Centrerion Canadian Politics

Support The Throne Speech: 300 Million Reasons

2007-10-16T23:30:00.001-04:00

There are 300 million reasons - highly important reasons to Canadian citizens - for which the Official Opposition should not vote against the Speech from the Throne.

The 2006 general election cost taxpayers between $250 million and $300 million dollars. This, only a year and a few months after the 2004 elections. And we're to have elections again??? We're to spend another QUARTER of a BILLION dollars? So that we can have another minority Conservative government and shuffle some seats around?

There are $300 million reasons for Stephane Dion and his Liberals, Gilles Duceppe (use your amendment to get something for the environment, but don't be a fool and go for Kyoto) and the Bloc, and Jack Layton and the NDP to support the Speech from the Throne. The Throne Speech being defeated would bring us from the Kingdom of England to, as Camus might put it, le Royaume de l'Absurde.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Stephane Dion
Liberals Create Renewal Commissions
China to Emit 470 Million Tonnes of Greenhouse Gases

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian politics, Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, NDP, the environment.Go back home

CSIS memo on Islamic radicalization in Canada

2007-04-15T01:44:00.000-04:00

I recently stumbled on a declassified CSIS memo online about Islamic Radicalization in Canada. I found it to be very nuanced, academic-style. It was interesting to gain a glimpse of how our government and CSIS "thinks", by reading this initially-classified document, addressed to the Prime Minister. Our friends south of the border have been lucky enough to have online access to HUGE amounts of declassified government documents, especially ones from the CIA, for years now.

The link to the CSIS memo is: http://www.mooselim.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/pm_brief_new.pdf
I could be wrong on this, but credit belongs to the National Post who got this memo declassified through an Access to Information request.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian national security, terrorism.

Go back home

40 Terrorist Organizations in Canada

2007-04-12T01:40:00.000-04:00

Do you know how many terrorist organizations and individuals are currently on Canada's terrorist list?

40 of them. Enjoy the reading!

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Canadian National Security and Immigration
French Apathy Towards Iran; Basij
Mohammed the "Moderate" Abbas

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian national security, terrorism.Go back home

Canadian National Security and Immigration

2007-04-06T14:20:00.000-04:00

Irwin Cotler's approach to Canadian national security and immigration is expressed beautifully in a news release on his site. In the debate over two clauses of the Anti-Terrorism Act, Cotler kept a cool head and showed that the security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Of particular interest is Cotler's commentary on immigration, in light of a recent speech by David Harris, formerly of CSIS. CSIS is Canada's intelligence agency, and it is part of Canada's national security apparatus aimed at fighting terror.

Here's what Cotler had to say:

"All this now assumes a particular importance because this debate on the extension of these two provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act is not the end of the story, but only the beginning. For what is needed now is an informed -- and principled -- parliamentary debate and review, particularly in light of recent events. The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously invalidated provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that denied persons named in security certificates a right to a fair hearing -- the right to know and be able to rebut the information against them. The court has suspended the impugned provisions for a year pending parliamentary review.

"But the unsatisfactory Hobson's choice in the security certificate regime still remains -- the deportation to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture or prolonged detention with all that implies. Parliament needs to legislate middle-ranged, and principled options."

To understand where security certificates come from, you need to understand Canadian demographics. Canadians do not have enough babies for the population to grow, so Canada relies on immigration for population growth. According to Harris, the former CSIS section director, Canada absorbs over a quarter of a million immigrants a year. The problem this poses to our security services is that screening 250,000 people's histories is not feasible with the resources that are available to them.

To compensate, we rely on security certificates, which allow our national security apparatus to detain without charges those immigrants that are deemed threatening to Canadian national security.

While I don't have Harris' words verbatim at my disposal, I do have notes from his speech that paraphrase what he was saying. His point on immigration follows. (Note that at another point, Harris expressly said he didn't think that a bigger police/military/security apparatus was the [best?] solution to the problem. Here are my notes:

Q: Didn’t address how to tackle terrorism...
A: We need to figure out what we’re about. How we achieved as a civilization, one of the most progressive living environments and economically privileged that our world has known. Gets into pluralism, respect for others opinions. Also, encouraging self-confidence in the West. To say [criticism can go - filling in from memory here] so-far, and no further.
Interconnected with immigration and refugee situation. Done very well by “artistry”[?] of immigration. But we can no longer manage the way we are going, based on numbers. Need to bring them in line with our ability to screen people.
Exposure to the other has civilized all of us.

So what do you think? Let's hear your ideas and solutions on balancing national security with a

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of the intersection of national security and immigration, consider our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Are Extremists Logical? Can we negotiate?
September 11th 2006 Tribute
Bernard Lewis, Middle East scholar
The State of National Security in Canadian Politics

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories immigration, Canadian national security, terrorism Liberal Party of Canada, Canadian politics.Go back home

Boisclair's Constitutional Dyslexia

2007-03-07T18:17:00.000-05:00

Andre Boisclair just doesn't understand our Constitution. The man reads things the way he wants to see them, in a sort of Constitutional dyslexia, if you will. The PQ leader makes a ridiculous argument that in the event of a referendum favourable to separatism, Quebec's territorial integrity would not be compromised. Basing an argument on the Constitution cuts both ways...

According to article 43 of our Constitution, the boundaries of a province could not be modified except in accordance with the that province's legislature. Well and good in normal circumstances, but when Mr. Boisclair tries to apply this to the situation that would exist post-Yes-referendum, his argument falls apart.

By turning Quebec into a separate country, Canada's Constitution would no longer apply. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether article 43 requires provincial consent to a change in borders, because that article would not be applicable.

Second, even if somehow the Constitution could be found to apply, separatism violates its fundamental purpose. That purpose is the federation of the provinces into a single polity. When courts interpret a law (and if Boisclair is arguing for 43, then there would obviously be a Constitutional reference for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide), they consider the legislator's intention, as for example in the famous Oakes test. Clearly, the SCC would not rule in favour of a violation of the fundamental aim of the Constitution.

Third, one part of the Constitution can't be used to argue against another part. So even if interpreting the aim of the Constitution was disregarded, the aim could be considered as a part of the Constitution. Thus, article 43 would be working in opposition to another part of the Constitution, and could not be relied upon. I'll edit this once I find the case where the SCC stated this principle.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Senate Reform and the Constitution
Canadian Constitution Quiz
Let's all do the Charter

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian politics, Provincial politics, Quebec politics, Canadian national security,separatism.Go back home

Al-Qaeda: Kyoto Friend or Foe

2007-02-26T14:36:00.000-05:00

While we're on foreign affairs (see post below: Rethinking Foreign Aid), what's al-Qaeda's position on Kyoto? ChuckerCanuck says that al-Qaeda missed Dion's memo on Kyoto:

"
Its frustrating that Al-Qaida didn't get the memo from Liberal party headquarters: the whole terrorist business was so 5 years ago, its time to sunset all the silly paranoid stuff and move on to other business, like global warming. Actually, maybe they did get that memo and their call to attack our oil industry is only to help us meet our Kyoto commitments.
"

Chuck's being sarcastic, but the post ends up making a good point: How do the "Liberals [...] argue that the tools they crafted after 9/11 are now suddenly useless?" (Couldn't they be useful the environment from massive oil fires?)

If you want to follow our coverage of foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Liberal Party of Canada, Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian national security, terrorism, the environment.Go back home

ReThinking Foreign Aid

2007-02-26T14:02:00.000-05:00

Blogroll partner Xavier Dube of Keep Right has an interesting post up called Three Strikes for Foreign Aid. While Xavier makes a good critique of foreign aid's (FA) problems - mainly that most FA dollars don't work to alleviate poverty and instead go to enrich dictators and despots - I have to disagree with his conclusions. I was writing a comment and decided instead that it would make for interesting reading for Centrerion readers. Here's my reply to Keep Right's author.

Ironically, Xavier, you oppose the "blanket solution" of foreign aid yet support a blanket solution of capitalism and globalization. While you're right that those two forces have worked in some places, they've been miserable failures elsewhere.

Consider the case of Bolivia, where the water system was privatized with disastrous consequences. That's part of what got an extremist coca grower like Evo Morales elected. Capitalism with little government intervention.

Craig Kielburger, founder of Save the Children recently spoke at a conference I was attending. He cited this story of a Kenyan village where this child had to walk miles to fetch water, then carry it back in heavy containers - a real burden if ever there was one. Yet his village had a well! Some western company had made a deal with the government that they'd have exclusive access to the water in the region so they could grow flowers (for export to the West). So the government capped the well. Here you have investment and jobs created for kenyans. But it was clearly not a conscionable solution - une solution equitable, as we say in French.

So while I agree with you that lots of aid dollars do get wasted on despots, and I also agree that we should focus on economic development rather than charity, I draw a different conclusion from you. We shouldn't just "end" foreign aid.

Foreign aid needs to be carried out in a smarter manner, with a focus on encouraging local entrepreneurship and SMEs/PMEs. Making the businesses responsible to the communities in which they exist and to their employees (employee stock ownership plans might be particularly useful) will help not only the founders escape from poverty, but will also help the community. "Let me help you help yourself," in other words. Note: I can't claim the idea as my own, it really comes from a book I just finished called Small Giants, about financially succesful companies that are also helping their communities prosper.

If you want to read more on foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the categories Canada's foreign affairs and economics.Go back home

Cow Farts and Global Warming Quip

2007-02-18T22:00:00.000-05:00

So La Presse reported not too long ago that cow farts were a major cause of global warming. So here's what we do.

Harness the cow farts and figure out how to burn them. Then BAM! We've got a renewable energy source.
The ethical dilemma is that farmers will breed their cows to create the biggest farters in their herds. And that's just animal cruelty.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories the environment and and Quip of the Day.Go back home

Regulate Management and Business Conduct

2007-02-16T11:31:00.001-05:00

This is a call to governmental actors to regulate management and business conduct.

In the Olymel saga here in Quebec, a factory's workforce was threatened with layoffs unless they accepted paycuts, and management was simulatenously promised raises. This is just a most recent and local example of business ethics and management conduct run amok.

I've come to the conclusion that government needs to intervene once again to regulate managerial ethics and business conduct.

Management guru Henry Mintzberg recently gave an interview to La Presse. In it, McGill's world renown expert discussed Quebec's lower productivity level as compared to the rest of Canada and the US.
Mintzberg's view was that this was the result of Quebec not generally adopting the same abusive and short-term views as are prevalent amongst management elsewhere. The problem isn't in Quebec, Mintzberg said, but with business practices elsewhere.

For example, the practice of laying of thousands of workers creates short-term productivity gains. Managers tend to be remunerated for those. Yet these cuts leaves the firm bare for the long term.

Professor Mintzberg expressed himself - rather eloquently - as follows:

"Je dis simplement que la productivité n'est pas la seule mesure pour évaluer la santé d'une entreprise, d'une économie et d'une société.

Si c'était le cas, le grand modèle à imiter serait Wal-Mart. Avec ses salaires, son antisyndicalisme et les économies de bout de chandelles qu'elle réalise aux États-Unis dans l'assurance santé de ses employés.

On ne construit pas une économie saine et équilibrée de cette façon. Tout ce que l'on réussit à faire, c'est de gonfler la richesse de quelques-uns et augmentant le nombre de laissés pour compte. Malheureusement, le modèle Wal-Mart, son organisation «lean and mean» fait des ravages."

I couldn't express it any better myself. Here's a translation:

"What I am saying is simply that productivity is not the only measure with which to assess the health of a company, an economy and a society.

If that were the case, the great model to follow would be [the] Wal-Mart [model]. With its [minimium-wage] salaries, anti-union philosophy and corner-shaving savings achieved at the expense of its employees' health care benefits.

We don't build a healthy and balanced economy in such a manner. All we really accomplish is to increase the wealth of a handful of people while increasing the number of people left out by the wayside. Unfortunately, the Wal-Mart model and its "lean and mean" organization is creating havoc."

Here are some ideas for our MPs, MPPs and [in Quebec] MNAs to consider:

1. A professional code of ethics for managers. We have workers' rights, but something more is clearly needed. That something more is managerial obligations. Positive obligations setting out things that must be done, in addition to workers' rights concerning what cannot be (e.g. discrimination).

2. An explicit stipulation that management's salaries fluctuate on the same level as those of the average worker. COLA raises only for the sales staff? COLA raises for the sales VP and managers. (COLA: Cost Of Living Allowance; managerial slang for raises tied to inflation.)

2.a. Similarly, the number of executive level managers laid off should be proportional to the number of workers laid off. Don't need that factory? Guess you'll have to drop the assistant VP of Production.

3. Make having a chief ethics officer (CETO) and department mandatory for publicly traded companies and companies over a certain level of revenue. Make these executive level managers responsible for specific tasks and areas such as ensuring fairness in human resource management.

4. Consider some of the ideas of the Complete Guide to Ethics Management.

5. Look at the great reasons for why managers should be ethical at this forum and see what legislative initatives can be implemented. The forum thread looks at "why managers should be ethical" and considers many interesting points, including notable the environment.

It's time for our politicians to step up to the plate and legislate some strong ethics into our increasingly laissez-faire business environment.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian politics, Provincial politics, ethics, and economics.Go back home

China to Emit 470 Million More Tonnes of Greenhouse Gases: How Bloggers Can Fight Back

2007-02-11T21:19:00.000-05:00

Gay and Right has an interesting scoop from the Financial Post. While I disagree with his conclusions (see the comments), Ottawa's gay right-wing blogger cites some interesting material from the Post:

China's going to emit 470 million more tonnes of greenhouse gases next year. It's the sort of thing that really disgusts you and gets you frustrated with corporate Canada and the rest of the corporate West for helping them out. Like Bombardier for example. So what can bloggers do?

As longtime readers likely know, this blog is #1 on Google for some select keywords. The most important factor to rank on Google is the number, quality, and text of links pointing to your site. For example, the Bombardier link above will help increase that site's ranking for the search "Bombardier". Bloggers can link to that page above and to others (preferably with the sole word "Bombardier").

The result will be that people looking up Bombardier on Google (and also on Yahoo and MSN) will see negative press for these companies. Hopefully this negative PR will discourage companies from doing business in China, or at least from taking on such clearly problematic projects.

If anyone has other environmental concerns that can be affected with similar linking projects, I wouldn't mind keeping a list and linking to them here. Just post in the comments.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canada's foreign affairs, economics,the environment and China.Go back home

Tanning in Quebec's AntiSemitic Heat

2007-02-07T18:01:00.000-05:00

Anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews is doing just fine in Quebec, thankyou very much. Just when you thought antisemitism was under control and La Belle Province was becoming more tolerant... Three antisemitic events in the past few days have troubled me deeply, including one direct, personal experience with antisemitism. My opinion on the majority of Quebecois' respect for minorities as being nonexistent has been reinforced exponentially.

Story 1. "Jews Control the Media," says ignorant Quebecois.

Yesterday afternoon, I was meeting a pair of Quebecois (Harper's definition of Quebecois) acquaintances at a cafe to talk business. For about 45 minutes we were relaxing around the table, talking about potential contracts and advertising. The woman in the duo was pretty focused, and when she talked it was clearly relevant to the discussion. When the guy spoke, he kept going off into tangents (somehow it was essential to share his interest in the old Mission Impossible television shows).

In spite of the pointless asides, the discussion was moving forward.

Then, out of nowhere, the guy made a 180 degree sweep with his head, checking that nobody besides myself and his partner were in earshot. He leaned in and told us that the Jews control the media, which explained, he said, why you couldn't get the news that mattered from the media. He mentioned how it had been done in France, with the Jews placing a number of them in the high ranking management positions. He fixes his posture and continues, saying something about the CRTC. (With the background noise, I can't hear it properly.)

(As he's saying all this, I'm feeling my blood starting to boil and my brow getting sweaty. Somehow I'm controlling myself from exploding and lashing out at this incredibly ridiculous, patently false and slanderous assertion. But I'm iiiitching to answer back...)

At first I was shocked and in disbelief at what I was hearing, thinking perhaps I hadn't understood. So I tried to suss him out and have him explain what he meant. Perhaps sensing my anger, he nuanced himself to say that of course it wasn't that all Jews controlled the media, but they had gotten a lot of their people into the important positions.

"Je suis juif," I said, expecting him to turn purple. He tells me he doesn't have a problem with that and says something about how it's not all the Jews who control the media.

To make a long story short, I ended up

pointing out some basic facts,

telling him that I'd never heard such a filthy antisemitic thing in my life (being tactful enough not to call him an antisemite himself, though that's certainly what I felt),

adding that furthermore, he was associating with Nazis old and new, plus antisemites of all sorts and all politics by saying Jews control the media, and that

cutting the meeting off moments later

Amongst the things I pointed out were that (a) Jewish people don't control the media in France, nor the CRTC here in Canada. That (b) if we did, there'd be no chance that a network like al-Jazira that plays pro-terrorist videos, antisemitic propaganda and so on would have gotten a license for Canadian distribution. (c) Further to (b), reports on Israel and Jews and "accomodements raisonnables" would be much more balanced.

Somewhere in there I also pointed out the crucial fact that for his far-fetched theory of media control and disinformation to be even mildly coherent, all the Jews in the media world would have to have the same [right-wing, in his theory] views. Not only is there diversity of thought (can you imagine??), but people in the media tend to be left-leaning, and that also goes for Jews.

2. "Pay $10,000 to someone who violated your freedom of religion," says Quebec Human Rights Commission. "I agree," says Andre Boisclair.

So that was one antisemitic event that got under my skin this week. Now, as you may have heard, the debate on "accomodements raisonnables," or reasonable accomodation of minorities' religious practices, is all the rage here in Quebec.

Literally. La Presse's "letters-to-the-editor" editor recently wrote about how the huge majority of mail he's been reading is saying that reasonable accomodations have gone too far. Reading some of those letters, it's evident that the Pure-Laine Quebecois are reeally ticked.

Now the whole issue's been flipped on its head. The Quebec "Human Rights" Commission is telling the Jewish General Hospital that it should pay $10,000 to an ambulance driver by the name of Yvon Verreault for asking him to eat his lunch elsewhere. Verreault's spaghetti wasn't kosher (kosher-ness, or kashrut, is determined by Jewish dietary laws written in the Torah, or what Christians call the Old Testament). For the hospital to maintain its kosher ceritifications, it has to ensure that some designated eating areas follow the laws of kashrut.

As the Suburban puts it so accurately in "More Intolerance":

Ironically, by siding with Verreault, the commission is going against the very reasons why the hospital came into being, to fight discrimination. It wasn’t so long ago that Jewish doctors were not allowed to practice in hospitals in Montreal. That’s why the city’s Jewish community raised the money to build their own institution, and did so in 1934.

Now, for some bureaucrat confused about the role of the Quebec Human Rights Commission (protecting them, not attacking them) to say something like that isn't altogether shocking. Like I said, a large swath (probably the majority, IMHO) of French-Canadian society is openly hostile to Jews. But for the leader of the Parti Quebecois to say he agrees??? Looking back, I now remember blogging about how the separatists were bad news.

3. "Teach Kids Religion," says Quebec Ministry of Education.

Finally, in yet more high-quality news coverage by the Suburban, Tommy Schnurmacher lets the English-reading population know that the Ministry of Education is forcing religious education back into schools. As Tommy writes:

"We are not dealing with a single course that’s an overview of world religions.

We are not talking just theory.

We are talking about hands-on participation in mandatory class projects on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and, of course, aboriginal spirituality."

[...]

"It also forces schools to teach religious views which are anathema to their own beliefs.

Devout parents, be they Jewish or Muslim, may not wish to see their children drawn into another belief system that, in many cases, is a direct negation or contradiction of their most deeply held beliefs."

[...]

"As part of the pilot project at the Solomon Schechter Academy, kids were taken to visit a nearby church where they were addressed by the priest who taught them about Christianity.

I heard about this visit from a concerned parent who only found out about the trip after the fact.

His nine-year-old son said he had not wanted to go, but had been told by his teacher that he had to. [Lecentre: Doesn't speak very highly of the teacher, incidentally, if he/she can't use a little judgement and let the kid out.]

In other words, he was forced to enter a house of worship against his will.

This is not freedom of religion. This is forced religion.

Now, if you know anything about Quebec society, the civil service is French. That may not be politically correct, and I'm certain there are some solitary anglos with desk jobs, but the reality is that our government's day-to-day affairs are run by Quebecois. Which brings me back to my main point: most of Quebecois society is deeply intolerant.

(As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the outrage tends to be at its highest when its a case of reasonable accomodation involving Jewish people, yet when Muslims are involved, the accomodation is considered fine and dandy? My theory is that those Quebecois showing their intolerance know that the accomodations being given to Muslims AND to Jews are fine, but it's an excuse to be antisemitic in a socially acceptable way, so why not?)

Others discussing the reasonable accomodation debate:

Multiculturalism under attack
Adam Daifallah on Herouxville's code (scroll down)
Racism v Reasonable Accomodation

Here's some on Quebecois Antisemitism and Racism
A piece reflecting my sentiments on Quebecois Nationalism and Racism
A survey where 59% of Quebecers (note, not only Quebecois were polled, though I'm sure their percentage was up there as well): 59% of Quebecers say they're racist.

If you want to read more on Quebec politics, antisemitism, and other issues current in Canada's political landscape consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories provincial politics, Quebec, antisemitism and media.Go back home

French Apathy Towards Iran: Remember the Basij?

2007-02-04T12:20:00.000-05:00

It's no secret that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. It seems to me that French sources tend to be a large source of apathy and even sympathy towards Iran, besides that regime's traditional support from other admirable countries like China and Russia. Two anecdotes come to mind in particular:

Soon to be ex-President of France Jacques Chirac recently came out on record with an appalling complacency towards Iran getting the bomb. Chirac essentially said that there was no big deal about Iran acquiring nukes because if they tried to shoot one at Israel they'd be destroyed themselves moments later. Not only is this disgusting coming from the President of a country that closely collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust, but it shows amazingly poor understanding of Iran's leadership.

During the Irak-Iran war that lasted from 1980-1988, Iran sacrificed tens of thousands of children to clear Iraki minefields . They were known as the Basij, or Basiji. (See also MEMRI's Inquiry and Analysis Series on Basij Week, as well as Global Security's piece on the Basiji.) Ahmadinejad glorifies the Basij and associates himself and the regime with them at every opportunity.

Does France's President actually believe hundreds of thousands of dead would deter the Iranian regime? Why would this time be any different? This isn't the Cold War: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) isn't a viable theory against an enemy who isn't concerned about incurring casualties.

The second point about French inertia regards an article I read in La Presse, by the dogmatically close-minded, blindly anti-American and anti-Israeli left-wing writer Jocelyn Coulon. Coulon wrote about how Iran was daring to defy the US and Israel. The 'daring to defy' language gives a despicable regime the appearance of being some poor oppressed darlings. In addition, it obfuscated the fact that a nuclear-armed Iran would be
(i) against nuclear non-Proliferation, which movement the left started and continues to supports, and
(ii) in defiance of the UN, another institution the left considers absolutely crucial. I hate hypocrites.

Here's the text of another letter La Presse refused to print:

Jocelyn Coulon ne cesse de montrer à quel point la gauche tient un discours incohérent. Alors que Coulon n’hésite pas pour critiquer les Etats-Unis en matière de droits humains, il ne trouve rien à dire au sujet du bien pire rendement de l’Iran. L’Iran, meurtrière de Zahra Kazemi. L’Iran, qui appelle au génocide du people Juif et à la destruction d’Israel.

Ainsi, Coulon a de la misère à comprendre pourquoi on traiterait ce pauvre minou de régime de «démoniaque» et pourquoi on voudrait l’empêcher d’obtenir la bombe atomique. Par ailleurs, on m’a enseigné au CEGEP que la lutte contre la prolifération nucléaire était une lutte amorcée est soutenue par la gauche!

Le discours incohérent de M. Coulon, représentatif de la gauche moderne, est de ceux qui me maintiennent dans le centre, alors que j’ai bien des sympathies en matière sociale avec la gauche.

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian Iran, terrorism, media.Go back home

Mohammed "The Moderate" Abbas

2007-01-29T14:19:00.000-05:00

The ever-mediocre media have just reported a bombing in the city of Eilat, in Israel. Besides their traditionally ridiculous ab-use of the word 'militant' to refer to terrorists, the media have in the past few months been destroying a word I hold dear: "moderate." Palestinian Authority President Mohammed Abbas and the al-Fatah organization he leads keep being called "moderates."

The al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, who claimed responsibility for today's bombing along with Islamic Jihad, are part of Abbas' al-Fatah. Their gangs of gunmen rove around Palestinian areas engaging in gunfights with Hamas gunmen and killing civilians in the process - when they aren't busy plotting how to explosively embed nails in Israelis. These are not moderates.

A moderate is someone who isn't blinded by ideology and dogma. A moderate is someone who acts based on the objective value and reasonableness of his action. Who can see the other side of the story and sympathize, even if he isn't necessarily convinced by its arguments.

"At his family home in the northern Gaza Strip, Siksik's brother Naeem told reporters: 'We knew he was going to carry out a martyrdom operation. His mother and father prayed for him to succeed.'" (The quote is from Reuters, but as they did such a terrible, mediocre job reporting the story, I won't be giving them the benefit of a link.)
Killing himself is success? Killing random strangers in a bakery is success? What objective criteria in the world could possibly be taken to view death as something to value? How is this in the least rational? The Siksiks and other Fatah supporters and members are not moderates.

Here's a rational response from a real moderate. Ms. Parvinder Sandhu was Dawson shooter Kimveer Gill's mother. Here's what she had to say to the victims of her son's atrocity at Quebec's biggest CEGEP. "He was a little bit sad this year, but we never, never thought that this could happen," Ms. Sandhu told the National Post yesterday. "The person who would never hit or hurt -- even with words -- someone, how could he do such a big thing? This is the shock we have now. It is out of the question, what he did."

She went on:
"The girl, I feel so sorry for her parents. If you want to give them the message, tell them that the parents are feeling very, very sad and very, very mad about what happened there, and we never expected that," Gill's mother said.

"My sympathy is with them, and they should forgive us because it's not our fault. We did not raise him that way."

That is a normal moderate action. If you're a journalist and you read this, please stop calling Abbas, al-Fatah and company 'moderates'. (And if you could use the more accurate description "terrorist," instead of militant, that would be great too.)

If you want to follow our coverage of foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Hamas Plan to Kill Abbas
Background to Palestinian on Palestinian violence
Mediocre Media 6

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canada's foreign affairs, terrorism, and media.Go back home

Layton on ATM Fees - nobody is holding a gun to your head

2007-01-29T01:39:00.000-05:00

NDP leader Jack Layton has been making headlines with his proposal to ban all "ATM fees" in Canada.

More specifically, he is talking about banning the charges you pay if you use another bank's ATM. Normally those fees are about 1.50 to the owner of the ATM you use and about the same to your bank. Why do the banks charge said fees.

1) Say the Royal Bank has a popular ATM location. ATM's are not "free" to operate, there is the receipt paper, someone has to load the cash, cleanup the machine. Why should the Royal Bank be subsidizing the customers of other banks?

2) When you use an ATM other than your own bank's there are interchange fees paid to the cash dispensing bank. While those fees may not be $1.50, they are for sure not 0.00. Why should your bank be paying those fees when you could use their own ATMs and save everyone the hassle.

One could never walk into a branch and get cash from from a branch of the competition - let alone for free. Why are ATMs any different.

If you don't like the selection of ATM's your bank offers, switch. Personally my bank gives me access to a network of over 6000 ATMs across Canada that I can use without paying a penny in fees. You chose to use the bank that you did. Don't expect their competition to allow you to use their ATMs.

Interac may be paid for, but the recurring costs still exist. ATM's cost around 50,000 each. The banks wouldn't install as many ATMs if they couldn't recoop their investment.

You have that choice. If you want to use that ATM, it's your money, it's your choice. Governments have no role in regulating free enterprise.

Sharing Quip of the Day

2007-01-28T11:36:00.000-05:00

A friend wrote this piece of brilliant advice recently:
"At a wine and cheese the trick is to position yourself in advance next to the good wine and the cheese that's available in the smallest quantity (this usually means it's the most expensive). Stay there, loiter, and only speak when confronted by others who are also loitering. Seriously..."
To which another acquaintance responded (partly my contribution):
"Excellent advice on the wine and cheese. The only thing I would add is to bring a bag from the SAQ (Societe des Alcools du Quebec; Quebec's liquor commission) and a bag from one of those small-cheese-selling-pastry-shoppes: that way, once you get positioned in the good loitering spots, you can nab the products in the bag and act like you're an employee doing a recall of expired goods."
Sharing is for people who are afraid to use their elbows in line.

If you want to read more quips, consider our free newsletter .

This post and related posts are archived in the topical categories Quip of the Day.Go back home

Costa's Canada

2007-01-26T14:51:00.000-05:00

I was talking to a friend of mine in school, Costa, who happens to have been a longtime member of the BANPAC (Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians). Of course, we had to trade blogroll links.

Costa's been blogging for a while and he's had some good material in the past (I remember it being one of the first blogs I visited when I started bouncing through my blogroll to comment on other blogs). More recently, he has an in-depth post on what he'd do if he was Prime Minister.

Check out Costa's Canada, CCP's new blogroll partner!

If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter (scroll all the way down for the sign-up).

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian federal politics, website news.Go back home

CCP Anniversary Contest: $355 in Cash and Prizes to be Won

2006-12-25T10:46:00.000-05:00

Centrerion Canadian Politics (CCP) turned one a little earlier this month, and I didn't really celebrate in any particular way. So on the occasion of the blog's anniversary, I thought I would sponsor a contest with cash and prizes for the winner(s). All in all I'm giving away $355 in cash & prizes*. The contest is really quite easy to enter, and open to just about anybody with a blog on Canadian politics. Here's how the contest will work.

The contest's goal is to see who are the most engaging writers in the Canadian political blogosphere, and hopefully discover new talent in the process. At the same time, I obviously hope to gain some publicity for CCP.

Rules for the Anniversary Contest:
1) An entry to the contest will consist of a blogpost linked to in the comments of this post.
2) An entry will review a post or series of posts from CCP's archives, preferably one that affected you or which you found was really well (or poorly) written.
3) Minimum length for an entry is 200 words. Given the depth of some of the posts in this niche of the blogosphere, that shouldn't be a problem.
4) Blogs with less than 3 months history or less than 60 posts are ineligible to win. You can ask for an exception in the comments if you've been blogging on someone else's blog and just branched out on your own, or for other logical reasons. I of course reserve the right to choose who I'll consider for the contest.
5) Contest entries must link back to both Centrerion Canadian Politics's homepage at http://centrerion.blogspot.com, as well as to the post or series of posts (each of them) being reviewed/critiqued/discussed.

Criteria for Contest Judgement:
1) Quality of writing: The main point is to show how engaging and/or thought provoking you can be in your writing. Maybe you agreed with it but thought it ignored a particular aspect of the question. Maybe you disagreed with the reasoning(no ad-hominem attacks, please). Maybe you just loved the piece (I know, it's a stretch of the imagination, but humour me) and thought you'd say so. Write well.
2) Grammar: If you write like you speak, take a few minutes to proofread your post. That will increase the quality exponentially.
3) Seeing the bigger picture: If you can link ideas in my post/series of posts to an authoritative, scholarly article on the topic and look at the bigger context of the issue, you're really going to impress me. Note: When I say link, I mean conceptually, but also with a hypertext link to whereever the article is on the web. You can use Google scholar to help you out, as well as Scirus, CiteSeer, Proquest or any of the other academic databases you have access to. The article must also be freely available without a subscription.
4) Thoroughness: Your review should show that you put some thought into it, that you really looked at as many of the facets as possible. I'll be more lenient if it's a discussion of a series of posts, since that's inherently more work (but also more opportunity to impress) and it would be tough to give each the same level of attention as if you were critiquing a single post.
5) Humour and other discretionary criteria: Can you make me laugh? Can you be relevant to the current political context? Can you be original? Show you're worth the attention of the Canadian politics blogosphere!

Note: You can review one of my posts or one of Centrerion Canadian Politics' other contributors. This is obviously somewhat of an ego-centric contest though, so you can guess whose writing I'd prefer you to review ;).

Prizes:
First place prize: $60 Canadian in cash, payable through paypal; a link in CCP's blogroll, worth $50 annually; and writeup and link in the "And the Winners Are..." announcement post, worth $20. Total: $130.
Second place prize: $20 Canadian in cash, payable through paypal; a link in CCP's blogroll; and a writeup and link in the announcement post. Total: $90.
Third place prize: a blogroll link and an announcement post link with a short write-up. Total: $65.
4th-10 place prizes: links in the announcement post under the subheading "honourable mention" with a quick line or two about the blog and the blogger behind the entry. Total: $70.

As a further incentive, I'll be making badges that you can post on your blog to show that you won.
The first place badge will read: "Best online insights and analysis in Canadian Politics."
Second place's badge will read: "Second best online insights and analysis in Canadian Politics."
Third places' badge will read: "Third best online insights and analysis in Canadian Politics."
4th-10th will get badges the same sizes as places 1-3, and will read: "Up-and-coming Canadian political pundit: worth the read."

If someone has a better idea as to what the badges might read, please let me know in the comments section. Also, if you have questions about something I didn't address here, leave a comment and ask the question! Don't be shy.

*I reserve the right to give away more or less prizes, and to alter the giveaways. For example, if only a handful of people participate, there'll probably be a few prizes, and less cash given away. Or I may just give a fixed amount per entry to charity, like $1 per entry.
~
If you want to follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories website development, and readership.Go back home

Would Electing the Senate Require Constitutional Change?

2006-12-14T14:22:00.000-05:00

Would electing the Senate require Constitutional change? That's what Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton are all alleging, according to this (obviously biased in favour of the opposition) CTV piece. While I'm not sure the proposed Conservative legislation is a good idea (discussed further down), Dion et co. are mistaken on the facts if they think passing a law that provides for electing the Senate requires Constitutional amendments like the heart-wrencher that was Meech Lake.

Technically speaking, the Senate is part of the Canadian Constitution and would thus require Constitutional change if it were to become an elected Chamber. The problem is that when people think Constitutional change, they think of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Actually, those failed accords were addressed to one specific formula for amending the Constitution, one which requires the provinces' unanimous consent.

In this case, the amending formula that would apply would only require the general amending procedure, known as the 7-50 procedure. It requires the federal Parliament to pass the law in order to amend the Constitution, as well as the consent of 7 provinces (two thirds of the provinces, officially) representing at least 50% of the population. The formula in question can be found at section 38 of our Constitution, in Part V. Section 38 is titled "General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada" and it reads:

"38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces."

Section 42 reads:

"Amendment by general procedure 42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces."

Italics mine. The point is that the trauma over Meech Lake and Charlottetown was largely due to the use of the unanimous amending procedure in section 41, and therefore the problems might be avoided by having recourse to section 38.

Another possibility is that "the method for selecting Senators" has a restrictive definition and goes to their appointment process. This would allow for the use of section 44, rather than 42 and 38. So if the Prime Minister is still the one carrying out the selection in concert with the Governor General, we could have a situation like the case of Nat Bell Liquors.

Nat Bell Liquors fought an Albertan alcohol law during Prohibition. NBL said that it was unconstitutional because Alberta's legislature abdicated its powers. Legislatures can't abdicate by virtue of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The basis for the abdication claim was that the Albertan legislature acted in accordance with another law that said it would have to pass anything Albertans approved of in a referendum. A referendum had approved the alcohol law and the legislature acted accordingly.
The ruling of the court (Alberta Appeals, if memory serves) was that the law wasn't unconstitutional. It would be quite strange, the justices remarked, to say that the legislature's role was to legislate in contradiction with popular will ....

Here we would have a similar "people's choice" situation where the executive acted in accordance with the will of the voters. The method of selecting Senators remains with the Executive.
Furthermore, if the referendum is made out to be only a consultational one, it would be possible to get around 38/42 entirely and use section 44. Section 44 allows amendment of the parts of the Constitution relating strictly to the federal executive and Parliament. Therefore, it only needs House and Senate approval (plus the rubber-stamping Royal Assent of course).

Why have the elections to begin with if they're only consultative? The point then would be to create a binding Constitutional convention, similar to those that govern the role of Prime Minister (the PM is only mentioned twice in the Constitutional Act of 1982, in fact). According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the first Patriation Reference (1981), a Constitutional convention arises based on three criteria: (i) precedent, (ii) others following the precedent because they feel bound to (iii) a reason for the convention.

So you could get future Prime Ministers to be bound on a so-called "manner and form" requirement for selecting Senators by a convention. This would avoid going through the soul-wringing of a section 41 amendment or even the moderate challenges of a section 38 amendment.

The question then is whether it's a worthwhile thing to do. Given that the Senate would be better off abolished (would require unanimous consent, again according to the SCC) because it doesn't fulfill its function of regional representation, this reform would be counter-productive. Jack Layton's comment that it would make the Senate even more dysfunctional is accurate (I'm quoting Jacko with approval! It's Armageddon!) in that electing the Senate would reinforce party lines there.

Stephane Dion pointed out that you might end up with the Senate being redundant as a second elected Chamber, which is true. Except that it's already redundant, so there's no big difference there.

IMHO, Harper and Justice Minister Toews need to modify their law to aim for the Constitutional convention and section 44 amending procedure. In addition, if the Conservatives' want to make the Senate more representative of Canadians (a noble goal), make it representative of Canadians on a regional basis, as the Senate was intended to be. [The Fathers of Confederation sought to have the less-populous provinces interests protected at the federal level by these means of regional representation.] Jacko could probably play a helpful role here and earn some points in winnable rural ridings by suggesting such a regional emphasis for the law.

Electing the Senate will require Constitutional change, but it can be easy and painless. With some tweaks, it can even be useful to Canadian democracy.

If you want to read more about Senate reform and/or follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian federal politics, Conservative Party of Canada, federalism, Canadian Canada's Constitution.Go back home

Stephane Dion's Victory: Quip of the Day

2006-12-02T18:25:00.000-05:00

It's just been announced that Stephane Dion has won the Liberal leadership race.

The iggy-nation won't be constitutionalized after all.

If you want to follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter (scroll all the way down for the sign-up).

This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian federal politics, Conservative Party of Canada, Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian national security, terrorism, economics, media, the environment, and Quip of the Day.Go back home

Mediocre Media: BBC Admission!

2006-11-30T22:34:00.000-05:00

The BBC finally admits it. I definitely did not see that one coming.

An earlier investigation into impropriety was brushed aside and its tough findings relegated to bureaucratic doldrums, being criticized to avoid implementation. But now:

"Andrew Marr, the former BBC political editor, recently stood before an audience and said that "the BBC is not impartial, or neutral. It's a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party political bias: it's better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.""

If you want to read more criticism of the media, consider our free newsletter.

This article and related articles are archived in the topical category media.Go back home

Stephane Dion

2006-11-30T10:17:00.000-05:00

Other Candidates:
Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae
Gerard Kennedy

(Cross-posted at Clear Grit)

It is obviously impossible for me to claim that I am unbiased in writing about any candidate, but this is especially true for what I write about Stephane Dion. Obviously, he is the candidate who I believe should lead the party into the next election. I believe he would be Stephen Harper's most formidable foe, in both official languages. Therefore, since this is basically going to be an exalting of Dion's better qualities, I will spare you from long-windedness.

Dion was not one of the candidates who could count on front-runner status. Unlike the other top-tier candidates, Dion had to work hard to get where he is today. Fourth place - a strong fourth - is impressive given that when he began his bid for leadership he wasn't given much of a chance by most observers.

The reason that Dion has experienced this momentum is because people realize that he is the true intellectual voice of liberalism in Canada, not Michael Ignatieff. People realize that Stephane Dion is the only candidate among the front-runners who has served in a federal cabinet, and who has paid his dues to the party.

Dion is the candidate most likely to win Quebec for the Liberals. The Liberal party can't win the next election without a strong come-back in Quebec, and Stephane Dion, I feel, is the only candidate well-positioned to defeat Stephen Harper in Quebec. The only other candidate who I feel could compete in Quebec is Michael Ignatieff, but I fear he is too gaffe-prone to win a general election.

That being said, what sort of chance does he have?

Well, history is certainly on Dion's side. Every single Liberal prime minister save for Alexander Mackenzie (the first one) has served in the cabinet of a previous Liberal prime minister. Kennedy is the only other front-runner who can claim experience in a Liberal cabinet, though provincial politicians do not historically do well federally.

But, this convention isn't about the past. In many ways, it is going to be a historic convention in its own right, which means all bets are off.

So, can Dion win? He certainly can, but it will be tough. Dion is in perhaps the hardest position of any candidate - he has to squeeze up past Gerard Kennedy, and replace Bob Rae as the not-Iggy candidate. Dion has many potential paths to the leadership; an endorsement from Ken Dryden, an endorsement from Gerard Kennedy, and an electrifying convention speech would all help, and are likely essential. Dion is in fourth; he has to wow the delegates with a powerful, passionate speech.

I don't know if he can do it. But here's hoping he does.

Gerard Kennedy

2006-11-30T01:54:00.000-05:00

Other Candidates:
Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae

(Cross-posted at Clear Grit)

What can I say about Gerard Kennedy?

Scratch that. What can I say about Gerard Kennedy that won't result in his cult-like supporters attack my intellectual integrity? The answer is, not much that's all that interesting.

I don't want to knock Gerard. He's an impressive guy and I have not a word to say against him. But I do have to say right now, before I give my assessment of him, that I don't think a noticeable contingent among his supporters helped his case. Not all, not even the majority of Kennedy supporters are like that, of course, and there are many I respect among his supporters. But he has generated some strong feelings among certain members, and I have seen many unfortunate attacks by Kennedy supporters directed at their fellow Liberals that were hardly constructive. I do hope that if Kennedy loses, which is quite likely, especially now that he has taken a principled stand against the nation issue, these supporters will not go about creating divisions within the party.

It's hard to argue against Kennedy's credentials. Ten years as an elected MPP and three as a cabinet minister is certainly more political experience than Stephen Harper had when the Conservatives elected him their leader, and far more than Michael Ignatieff. Sure, he didn't graduate from university, but instead of that he started a successful food bank and ran another one. How do you run an attack ad against that?

I've warmed to Kennedy a great deal. I have been hoping for a Dion-Kennedy alliance going into the convention because if Dion can't take it, Kennedy would be a very close second choice for me. I agree with him on virtually every issue, and he has a charisma about him that is indeed Trudeau-esque. In fact, were it not for one fatal flaw, he would probably be my first choice.

The fatal flaw is - I don't think he can win in Quebec. And here is why:

Kennedy is an English speaker from Ontario. Of the four front-runners, he is the weakest in French. He has only 2% of the Quebec delegates to this convention on his side, and he is unlikely to pick up more than that because of his stance on the nation question. That stance, in itself, is the final stake in the coffin.

I support Kennedy on the nation question. But the optics of him, an Ontarian with hardly any support from Quebec Liberals and hardly fluently bilingual, arguing against it could easily guarantee the Liberal party's failure in Quebec. I was hoping that Dion would oppose that motion, because frankly as the truism goes, "Only Nixon could go to China." Only Trudeau and Chretien could fight those referendums. Only Dion could introduce the Clarity Act. Kennedy would simply have no credibility to the people of Quebec arguing against a Quebec nation.

It's a tough call. If Kennedy can't win an election against Stephen Harper, though, then what is the point of electing him leader? His supporters argue that this doesn't matter. Kennedy has inspired some strong feelings in people precisely because he represents something so fresh, so hopeful, so young. Who cares if he can win?

Actually, his supporters would be done a bit of a misdeed if I didn't point out that most of them believe that he can beat Stephen Harper in an election. Fair enough; I disagree, but that's fine.

But it's a bit of a moot point, because I don't think Kennedy will take this one. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this convention will come down to either Ignatieff v. Dion, or Ignatieff v. Rae, likely the former, because the Quebec delegates are likely to regard Kennedy as anathema. His best chance to win is to score the endorsement of Stephane Dion. If Dion can bring his Quebec delegates with him to Kennedy, Kennedy will gain both a powerful Quebec ally and a sizable contingent of Quebec delegates.

But it is thought that Dion's Quebec delegates will bleed heavily to Ignatieff if he is knocked off the ballot. That could make it hard for Kennedy to win this convention. If Dion doesn't endorse him, he will almost certainly go down, so whether or not that happens will be one of the turning points of the convention.

I wish Kennedy all the best. If he wins this convention, I will be proud to say I'm a Liberal.

Bob Rae

2006-11-29T21:10:00.000-05:00

Other Candidates:
Michael Ignatieff

(Cross-posted to Clear Grit)

As the political veteran of this race, Bob Rae's appeal has been obvious - he is the most experienced of any candidate in the realm of public policy and governance, and at the same time, he is free from the burden of ugly sponsorship mess, at least as free as Michael Ignatieff and Gerard Kennedy. Rae is one of the four candidates with a serious chance of winning the leadership, and given that just a year ago many people dismissed him out of hand as too controversial in Ontario, he has come a long way.

Bob Rae is positioned well, about as well as could be expected. In stark contrast to Ignatieff's gaffe-ridden campaign, Rae's campaign has been absolutely flawless. This is to be expected from a 30-plus-year veteran of the political world; anything less would have been unacceptable. Rae is arguably the only other candidate besides Ignatieff who has a strong base in every region of the country; Stephane Dion has a recognizable base in every region, but not as large as Rae's. Rae is at the top of the not-Ignatieff contenders, and he and his team have been trying to get the idea out that he is the only one who can stop an Ignatieff victory.

They may be right, though many people still question the wisdom of a Rae-led Liberal Party, but many - including myself - underestimated him. Of course, people are starting to wisen up. Arrogant Tories love to dismiss Rae out of hand, citing his term as premier of Ontario as proof that he will be easy to eviscerate in an election, but a lot of Tory insiders and even the rank and file are starting to fear a Bob Rae Liberal party. Remember, the people who hate Rae's Ontario record the most tend to be conservatives and Tory partisans, not exactly the best indicators of the mood of predominantly middle-of-the-road Ontario. And a flawlessly executed campaign is nothing to sneer at.

Of course, critics are quick to point out that the reason Rae has been gaffe-free is because he hasn't actually said anything. It's not an unfair criticism. Rae has essentially been running on his experience in contrast to his main rival and former roommate, who has none. Rae has been choosing his words carefully, trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of Liberals, the latest example being that he "won't oppose" recognizing Quebec as a nation. Carefully chosen words, those are. None of this is too surprising - Rae's campaign is being managed by his brother John Rae, the architect of Jean Chretien's three middle-of-the-road-appeal victories.

There are some significant knocks against Bob Rae. Unlike Ignatieff, Rae was actually scouted to run for the party in 2006 and 2004, and he refused both opportunities. If Rae had run in 2004, he almost certainly would have served in cabinet, thus giving him the Liberal credentials he would have needed to mount a more credible bid. I have no doubt that if Rae had run in 2004, he would be the front-runner today. The fact that he refused two opportunities to run for the party he wants to lead is a bit of a sore point for many Liberals, and understandably so.

What Bob Rae's candidacy comes down to is this: he's an experienced and formidable political veteran who ironically is the least Liberal candidate of the field. Say what you will about Ignatieff, he didn't donate money to NDP candidates in the last election. These are the two factors delegates considering him will have to weigh. How well Rae does will depend on how many delegates are willing to overlook his past, both recent and from the last century.

Michael Ignatieff

2006-11-29T05:34:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Clear Grit)

Hailed just last year as possibly the next Pierre Trudeau, it has been quite the year for Michael Ignatieff. In its span, he has gone from being an acclaimed international academic, to a Member of the Canadian House of Commons, to the front-runner in the race to lead one of the the most electorally successful political parties in history and just a hair's breadth away from a position which would almost guarantee him a spot in history as either Canada's 23rd or 24th prime minister.

The stakes couldn't be higher for Ignatieff. At 58 years of age, he very likely isn't going to get another chance at this. Oh sure, he could run again six, eight, ten years from now. But it just won't be the same. He'd be yesterday's news. Ignatieff's candidacy is built on a wellspring of hope for a new direction in the party that is particular to this moment in history.

It was supposed to be different. Paul Martin was supposed to eke out another minority government in this year's election, and Ignatieff was supposed to receive the requisite experience in government. Conservatives have occassionally opted to choose an outsider for leader (most notably Brian Mulroney), but the Liberal Party has historically not been kind to leadership candidates who haven't spent time in cabinet. Every Liberal prime minister in history (save for Mackenzie, the first one) has served in the cabinet of a previous Liberal prime minister. That the outsider Ignatieff is even the front-runner in this race is phenomenal.

Ignatieff has certainly shown himself to be an impressive personality, and agree or disagree with him on particular issues - and there are many, chief among them Quebec's status within Canada, a carbon tax, Canada's role in the world - he must at least be credited for taking clear positions on controversial issues. Is that not what politicians are, ideally, supposed to do?

He's had some gaffes. Not surprising, as rookie politicians tend to make them when they are put in the spotlight. Brian Mulroney's famous "no whore like an old whore" quip was actually a gaffe of its own, as he was basically flipantly excusing patronage. Some say these gaffes have been too frequent and too damaging, and they prove that Ignatieff is not ready to face Stephen Harper in an election. Some make a good point; if a couple of these stumbles had come during a general election, they would have sunk him. (Most notably, Michael saying that he did not lose any sleep over the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians.)

There are those who say that Ignatieff is too much an honest academic to compete in the world of politics. His positions are not informed by political calculations, but rather by intellectual whimsy, and they make him vulnerable to attack. Others contend that these are precisely the qualities that make a leader - he does not back down from controversial positions.

The thirty-something members of parliament hoping to occupy positions in an Ignatieff cabinet have probably, more than the MPs who support any other candidate, chosen Ignatieff because they sensed he was the front-runner, and they wanted to be on the winning side. Many of them are also supporting him on principle, of course, but the number of MPs who declared their support for him so early on does raise my eyebrow.

So what are his chances? Going into the convention, Ignatieff is in a very enviable position: first place. However, one has to question his growth potential on later ballots. There are a lot of anybody-but-Iggy delegates, and they will certainly unite behind one of Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy or Stephane Dion before the end of the convention. How many of these delegates there are is hard to say, but judging from Ignatieff's reception in the Liblogosphere, there are probably a healthy number of them. Then again, it has been pointed out that all he has to do is pick up about 1/4 of the bleedoff delegates from the candidates who drop off in order to win. He could theoretically win the convention without a single endorsement from any other candidate - endorsements he is not likely to get.

Ignatieff's easiest chance for victory, of course, would be the surprise endorsement of one of the other big four. Such an endorsement would almost certainly put him over the top. Will it happen? Not likely. But then again, David Orchard endorsed Peter MacKay at the last PC convention. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

Private Health Clinics - What's the big deal

2006-11-27T21:45:00.000-05:00

Recently a private emergency room, I mean "urgent care center" opened in Vancouver at the Fraser Health Clinic. The facility offers many services that one can receive at a public hospital for free for a price.

Let me think.

a) Nobody is forced to use the private health center, everyone can use the public system for free.
b) The system will relieve pressure off of the public system. It's like getting a new hospital of capacity at no cost to taxpayers.

And yet, the TURKEYS in Ottawa and almost everywhere oppose our "two tier" health care system.

What is the BIG DEAL?

It's lowering waiting times in the public system. That's a good thing. People can still get the health care.

Canada needs to get a clue on health care. The Canada Health Act is a massive step backwards for Canada and needs to be scrapped ASAP.