canadian debates to be. Of course the US only has two people debating but what we have in Canada couldn't even be really called a debate, more like a free-for-all. Evidently, the Canadian networks noticed that many Canadians want more something better:

The leaders will respond, one at a time, to each question. As one leader is speaking, the microphones for the other three will be cut off.

As well, there will be an additional debate in each official language:

There will be a pair of debates before Christmas, Dec. 15 in French and Dec. 16 in English, and another pair after Christmas, Jan. 9 in English and Jan. 10 in French. Each debate will last two hours.

Are we better off?

2005-11-16T08:39:00.000-05:00

This Toronto Star article was enlightening in that it focused on the Archilles' Heel of the Liberal government:

n its most recent report, the Conference Board of Canada warns this country is falling behind major competitors and risks squandering a promising future too many assume is assured. More disturbing still, the think-tank points out that its concerns about innovation, health, education and productivity, first identified in 1996, are now today's fears.

Though the federal Finance Minister argues that we're doing really well in many areas we've fallen behind our competitors in other areas. We're squandering away surpluses that could do so much more than just rewarding voters for giving the Liberals support (in tax cuts and small spending increases):

Part of Martin's problem is too many opportunities. While the conference board wants more spent stimulating economic activity, particularly trade, McCracken and others have another long priority list that includes reversing environmental degradation, putting more than a million back to work and breaking the poverty cycle.

Martin stands firm, no 'grey zone' on election call

2005-11-16T07:25:00.000-05:00

You would've had to have been living under a rock lately to not have heard the gerrymandering going on Ottawa.

First, Gomery I is released (the first of two reports). Stephen Harper claims the government no longer has the moral authority to govern but that he won't try to bring down the government unless the NDP is with him.

The NDP and the Liberals try to negotiate what is required for the NDP to continue supporting them. The main point of contention is that the NDP wants the Liberals to admit healthcare privitisation is taking place and to commit to stopping it. The Liberals admit the first vaguely but refuse to do anything other than send "letters expressing concern" to Premiers. Jack Layton says the NDP can no longer support the Liberals because of a lack of will on the part of the Liberals and will vote against the government if a non-confidence vote is called (what Harper wanted).

Harper backs down suggesting that Canadians don't want a Christmas election and suggests they can't be sure they can trust the NDP. The NDP, Conservatives and BQ meet over a weekend to discuss strategy.

Layton comes up with a compromise. He will move with united support of all the opposition parties that the government call an election in January to be held in February. And here we are now.

Speaking with reporters after a meeting of his cabinet, Mr. Martin said — even though he has agreed to call an election within 30 days of the Feb. 1 release of the final report on the sponsorship scandal — that rules of parliament and traditions and common sense all dictate that he cannot accede to the Opposition parties' demands.

OK, a couple of points first. Gemery I was delayed by over a month so it wouldn't be all that surprising if Gomery II is released late as well meaning it'd be released in March or April. Since the PM has 30 days to call an election and 33 days minimum are required for an election campaign, that could put the election off until May or June.

I love the reasoning of the Prime Minister of why he's sensible and the opposition isn't:

But the rules of Parliament and our traditions and common sense, you know, dictate that, in fact, you either have the confidence of the House or you do not have the confidence of the House, and there's no grey zone."

It's certainly not that black and white. There is nothing that prevents the Prime Minister from asceding to the majority of House which would be to have an election after Christmas but sooner that he would've rather had it. I'll quote Bill Blaikie, NDP member for Elmwood-Transcona (from Hansard on Nov.14, 2005):

Mr. Speaker, one of the other principles of Parliament is that the government should respect the will of Parliament, especially in a minority situation.

If the Prime Minister has the right to say when the election should be, Parliament has the right to say when the election should be and we all have the right to say when the election should be by mutual consent.

There is somebody who says that he is against the democratic deficit. Have him stand and say why he would reject the will of Parliament and put the interest of his own party first.

I'm going to be helping my party in this election and I really don't want a Christmas campaign. Slugging through the snow to do canvassing doesn't sound much like fun to me. I'm sure the Liberals don't want one either, seeing as how less than 100 of their candidates have been chosen.

Jack Layton puts forward his motion Thursday.

NDP's gain the newest headache for Martin

2005-11-14T06:42:00.000-05:00

The struggle for a Liberal majority will be more difficult because of the surprising strength of the NDP, the poll, conducted for the Star by EKOS Research, shows. It's the New Democrats, in fact, who appear to be reaping the most gains since the last election, with 21 per cent support across the country.

That's a good five-plus percentage points above their 2004 election results, with the NDP neck-and-neck with the Liberals for support in B.C., and well above the Liberals in the Prairies. Moreover, 13 per cent of former Liberal voters and 5 per cent of former Tory voters say they've moved to the NDP.

This is interesting because it also shows that the Conservatives have possibly lost some support to the NDP since a previous poll had pegged the Conservatives at 30 percent and now they're at 28 percent. I say "possible" because the gain is within the margin of error. Furthermore, most voters appear to believe that the election (whatever that means) will result in the same thing we have now:

Most Canadians, in fact, think that the next government will also be a Liberal-led minority government. A full 63 per cent said they expected the Liberals to emerge victorious after the next election and even more, 72 per cent of respondents, believed the next government would be a minority. Of those predicting a minority government, 46 per cent said that would be a good thing for the country.

This makes me wonder how effective the Liberals scare-mongering will be that the Conservatives could attain a majority. Even if the Conservatives did remarkably well in campaigning the best they could hope for would be a minority themselves. If Canadians realize this, will the Liberals still be able to steal votes away from the NDP as happened in 2004?

Layton opens door to election

2005-11-07T17:53:00.000-05:00

NDP Leader Jack Layton Monday called a Liberal health-care plan "unacceptable" and said there was "no basis" for his party to show any confidence in Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government.

Layton had been earlier unwilling to say what the NDP would do if the Liberals wouldn't agree to stopping privitisation. When I initially saw the headline I figured the election would be on since the Conservatives had earlier said that they would only bring forward a non-confidence motion if they knew the NDP would support it. However, the notoriously fickle Conservatives seem to have backed down on that now:

But, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, responding swiftly to the comments, countered that his party, having already attempted to bring down the Liberals this spring, won't introduce its own confidence motion before Christmas.

What the hell? Is this the same party that claimed the Liberals as a party didn't deserve to govern? It's pretty clear that if he isn't willing to bring them down before Christmas that he's waiting until the Liberals call the election after the Gomery Commissions final report. I'm not sure what they're putting in Harper's coffee! I can only surmise that advisors have scared him out of forcing a Christmas election because many of their supporters, aka the Christian Right, would be really peeved to have their religious traditions interrupted via a negative campaign.

What the article doesn't allude to is that a really big opportunity has opened up. The NDP has a chance to steal the "Liberals are too corrupt to govern" theme away from the Conservatives by initiating the fall of the government itself. And it's pretty clear that the Conservatives will support that motion still:

"If Mr. Layton has a clear confidence motion that speaks to corruption and a general loss of confidence to the government, if there's a consensus of all parties and he's clearly prepared to back that and initiate that, then we'll have a vote," Mr. Harper told reporters in Montreal.

It's a risk, abeit a small one, that voters will retaliate against the NDP for causing a Christmas election. However, the rewards are great. The NDP hasn't been this high in the polls since the last election. And voters frequently reward leaders with guts.

The only wildcard in this play is what effect the Liberals scare-mongering will have this time around on soft NDP voters.

Tories grab lead in poll

2005-11-05T17:13:00.000-05:00

I had previously thought that an election wouldn't be until the Spring but a recent poll by SES suggests otherwise:

"The temptation to defeat the government will be overwhelming," Strategic Counsel chairman Allan Gregg said.

"They know that when this issue fades, their fortunes fade with it, so sooner is better than later."

Mr. Gregg added that the poll demonstrates gains for all three opposition parties if a vote were held today.

The results suggest the Conservatives are the preferred option of 31 per cent of Canadians, 3 percentage points ahead of the Liberals, who are favoured by 28 per cent. The New Democrats are third with 20 per cent, while the Green Party is the first choice of 7 per cent.

The most important number here is the one for the NDP which is up from the last poll where they were at 15%. Jack Layton is holding the cards here. If the Liberals can't get his support for their minority government, they're sunk.

The NDP and Liberals had been in talks previously to address increasing privitisation of health care and how to stop it. The NDP wanted the Liberals to take some strong legislative measures to prevent money from leaking into the private system with public dollars. The Liberals weren't willing to make changes. Now, I'm not sure anything the Liberals promised would be enough but whatever they offer will have to be an NDP agenda (without looking like one).

U.S. word on trade 'good as gold,' Rice says

2005-10-25T14:17:00.000-04:00

The Globe & Mail reports on Rice's visit to Canada:

The United States' word is “as good as gold” when it comes to international agreements and the current Canada-U.S. dispute over softwood lumber – while important – needs to be kept in perspective, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.

More words, little action. Somehow Martin's people convinced Rice to visit Canada to show that Martin is doing something about the lumber dispute. It's obvious that Rice was sent just to pacify the Canadians. How long does something need to go on before this government actually decides to stand up to the US?

Merger killed conservatism in Canada

2005-10-09T03:01:00.000-04:00

Though the article appears by its title to be about Conservatives it's really about Liberals and how they stole ideas from both parties. And though I'm sure they didn't intend it as such, the article actually gives more support to Canada's NDP, at least if you are fond of our social safety net:

All of Canada’s social programs such as universal health care and old age pensions, originated with the CCF, the predecessor party to the NDP. When the CCF came up with a social policy that seemed to find favour with Canadians, the Liberals would adopt it, water it down to make it less socialistic, pass it into law, and then take credit for it. Most of what Prime Minister Paul Martin calls “Canadian values” are policies that originated with the socialists and passed into law by the Liberals. The CCF/NDP has had a tremendous influence on the shape of the country without ever coming close to holding power.

If the NDP can do that much without having held power federally, imagine what more they could do in government!

I don't entirely agree with the authors conclusion, however:

Currently Canada has no major small “c” conservative party and two centrist parties. Conservatism may not be dead in Canada but with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, it is certainly on life support.

I don't see either the Liberals or the Conservatives as centrist parties - I see them both as right-wing parties and the NDP as the only left-wing party. Over the past 12 years they've been in power, the Liberals have balanced the budget by cutting social programs and then spent most of the surplus on corporate and personal tax cuts and debt repayment. The money spent on doing those things above is at least double the amount spent on new spending on expanding or adding social programs. That's obviously why the Liberals have been promising for 12 years a national daycare program and never delivered as but one example.

New Democrats most fiscally responsible: Federal government report

2005-10-06T23:08:00.000-04:00

The media always seems to carry comments from other parties and citizens about the NDP being fiscally-irresponsible. It'd be nice if they gave more credence to data instead of anecdotes.

The report shows that NDP governments have balanced the books 46 per cent of the time. Manitoba’s NDP government has posed surpluses every year it has been in office and Saskatchewan’s NDP government posted 11 consecutive balanced budgets after ending a decade of Conservative mismanagement and corruption.

Despite Paul Martin’s frequent pronouncements on fiscal responsibility, Liberals have the worst fiscal record overall. Liberal federal, provincial and territorial governments have posted year-over-year budget deficits an astonishing 79 per cent of the time.

They don't have to take the NDP's word for it - look at the Report themselves and crunch the data.

Svend Robinson mulling return to federal arena

2005-10-06T22:45:00.000-04:00

Svend is the kind of guy that lives and breathes politics. He's always been more popular amongst his constituents and the Socialist Caucus, a radical group with the Federal NDP then with the caucus. That's because he tends to be a bit of a media hog and likes to grandstand. However, I have no doubt that he's sincere in his beliefs and he a great example of a politician who goes the extra mile to help the minorities within society. What's his chances of beating Liberal MP Hedy Fry? According to a poll commissed by Robinson:

On the question of who would win if he ran against Fry, Robinson said it was a statistical tie once the margin of error was factored in.

Even though Vancouver Centre had a large gay population, it doesn't necessarily Svend will automatically get their vote according to an Fry who is quoted in an article in The Brandon Sun:

Although Robinson was the first openly gay MP to out himself in 1988, Fry said she’s not worried about losing support from her riding’s sizeable gay community. Fry noted that in every single election she has ran in since 1993, a gay candidate has run against her.

Finally, in an article by Columnist Jeffery Simpson:

Politics is a kind of drug for Mr. Robinson. If healthy, it was inevitable he would return some day, somewhere. And, sure enough, he recently said he began reading Hansard again, which is a bit like handing a menu to someone with an eating disorder. Anybody who reads Hansard is either a) not of sane mind, b) a glutton for punishment, or c) a political junkie of the worst order.

Harper mum on prospect of MacKay's departure

2005-10-01T09:14:00.000-04:00

Nova Scotia provincial Conservatives have begun a campaign to draft deputy federal leader Peter MacKay back to their province while he acknowledged he had received no appeal yet from his leader, Stephen Harper, to stay in the national party.

Personally, I think McKay will probably go. It's lot more fun being a big fish in a little pond and his future in the federal Conservative party is limited as long as Harper remains at the helm. It'll be very bad for federal party in that yet another moderate will be leaving (Stronach being another one). I don't have a problem with real Conservativism because they still believe in government having a role in society. The neo-conservatives which have taken over the party don't, unless you count interfering in individual rights on moral issues.

The flagging empire

2005-09-12T07:21:00.000-04:00

Even though this one isn't about Canadian politics the subject of it may have a deep impact on Canadians. Like many that have been watching the news intently, I've watched the disaster of Hurricane Katrina with unusual interest. The people of New Orleans will need massive efforts to rebuild their homes and their lives many of which will involve cash, most of it Federal. The Bush Administration has already announced that at least $84 billion will be provided. This, from an administration that is already mired in a Trillion dollar deficit and fighting two wars. Where will it lead? Paul William Roberts thinks he knows:

It is safe to say that relocating more than a million people, along with the loss of the nation's largest port, and the other economic consequences from Hurricane Katrina will bankrupt the United States

Bankruptcy is probably too harsh but I do believe since 9/11 that the United States has been in decline. The stuttering economy has only come out of its malaise recently. Though by no means down and out, the United States is beginning to fail to live up to its greatness and other countries are gaining.

China's economic growth rates terrify both Japan, which has been persuaded to remilitarize, and America, which did the persuading. The Central Intelligence Agency's National Intelligence Council predicts that China's gross domestic product will equal that of Britain this year, Germany in 2009, Japan in 2017 and the United States by 2042.

However, Shahid Javed Burki, former vice-president of the World Bank's China Department and a former Pakistani finance minister, forecasts that China will probably have enough purchasing power to surpass the United States as the world's largest economy this year.

The sleeping giant is awakening. What this may lead to is a global fight over the worlds resources of oil, Roberts speculates. The decline of the American empire could have great repercussions for Canada with most of our trade being with them.

Judge issues call to action

2005-09-11T01:42:00.000-04:00

Neo-Conservatives tend to answer escalating street violence with more police officers. But the cause of crime is often, though not always, one of poverty. Canada's biggest municipality finally gets it:

"A lot of these problems' root cause is simply poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of hope, lack of self-respect," McMurtry said. "There is obviously a competition for the minds and hearts of many young people with the gang culture."

This summer's spike in shootings, many of them in communities rife with poverty, underscores the need for action.

"The problems are monumental. They're systemic and many have been ignored by governments for many years," McMurtry said. "To me, it's a disgrace that it's been allowed to grow to the extent it has."

Thanks to Ernie F. for letting me know about this Toronto Star article.

Martin fills five vacancies in Senate

2005-08-04T07:20:00.000-04:00

Prime Minister Paul Martin has appointed five new senators, including former Tory leadership candidate Hugh Segal and Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell.

Segal is a well-known "red" Tory and quite a smart guy. Campbell is known for his progressive stance on alleviating the harm caused my drug addiction in BC's capital. There's a really good write-up on him here. I'm not sure the Senate is a good thing but at least Martin has picked a couple of guys that well be great Senators - knowledgeable and pragmatic.

While we're on the subject of the legitimacy of the Senate, both the NDP's Ed Broadbent and Opposition Leader Stephen Harper weighed in on it. Harper wants an elected Senate (and probably equal since that was the long-time policy of the previous party) while the NDP wants to get rid of it entirely. Both positions are entirely unrealistic.

First of all, an equal Senate would be a bad thing for the more populous provinces. If it was elected then we'd be closer to the American style of government. In that system, much of the revenue is diverted to tiny states making states like Rhode Island and Hawaii quite well-off while populous states like Florida, California and New York get screwed. For these reasons, provinces like Ontario, Quebec and BC won't go along with it and amending that part of the constitution requires unanimous support from the provincial legislatures. The NDP position wouldn't be as bad an idea but is just as unlikely for the same reason. We've never had unanimous support on amending the constitution (that lasted long enough to ratify).

Same-sex Marriage Reality Check

2005-07-23T11:31:00.000-04:00

As I'm sure everybody who hasn't been living in a cave knows, Canada's same-sex marriage legislation was passed by the Senate on Wednesday assuring the passage of the legislation. It's expected to be given Royal Assent (signed) by the Governor-General this Wednesday. Snippit from BBC News:

It was approved by 47 votes to 21, and could be signed into law as early as Wednesday.

I find it interesting that the legislation is so controversial that only half of the Senators bothered to be there for the vote. Probably didn't want to miss Leno. It's not like the vote wasn't going to pass since the Senate almost always rubber stamps what the House of Commons passes. There was that one time in 1988 that the Senate blocked legislation.

In any case, I think it's valuable to look at what the legislation means:

First, it provides for Civil Marriage with the members of it having the full rights and responsibilities of straight couples. This means that no church will be forced to perform same-sex unions contrary to the fear mongering of some Conservatives. Remember that Freedom of Conscience is also a constitutional right. Besides, there are several churches such as the United Church of Canada that are already willing to do so.

Secondly, just because someone else gets marriage doesn't make straight marriage any less important. Is a diamond not a diamond when everybody has one? Allowing gay couples to marry actually strengthens the bonds of union because more people are engaged in it.

Thirdly, there may be some immigration to Canada of gay couples, mostly from the US, who want to get married. I don't think it's going to be a lot though. My take on it is that most couples will get married here on a visit and then go back to the US forcing states to deal with it. Up until now, marriages performed in others countries have been honoured legally in the home countries. This will start to force the issue more in the US. It's interesting to note that a recent attempt to ban same-sex marriage in the US has failed:

Republicans had hoped to win at least a simple majority in favor of proceeding with the amendment but were thwarted when six of their own colleagues joined all but three Democrats in voting to scuttle the measure without a vote on its substance. Several senators had said there would have been even more "no" votes if the showdown had occurred on substance rather than procedure.

Finally, the legislation says nothing about adoption; that is decided by provincial legislation. However, one province already allows it.

Majority want Harper replaced, poll shows

2005-07-18T07:05:00.000-04:00

Also from the Globe & Mail, another poll reveals some interesting insights:

Stephen Harper moved yesterday to revive his political fortunes in the electoral heartland of Ontario even as a new poll shows that 59 per cent of Canadians want him replaced, including more than one-third of his own supporters.

What is it about Harper that inspires some dislike? Earlier I mentioned that the problem wasn't his personality, it was his party's policies. After more though, I realized it's more a combination of both. The policies suck but his angry tone hurts things even more. Flash back to Harper's speech he and his party failed to defeat the government in a non-confidence vote:

Harper, in a carefully crafted address to the Conservative caucus after the vote, called the latter budget victory Pyrrhic, "one that will sow the seeds of its own destruction . . ."

In previous years, an opposition leader would have recognized they had lost the battle this time and taken it with grace. Not so with Harper. This is not the Conservative party of old. This is a party with absolutely no respect for parliamentary institutions, no respect for democracy and no respect for those who hold opinions contrary to their own. In short, it is Harper who has lowered the level of debate in the House of Commons.

Interesting the article also mentions:

The other major leaders -- the NDP's Jack Layton and the Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québécois' -- fared significantly better, with only 15 per cent saying Mr. Layton's performance had dropped and 17 per cent saying the same of Mr. Duceppe.

But it fails to mention the more impressive part which you'll see if you look at the poll numbers further down the page. And that is 1/3 of Canadians have a better opinion of Jack Layton and the NDP (the highest level) and 78% of Canadians think he should remain the leader (also the highest).

Same-sex marriage bill must stand, majority say

2005-07-18T06:52:00.000-04:00

And the Conservatives claimed that the majority of Canadians were on their side regarding same-sex marriage. Guess what? Not anymore.

In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.

And later in the same article, Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of polling firm the Strategic Counsel said:

... Canadians' opinion on gay marriage probably moved toward the favourable column over lengthy debate.

I have to hand it to Martin. It was brilliant to cast same-sex marriage as a rights issue and not a moral one. Although I have to admit I find it odd that the concept of equality of rights isn't itself a moral issue.

"We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism."

2005-07-07T19:35:00.000-04:00

My sincerest condolences to the people of Britian in the wake of the multiple bombings in London this morning. I'm in absolute agreement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair who calls the terrorists who perpetrated this horrendous act, cowards.

That being said, I take issue with his declaration that terrorism will be defeated as I do with the other world leaders who have said the same thing. Terrorism cannot be defeated. It has no home state, no single sponsor, no consistent ideology. There simply is no single target, no enemy to fight. None of the leaders want to admit this, of course, but it's no less true.

But aren't leaders that say this just shooting for a high goal? I'm all for lofty goals, but not ridiculously unachievable goals. To promise to end terrorism is to give hope for a utopia that is most likely unachievable, certainly in our lifetimes. People have to live with the fact that safety is an illusion, not a given.

The best that can be hoped for it to alleviate the conditions and target the causes of terrorism - poverty, extreme religion, and unbridled aggression. The terrorists have reasons they become terrorists, and it's not just because they like to kill and it's certainly not because they resent our freedom.

Londoners have been used to bomb attacks in the past, from the IRA. Everytime there'd be an attack, Britain would crackdown on Northern Ireland. The crackdown would result in more bombings, not less. Eventually, the British realized they had to negotiate with the political arm of the IRA to find out what would stop the attacks.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that we should do this with al-Qaeda. What I am suggesting is that we be honest about why there are so many extremist groups hate Westerners. They maybe we can have an open discussion about whether our foreign policies are worth this carnage.

Which party is better at fiscal management?

2005-07-05T02:41:00.000-04:00

Right-wingers tend to cast the NDP as big spenders - a party you can't trust to keep the federal books in balance. One could also argue that financial management begins at home. A party which can't balance its books is a cause for concern. According to the Macleans article (with data from Elections Canada), guess who's the the best manager?

In the end, the New Democrats managed to come out of the year as the only major party with a surplus. They were $3.2 million in the black.

The Liberals ended the year $1.9 million in debt, the Conservatives $1.3 million in the hole, and the Bloc $936,000 in the red.

Art of BS

2005-07-01T23:26:00.000-04:00

One of the things that I hate in politics is those that makes up ridiculous concerns to support their view. It happens on all sides of an issue though the more extreme the view, the more silly the concern. I'd like to think this happens because of ignorance, and sometimes that may just be it. But in many cases, it's not that they're outright lying - in most cases, they simply don't care about the truth.

That's the take of retired Philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt in his book, On Bullshit. I haven't read it yet, but he was interviewed on Jon Stewart's fake news show, The Daily Show and the comments he made were quite on the target.

He said that lying is knowing the different between something that is true and false and choosing to tell the lie. Bullshitting is not caring what is the truth and what is false. It's worse than lying because the purveyors of it have no respect for the truth, it simply doesn't matter.

In the Northern Life article I've linked to, an outspoken critic of the new Civil Marriage bill which hast just been passed by the House of Commons says,

While the Liberals made several amendments to Bill C-38 to ensure no religious group can be forced to perform same-sex marriages, Serviss is worried about the future.

“They have given innuendo and small talk to religious freedom and to churches and clergy who choose not to perform same-sex marriages, but in essence they have provided no real protection to them,” he says.

That's an incredibly false statement. From the start, the legislation has said that churches would not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. That's why it's called the Civil Marriage Act. He doesn't say anything to support his view, just that it's not enough. Of course it's not enough. No matter what the legislation says, he'll never support it. He's a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada.

And since they've lost the battle to ban same sex marriages, why not pull up the old worn argument of how the state is restricting Christain rights. Yawn.

Read the bill for yourself as passed. It can be found here.

Section 3 says:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Section 3.1 says:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

First NDP Budget Amendment in History Passes

2005-06-24T06:59:00.000-04:00

Woohoo! It passed third and final reading. The NDP succeeded in getting more for people and the environment - $4.6 billion more over two years. And the only sacrifice that had to be made was to put off proposed tax cuts for the medium-sized and large corporations. The small business tax cuts will proceed as planned. Whether you're a supporter of the NDP or not, you have to admit that the NDP decided to light a candle rather than just curse the darkness (like the rest of the opposition did). I just hope that people will see that the NDP is working for the average person when the election comes probably in February of next year.

The Conservatives on the other hand were willing to block the budget vote unless the Liberals held off on the same sex marriage bill until the Fall. Imagine that, the party that wanted to have an election right away now wants to wait. Wonder if it has anything to do with them running neck and neck with the NDP?

The House of Commons sitting will be extended into next week so that the same sex marriage bill can be dealt with. And chances are it'll pass, regardless of the one or two dozen Liberals that will vote against their own party.

Harper's personality not the problem

2005-06-21T05:06:00.000-04:00

So, Conservative leader Stephen Harper wants to spend the summer barbequing with Canadians in an effort to show his lighter side.

Get real. The problem with your party, Mr. Harper isn't your personality (though that doesn't help). It's the policies of your party and your personal views. Though the Conservative party has struck many extreme positions from their official platform, they're not fooling anybody. These aren't Red/moderate Tories. They're a party beholden to the Christian Right in Canada. And unlike our southern neighbours, that just doesn't wash here - at least, not east of Winnipeg. Sure, they've picked up a few seats in Ontario, but nowhere near what they had hoped. And little wonder. Central Canada has little use for homophobia, anti-abortion and government with neo-conservative agendas.

A leadership change may help, but so would a repudiation of those in his party with extreme views. At least it'd be a start.