Canadian Polemic

It's likely, that in the crush of news and punditry about the Canadian election and President George W Bush's woes over Iraq, the fact that tomorrow, 1 December, is World AIDS Day 2005 will be forgotten. Each minute that is spent quarreling over the candidacy of Michael Ignatieff or which party leader loves Canada more sees 5 people die of AIDS. That means that the pandemic is claiming over 8 000 lives each day. 40.3 million people are currently living with HIV and AIDS. Nearly 65% of those, or 25.8 million, live in Sub-Saharan Africa. To date, 23.1 million people have died of AIDS - and the numbers keep growing.

The pandemic continues to spin out of control, a consequence largely of lacklustre commitment from the West to deal once and for all with the spread of the disease. Anyone who hasn't already must read Stephen Lewis' recent Massey Lectures, published as Race Against Time, and also found over on the sidebar. Lewis, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN and Ontario NDP Leader, is currently the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. He works tirelessly to raise awareness about the crisis, but with little success - no wonder he's starting to feel a bit burned out.

So tomorrow, on World AIDS Day, think for a moment about some of the statistics I mentioned above. Our partisan jabs about gaffes and electoral bravado seem rather pointless when we look at the larger picture. The pandemic is something that can be beaten - all we need is the collective will. We've got the anti-retroviral drugs to treat AIDS patients, we've got the funds. But little actually happens, and more people die. If we fail to act, the daily death rate of 8 000 people dying of AIDS will only increase and increase and increase. As human beings, how can we stand by and let such a travesty, such an absolutely execrable tragedy continue to happen? Stephen Lewis captures, perhaps, the appropriate sentiments. "The criminal negligence on the part of the Western world has lasted for so long that we’ll never be able to compensate for the deaths that have occurred," he notes. "But you have to continue fighting, and one day, unexpectedly, you break through. That’s what I’m waiting for."

The Liberals absolutely don't get it - they're running yesterday's campaign today. Again, they're beginning with the negative scare tactics about Stephen Harper, as shown on their website, where a big headline trumpets that Stephen Harper would roll back Charter rights.

Didn't we hear this last June? Precisely this argument? Well yes, you might answer, yes, we did. Now, it may have won the Liberals some votes late in the campaign last year, but starting off on Day One with a negative tactic from the last campaign and expecting it to earn you votes? Honestly. It's about vision, people, it's got to be about ideas. Calling Stephen Harper nasty names and trying to terrify Canadians into voting for you isn't the way to go about this. I think that the more negativity the Liberals propagate, the better the chances are for a Conservative Government. If the LPC is intending on running the 2004 campaign again and trying to scare Canadians into submission again, they've got another thing coming. I like to think that Canadians are smarter than that.

In other news, why can't the Liberals put together a decent webpage? I like their new design even less than the old one, which didn't really turn my crank, either. The Tories, on the other hand, know how it's done. Their site is snappy, professional and doesn't look as garishly-tabloid-like as the LPC one does.

Another poor tactic from the LPC - suggesting that Harper doesn't love the country as much as their guy does. Give me a break and grow up.

And the Ignatieff-as-Liberal-candidate saga continues, today with the reputed scholar and author slamming attempts to discredit him as 'transparent' and describing quotes used from his works to paint him as anti-Ukrainian as out-of-context. This is after earlier Chretien-style attempts to block other candidates from running in the riding and the resignation of the riding's MP, Jean Augustine.

I've mentioned before how much I'd like to see Michael Ignatieff as an elected Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister, and that confidence remains unshaken. He's used to dealing in the currency of ideas, which will be a nice change - it will be interesting to see how he expresses his ideas and viewpoints in Canada in the future. I'm not entirely comfortable with all of them, but we'll have to see.

I think that the Paul Martin team has somewhat fumbled this one, though. Granted, I know they don't want to facilitate the rise of a potential challenge to their authority, but they haven't really accomplished anything here other than show an authoritarian central party leadership stifling, in a word, democracy. It would have been so much better for a variety of purposes to let those other two candidates run in the race properly, without hassle. Ignatieff doesn't get by easily, but he's likely to win - the LPC gets a star candidate and democracy is 100% observed. I like the idea of an Ignatieff candidacy, but I don't like the process to date of how that notion has been approached. Hopefully it'll turn out better than it's started.

Last Friday, here at the College, we abolished the notion of classes and instead tackled the topic of world religions - ambitious, yes, but very worthwhile. We started in the morning by dividing ourselves along the lines of international religious groupings, and then by religious groupings at the College. Interestingly, a larger percentage of people calling themselves non-religious here at Pearson than internationally. Then we heard a lecture from a professor about religion in general, and what we mean by it - interesting ideas, but poor presentation, I'm afraid.
After that, I headed off to a presentation on Jewish identity over time and its relationship to modern-day Israel. My friend from Israel noted that to be Jewish was once primarily a religious identity, then ethnic/nationalistic, then racial and now has another facet, that of the Israeli state. We got into an interesting discussion about the system of proportional representation in Israel, recent political events, the birth of Zionism, the demographics of Israel, etc. Interesting fact of the day: did you know that anti-Semitic actually means to be opposed to both the Jewish and Arab races? It's true - those two cultures are the Semitic races. Interesting note. Then it was a workshop on indigenous spirituality, which was equally fascinating. It was from three student perspectives: Inuit (from Canada's North), American Native and Maori (New Zealand). There are a surprising number of similarities between the different cultures, particularly in terms of their respect for the earth. In the afternoon, we had a discussion as a community about religion, one that focussed particularly on extremism within faith and different interpretations of religious texts.

Religion is the driving force in life for several billion people, and it's a shame that there aren't more efforts made to understand the community between different faiths as well as the differences. Most religions, while perhaps expressing it in different ways, share respect for others and the desire for self-improvement. Many of them, it seems to me, have as their goal a better world. And that's absolutely worthwhile - spreading that kind of inter-faith awareness and understanding can only help contribute to a more peaceful world.

Who on earth could possibly think that pursuing legal action against your chief opponent during an election campaign would be a good idea? Honestly, who's advising the Liberal leadership these days, anyways? Does this make any sense to anyone with any degree of intelligence or common sense?

This comes back to the suggestion I made yesterday about the merits of a positive campaign. It seems so obvious to me that running a clean, positive campaign would win any party plenty of votes and the goodwill of the nation. And yet none of the political advisors of any of the major leaders seem to have any kind of understanding of that notion. Instead, they accuse each other of being mobsters and then threaten to sue when they get insulted. It seems to me as if the ivory tower complex has set in. Some simple solutions for Martin and Harper's handlers:

1. Don't take the other guy to court because he made you cry.
2. Don't worry, be happy - that's what Canadians want to see.
3. Do try and act with more maturity than an 8-year-old.
4. Do treat Canadians like adults, not children.

Well, we're almost done suffering through perhaps the most acrimonious and nasty Parliament in the history of the country. Unfortunately, all of the indicators suggest that we're up for another concentrated 5 or 6 weeks of it as Canada's political parties hit the hustings. Their goal? To get elected. How they're going to do it? By trying to convince Canadians that the other guys are worse than they are. It's looking now as if this campaign will be even more negative than the last.

As far as I'm concerned, going negative isn't the way to win the election. If Paul Martin spends his time trying to convince voters that Stephen Harper is a terrifying, right-wing maniac out to dismantle Canada, he's not going to gain any ground. And if Harper continues to speak on and on about government corruption, about how nasty the Liberals are, he's not going to gain any ground. These were the tactics last time around, and let's be honest, very little has changed since June 2004. The Gomery report has been released, yes, but there wasn't much in there that we didn't already know. And polls shortly afterwards suggested that the thinking patterns of Canadians with regard to the scandal were already set mostly in stone. Another negative election will only turn more Canadians away from a national political scene that is increasingly bitter, acrimonious, partisan and personal.

I'll suggest right now that the party that dares to play an above-board campaign, free from negative advertising and based primarily on a vision for Canada's future, will win. It might not hand them a majority, but it'll give them a heck of a lot of votes. My advice is to refuse to sink to the level of the other parties, dismiss the negative advertising as childish and tell Canadians instead where you envision the country after your mandate. Upon what principles will you lead the country? Where will you focus your energies? This is what Canadians want to hear, I'd wager, and I think that whichever party can take heed of that suggestion will see the most gains in the upcoming election. A breath of fresh, positive air would do wonders for any party's poll numbers. Canadians want to look on the bright side - why don't the folks in Ottawa let them?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again. I'm not sure if he's just a misguided democrat or a calculable autocrat. There's news that Russia's lower house today approved a draft bill supported by the Kremlin that would put serious restrictions on all NGOs working in Russia. A key component of the legislation is the restrictions that it puts on foreign NGOs, presumably an effort by Moscow to prevent foreign support for political activity in the country. If foreign NGOs don't register with Russian authorities and subject themselves to random document searches, they'll have to close their offices in the country.

Add this to Putin's recent efforts to shift more power to the Kremlin: he turned state governorships into Kremlin appointments from democratic elections, and the state owns an alarming portion of the country's energy/media industries, to name but a few. Look also at the legal proceedings against former Russian energy magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who many pundits suggest was targetted because of his efforts to play a political role. The majority in Parliament is a party called United Russia that essentially follows the Kremlin line, and Putin was re-elected in 2004 with around 70% of the vote. It doesn't paint a very encouraging picture of a nation purportedly on the path to democracy.

I don't want to suggest categorically that Putin is a tyrant or dictator aiming to return the country to its totalitarian Tsarist/Soviet roots - as I mentioned earlier, it's equally possible that he is merely trying to make the country work as efficiently as possible. But his efforts to date haven't been beneficial for Russian democracy, nor for foreign opinion of Russia. And the proposed new NGO rules will stifle a great deal of good work that is done in the country - and for that, there is no excuse.

Shocking news from Israel last night - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has resigned from the leadership and the ranks of his ruling Likud Party in order to start a new, more moderate party that'll be called "National Responsibility". Oh, and he took a good 30% of the sitting Likud MKs with him, for good measure. This is totally unprecedented, as far as I can tell - can you imagine the leader of a national party in Canada, a national governing party, up and quitting, starting his own party and calling for early elections? Zowie.

Presumably, Sharon is hoping that his personal popularity will translate into plenty of seats, and therefore an easier time of finding a mandate to pursue further withdrawal efforts and peace attempts with the Palestinians. Whether or not that will happen, though, is another question. I was speaking to one of my friends today, who hails from Israel, and he was noting that what might happen is a consolidation of the hardline right-wing parties (which, if you look here, seems entirely possible), as well as a splitting of the vote on the left (National Responsibility and Labour, among others).

It's hard to say how it'll turn out, but it's certainly turned the Israeli political landscape on its head, and a new poll suggests that 37% of Israelis back Sharon as PM, followed by 22% for Labour Leader Amir Peretz and 15% for the as-of-yet-unnamed Likud leader. The ingredients for a strong, left-wing coalition dedicated to peace are there - whether they will culminate effectively into action is yet to be determined.

I can't quite put into words how outrageous this is. The National Post is reporting that Public Works has temporarily banned the hiring of white men, and that the department is only permitted to hire visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled until at least next March. Are they actually serious? This is as discriminatory and racist as the situation they're trying to avoid! Minister Scott Brison should rescind this backwards proposal immediately and start hiring people based on qualifications, not on color or heritage. Ridiculous.

Well, we're on the cusp once more of an election campaign, and judging from the analysis and the pre-writ rhetoric, it's on track to be even nastier than the last one. Charming. I imagine that what will likely happen is that the Liberals will win another slim minority, perhaps an even smaller one than they currently have, and we'll be back into another few months or a year of minority government rigmarole and electioneering. Rather than getting into a debate over the likelihood of that outcome, though, I want to write about the alternative outcome that I feel would be much better for Canada and for the LPC: a Conservative government.

I believe fundamentally in the principles and values of the Liberal Party, and volunteered extensively with my local LPC candidate in the 2004 election. I'll likely vote Liberal in this upcoming election, as well - but a Conservative government wouldn't be as bad a thing as many Liberal pundits and activists would like to suggest. A Stephen Harper government would not turn back decades of Liberal accomplishments, and it would be great for Canadian democracy and the long-term prognosis of the success of the LPC.

First of all, regarding what a Conservative government would do in Ottawa. Some partisans cry that he would dismantle public health care, criminalize abortion and otherwise destroy this nation's social fabric along with facilitating the separation of Quebec. I'll deal with these one by one. Regarding health care - think about the fact that Harper would have, at best, a minority government with which to work with, and passing such significant health care reform would be near impossible with all other Opposition parties likely voting against such a plan. And if you want a strong defender of public health care, are you really that enamored with Paul Martin? I know I'm not. On the other hand, we do need a degree of innovation in our health care system - unless we can find billions upon billions of dollars more, it's going to keep declining. Instead of more rhetoric and little action from Paul Martin, why not try something new? Harper likely wouldn't be able to make drastic changes, as I've mentioned, so we'd probably end up with a degree of innovation in health care, which'd be great. On abortion - Harper would have a minority, and he knows that any attempt to move against abortion would torpedo his chances of getting elected ever again. Case closed. On national unity - Harper knows, I think, that to preside over the breakup of the country would be disastrous, and I think he wants a united Canada as much as I do. He might not be an ideal defender of federalism, but look at what we've got right now. Ministers who call PQ Premiers of Quebec "losers", and a PM whose strongest argument for unity is that a sovereign Quebec would not be economically-viable (despite the fact that some of the strongest economies in the world are about that size or smaller)? Not to mention the whole sponsorship cloud that will hover over this Liberal reign until there's an interregnum of sorts. Furthermore, Paul Martin's assymetrical federalism, signing side deals with all of the provinces on different terms, in order to keep the country together? Not my idea of a strong defender of federalism. So I think we can rest assured that a minority Conservative government isn't going to dismantle everything that has been accomplished under Liberal rule - and you know what? A fresh look on the problems of the day from an outsider's perspective isn't necessarily a bad thing.

On Canadian democracy - you know, the same party has been in power since 1993. Consecutive majorities until last year. So many Canadians are becoming disillusioned with a system that continues handing victories to the Liberals. A shake-up would be a good breath of fresh air for a system in which voter turnout is in perpetual decline. A de facto one-party state democracy is no good.

Finally, on the benefits of a Conservative government for the LPC. Yes, Paul Martin would have to go - if you're a big Martin fan, you'll be disappointed with this no matter what. But let's be frank, here - the party is a juggernaut, a massive electoral machine that's been in power for a good 12 years straight, and I think it's fair to say that we're running out of steam. Starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of ideas. There are some members of the party who are starting to play the appropriate roles in a "culture of entitlement". None of that is any good at all. If the LPC wins the election, we get another year or so of Paul Martin, saying anything and everything, wandering all over the map in terms of policy, lacking any grand idea or vision for the country. The country, and Quebec in particular, gets more and more disappointed in a lack of federal leadership. The "culture of entitlement" about which Mr Harper speaks continues to set in.

A Conservative victory gives our party a chance to do some soul-searching and some bloodletting. It gives us a chance to reinvigorate ourselves with a leadership race that's about ideas, a chance to find a candidate who can put the divisions of the Chretien/Martin era behind us. It's a chance to learn from our 12 years in power, and to build a comprehensive and long-term vision for this country's future. This is going to be another election fought on corruption, no doubt - if we come back to the following election with a blueprint for the nation, a new, baggage-less leader and a more humble approach, we can return to the Government with new energy and ideas to put to use to govern the country.

That's why a Conservative victory wouldn't be the end of the world, and would in fact set the stage for better Canadian governance in the future with the hand of the LPC on the rudder.

Well, apparently John Efford was back at a Cabinet meeting in Ottawa today, for the first time since the spring, looking relaxed and tanned. A valiant attempt to show his value to the Cabinet, I must agree.

Better yet, though, are his comments on recent media coverage regarding his illness: "I don't know why the press has continually, day after day, wanted to talk about my health. I mean I'm not the only person who has a sickness... I'm not the only person who is sick in Canada." No, John, you're not, but you're also a Cabinet Minister and you're supposed to be helping run the country. So I think it's fair to say that Canada's expectations of you should be a little higher than the insurance agent down the street who has also, unfortunately, been struck with a chronic disease.

There's some good thoughts on this matter as well, over at The Sir Robert Bond Papers. The fact of the matter is that as great and as capable a Cabinet minister as John Efford might have been, he hasn't been living up to his obligations for various reasons, most of which beyond his control. It's time for the PM to appoint someone in his place who can actually do the job with greater energy, and for John Efford to take a seat on the backbenches.

The NDP's Jack Layton never ceases to surprise me - only months after forcing the Government to withdraw huge tax cuts in exchange for $4.3-billion in social spending and their support in the House of Commons, he's now actually in favour of a Government motion to implement a set of billion-dollar personal tax cuts. My favourite part was when he denied that his caucus' support for the motion meant that he was supporting tax cuts: "A ways and means motion is a routine vote," Layton told the Globe and Mail. "There isn't even a recorded vote. That is a routine matter."

Jack, if you don't believe in these tax cuts, then vote against them. Enough of the rigmarole, of the game-playing and posturing. Show some political leadership - and your crazy scheme to withdraw confidence in the Government now but have it not take effect until next January doesn't count - by voting against them or explaining to Canadians why you're all of a sudden in favour of tax cuts.

Kudos to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and his government for today introducing legislation that would ban all faith-based tribunals in the province. After a report to the government suggested that they allow sharia (Islamic law) as an option for Ontarians, there was a lot of pressure on both sides of the debate for Mr McGuinty. I was glad to read earlier this year that he had made the right decision.

I'm a firm believer in the notion that we need to allow Canadians some degree of flexibility in how they live their lives and how they celebrate their cultures and backgrounds. The American melting pot approach is not for Canada - part of our great strength is our diversity. But we do have to draw a line at some point as to what is fundamentally Canadian and where we stop making concessions. This can be a difficult argument to make for fear of sounding xenophobic, but I think it's an important one.

Particularly regarding the rule of law. As an Ontarian (although one currently living in BC), I was shocked to hear that Mr McGuinty was even considering the idea of having a parallel law system in Ontario for Muslims, and astounded further to hear that there was already something similar for Jewish Ontarians. In my mind, all Ontarians should be treated the same way under secular, Ontarian law. If you're Muslim or if you're Jewish or if you're Christian, you get treated the same way. That's how it should be - rights to religious expression stop at a point. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know for sure, but it seems to me that there'd be a case to be made for parallel faith-based tribunals to be unconstitutional.

I'd like to again reiterate that simply because I don't believe that all aspects of Canadian society are up for negotiation by newcomers doesn't mean that I have anything against immigration or the Canadian mosaic. Far from it - as I've said earlier, our diversity is our strength. But a line must be drawn at some point.

At any rate, I think that Dalton has made the right decision - though it may anger some, the fact of the matter is that it draws a line in the sand and rejects the notion that Canadian rule of law can be applied differently based on your creed. Bravo, Dalton.

Well, it didn't go quite as far as I would have liked, but French President Jacques Chirac's speech today was pretty much along the lines of what I proposed last week. Again, I apologize if you can't speak French - I can't find his speech in English. Essentially, Chirac has defended his government's actions to date, noting that everyone should obey the rules and that the rule of law must be enforced, but also that a united France is a stronger France, and that as a nation they must stop discrimination. It doesn't go so far as to open a national debate on the question of French identity as I'd suggested, but it's certainly a step.

Hopefully, we'll hear from Ralph Goodale tomorrow about the state of Canada's finance - unless, that is, the three-ring circus known as the Opposition doesn't pull a stunt or two and prevent him from doing so. I have to say, all of the recent plans from the Opposition to commandeer the House of Commons, launch filibusters and the like have not gone over well with me. Rather than seeing a principled Opposition, I see one that is grasping at any straw it can find to take advantage of current poll numbers and make gains.

The Conservatives in particular would come off looking so much better if they stepped back and let the Government do its work. "We're going to let Ralph Goodale make his economic statement and try and woo taxpayers with their own money," the Tories should say. "We're going to let Paul Martin try and divert attention from the real issues, because we think Canadians are smarter than that and we're not going to sink to that level. If Martin wants an election in April, he can have it. The case for Liberal corruption will be equally strong then, if not more so after Canadians have seen their continued efforts to stay in power."

Alternatively: "This Government is corrupt and has got to go. Consequently, we'll be moving non-confidence tomorrow. See you on the hustings."

But all of this waffling back and forth and games is just no good at all. It's the PM's job to call elections (for the most part), and it's also the Government's job to update Canadians on the country's fiscal position. It might not be very good long-term thinking to use a fiscal update as a campaign platform, but that's just more ammunition for the Tories to use in the campaign. So, my message to the Opposition: stop beating around the bush. Either wait out April and build a stronger case and get some actual policies under your wing besides the fact that you're not the Liberals, or take 'em down now. One or the other.

Dear Alec:

I was struck today, watching the majestic red and white of the Canadian flag snap about in the wind atop the flagpole, by a thought that drove home the importance of what you did sixty-one years ago. You didn’t fight under that banner, the crimson stripes on either side of a central maple leaf. It was established by a nation safe from the threat of hatred, extremism, violence and tyranny. It was established by a nation that you helped to build but were never able to see or experience.

I live under that flag – it represents all of the best qualities of a nation that I am proud to call home. I live in a democracy that does not face the threat of war. I am 18 years old, but I am bound for university instead of a front in Europe. I go to a school on the other side of the country, where I live alongside young people from all over the world – England, Japan, America, Germany and more. That notion must seem so foreign to you, a 21-year old frozen forever in the summer of 1944.

Perhaps that is why your sacrifice seems so meaningful.

You committed yourself to the soil of France forever, in defence of a world that you would never know, that you could never anticipate. You put your life at risk to protect the lives, faces and futures of people far away in time and space. You sacrificed all that you had to live for so that I might live the life I do today. It was an act of utmost bravery and generosity, and for that I thank you.

I saw you today. You marched in the parade, your tam on your head and your face stern as steel, carried forward on the mournful tones of the bagpipes. You looked no older than me. And yet you gave up everything.

A grateful grand-nephew thanks you.

And the American Senate never fails to disappoint me:

Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.

The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.

[...]

Mr. Graham said the measure was necessary to eliminate a blizzard of legal claims from prisoners that was tying up Department of Justice resources, and slowing the ability of federal interrogators to glean information from detainees that have been plucked off the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"It is not fair to our troops fighting in the war on terror to be sued in every court in the land by our enemies based on every possible complaint," Mr. Graham said. "We have done nothing today but return to the basics of the law of armed conflict where we are dealing with enemy combatants, not common criminals."

[...]

(Full article found here.)

Do they not realize how backwards this is? I understand the argument that can be made for this for national security reasons, and those grounds certainly seem expedient and appropriate if our blinders limit our sight to the here and now. You know, it probably does make prosecuting the war on terror easier - but limiting these people basic rights under U.S. law? Even if it's not against the letter of international conventions or even the U.S. Constitution (I don't know as I'm no legal scholar), it's certainly against the spirit of many documents. Was nothing learned by the ordeal of the Japanese-Americans interned without basic legal rights during and after the Second World War? Backwards, backwards, backwards.

In other news, kudos to John McCain for his principled stand against the abuse of prisoners - at least someone recognizes that terrorists or not, there's a certain line that developed society shouldn't cross. I'm finding myself more and more encouraged by him and more and more supportive of the idea of a President McCain. But that's still a good 3 years away yet.

John Efford has to go, really, I don't think there's any question. The former natural resources minister resigned from that job in September, citing health problems. He hasn't been in Ottawa since the confidence votes in the spring, and yet still holds onto the regional minister job, pulling in an extra cabinet minister's salary. Now, according to a Globe and Mail report found here, he's heading off to Florida, even though he can't make it to Ottawa.

I know that PM Paul Martin is probably just trying to be a nice guy here and be considerate about Mr Efford's health concerns, but there's two good reasons to turf him from Cabinet. First of all, I would think that you'd want a regional minister who's showing a continued commitment to the job and who is actually going to work. I've heard that Mr Efford has been a great representative for his consitutency in the past, and I don't challenge that. But when he can find it in him to fly to Florida but not Ottawa, I think it's time for a change. Secondly, the optics of the situation. It certainly doesn't hinder Stephen Harper's case about a culture of entitlement within the LPC when the PM continues to pay a Liberal MP taxpayer dollars for something that he's not really doing. At worst it smacks of that culture of entitlement, at worst, the PM's incompetence and not realizing when a Minister isn't doing his job.

I'm sure John Efford is a great guy with lots of wonderful qualities - but at this point in time, I'm not convinced that he's demonstrating all of them (granted, for some reasons beyond his control), and the PM needs to put someone new in that position who is able to handle the workload and portfolio effectively. I don't think Canadians will like the idea of paying for Mr Efford's trips to Florida, and Martin shouldn't, either.

Ladies and gentlemen,

For the past twelve days, violence has gripped many neighbourhoods and districts throughout our nation. Thousands of vehicles have been torched and now lie smoldering - thousands of young people have been arrested. Families have been disrupted and French society has been shaken to its core.

I acknowledge today that your government has not responded to this situation adequately in that we have not fully reacted to the roots of the problem. For that, I apologize. Your government will move forward in both protecting the safety and security of all of its citizens in the short-term, and in opening a debate on the concept of the French nation in the long-term.

Some of our actions so far may have seemed draconian to many of you - for that, however, I make no apologies. We have resurrected a law from 1955 in order to enforce curfews across the French Republic, a measure that we hope will curtail the violence and disorder currently plaguing our streets. As the Prime Minister has noted, our response will be firm and just. France is a society based on the rule of law and the security of the person, and it is our responsibility to defend those principles. We will continue to take firm measures to make the streets of Paris, Evreux, Rennes, Dijon and others, safe once more for all of you.

However, my apology lies in the fact that to date, that has been the extent of our response. We have now recognized that more must be done, that we are facing a deep-seated question and challenge to our traditional views of the French nation. It is important that we deal with this question on a grander scale, and I hope that all citizens of this great land will join with me in doing so.

We are a great nation with a great history. We share many successes and many failures, and will continue to do so. We should be united. But despite all of the rhetoric that you have heard for many years on the matter, it is time to admit that our nation is far from unified. We are a nation divided. Our conception of a French identity is no longer relevant to modern French society.

France is a cosmopolitan nation, made up of a wide variety of ethnicities, histories and backgrounds - we must celebrate all of these, and I fear that we are not. I fear that our drive to protect each of our own cultural identities at the expense of all else has led us to where we are today. We must come to understand that the French identity is not solely that of a thirteenth-generation white, Christian, French-speaking man or woman from Dijon. One can be French and Muslim. One can be French and yet of Moroccan heritage. One can be French and speak both our official language as well as Arabic.

It is time for France to confront this question of what it means to be a citizen in this country, a citizen who is respected by all and who is actively engaged in its society. My government will begin investigating this question through a far-reaching dialogue that we will seek to hold with all citizens of this great republic. In the coming days and weeks, we will outline precisely how that dialogue will take place. In the meantime, I encourage those who are rightfully frustrated with the inflexibility of the French identity to lay down their arms and violent acts and join the rest of their fellow countrymen in reinvigorating and modernizing what it means to be French.

This process does not mean that anyone will be diluting or giving up their culture or their identities. It means that we will be collaborating and adding to a greater whole. That sense of great dialectic and discussion is what this republic is all about. I implore all of you to join with me in seriously discussing the questions that have long been ignored: what does it mean to be French? How are we all citizens in different ways of this nation? What kind of similarities do we see in our citizenship?

As a nation, we are divided. But we must be united. We can be united. And that is the more important side to any reaction to this current situation. That is how we will build peace and a stronger French republic.

Thank you.

And I've found another reason this morning why Stephen Harper just rubs me completely the wrong way. The Globe is reporting that Harper was overheard criticizing the Remembrance Day poppy. When it wouldn't stay on, he used a small maple leaf pin to keep it attached, and his advisors recommended he remove it. "They only had 80 years to perfect the technology," Harper said, demanding that his entourage get him "a pin that works".

Oh dear - I've heard many rumours and suggestions along the way that Mr Harper can actually get rather mean at times, and this doesn't do anything to lessen that impression. Firstly, why would you say something like that at all, something so disrespectful to the Legion and to our veterans? And secondly, you'd think that as an influential politician, you'd have some savvy to know not to say those kind of things so close to the podium while your mike's still on. Not reassuring at all, Mr Harper.

Here's a wonderful poem by the great American poet Carl Sandburg that I find really interesting and evocative. This is the question we should all be asking one another, I suppose.

THE single clenched fist lifted and ready,
Or the open asking hand held out and waiting.
Choose:
For we meet by one or the other.

The Supreme Court of the United States announced today that it would take on a case regarding the Bush administration's use of military tribunals to try foreign terror suspects, primarily in Guantanamo Bay. This is excellent news, because it'll raise a critical issue to one of the highest-levels of debate in the country.

The question of the powers of the executive in wartime is one that has become particularly relevant post 9/11 - there have been calls across the board that the rights of individual citizens are being trampled in the name of collective security and the war on terror. As a matter of fact, Canadian intellectual Michael Ignatieff has written a great book on the question, which I'd recommend reading. But from the Patriot Act to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to the question of the administration's right to use torture, it's come up fairly often.

I don't have nearly enough legal savvy to be able to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, but I think it's a good thing that they've taken on the case and will engage in an intellectual debate on the matter. It'd be great if they came out strongly of the position that the executive's powers are not unlimited, even in wartime - it seems to me to be clear enough that limitless powers are no good. The powers of the executive should certainly be strengthened in times of danger, but there are some lines that we as a society should refuse to cross regardless of the circumstances. Now we wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in - should be interesting.

For all of you young revolutionaries out there who have always wanted to make change and be treated as an adult in terms of real decision making, you should check out this article from the Toronto Star and get some ideas, perhaps, of how it's done. I'm not entirely sure that having students voting on a school board is the best solution, from the argument that it in essence elevates them above their teachers, but it's certainly a really interesting look at how collectively, change can often be forced. A really interesting read.

There's an interesting opinion piece found at the website of La Presse, a Francophone Montreal daily - you can get it here, and my apologies if you're not bilingual. Unfortunately for you, it's only in French. I'll do my best to summarize it somewhat.

The author, Philippe Parenteau, uses the space to question the future of the sovereigntist project in Quebec. He notes that in the ten years since the 1995 referendum, the political situation in Quebec has been reasonably static. Rather than moving forward on bold new ideas for the good of all Quebeckers, he argues that the last decade has been spent instead monitoring the sovereignty movement. By focussing on that project, one that pits Anglophones against Francophones, Quebec is losing out economically and socially. The project encompasses all political debate between the left and the right, between Francophones and Anglophones, and allows for an easy dismissal of lower standards - things would be much easier if Quebec was separate.

Parenteau then points to Ontario, where the province's Francophone communities, though dispersed, are well taken care of, and where the province is more or less united. He cites the province's higher living standards, booming economy and attractiveness to young families and immigrants. Compare this to Quebec, he says, where the province is still split between 42-45% sovereigntists and 42-45% federalists. By focussing on that divisive project, Quebec is falling behind and losing out on a chance to really succeed and grow as a province. Isn't it time, he asks again, for Quebeckers to find a new grand project that can unite them?

This kind of proactivity is needed in Quebec, and I hope that these ideas can catch on. Newspapers in the rest of Canada (and around the world) tend to proclaim daily the worrisome scenario of a PQ government in Quebec City calling another referendum on sovereignty, particularly after the revelations of the Gomery Inquiry. It's certainly a valid suggestion, but I tend to agree with Parenteau when he suggests that the continuation of the sovereigntist project in Quebec only continues to divide a population that could be so much stronger together. We've also seen whiffs of this kind of thinking from such figures as former separatist Premier Lucien Bouchard, whose recent manifesto, produced alongside several other Quebec intellectuals, regarding a "Clear-Eyed Vision of Quebec" or "Pour un Quebec lucide" (found here) calls for real ideas that will actually benefit Quebeckers, and a reverse to that province's economic decline. A quote from the manifesto outlines that sentiment:

Unfortunately, at the very moment when we should be radically changing the way they view ourselves and the world around us, the slightest change to the way government functions, a bold project, the most timid call to responsibility or the smallest change to our comfortable habits is met with an angry outcry and objections or, at best, indifference. This outright rejection of change hurts Québec because it runs the risk of turning us into the republic of the status quo, a fossil from the twentieth century.

Hopefully this kind of thinking will catch on across the province, and Quebec can become economically, politically and socially strong - within Canada. Quebec's leaders should put division aside and work for unity and prosperity.

It seems as if the accusations and posturing on American President George W Bush's newest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito have already begun. The President certainly seems to have pacified his conservative base after the Harriet Miers debacle - many of his supporters who were once noting their disillusionment with his Presidency are now singing Judge Alito's praises. Some go so far as to say that Roe v Wade is now on track to being overturned. On the left, we're starting to hear the typical rhetoric and alarm bells ringing, with many grassroots organizations beginning advertising drives and predicting the downfall of America's reasonably secular judicial system should Alito be confirmed.

It's unfortunate that the American system of lobbyists, pundits and legislators have already begun to slide into this type of debate. Using this kind of rhetoric to appeal to emotions and to predict doomsday scenarios does nothing for the institution of Congress, for the Supreme Court, or for Judge Alito. All of the above would be served best by a rational investigation of the Judge's career and qualifications - if he is qualified and if he is committed to interpreting the law strictly, he should be confirmed.

While Harriet Miers' credentials were somewhat in question - though there have been previous Supreme Court justices with no previous experience on the bench - Judge Alito's are certainly not. He has sat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals since 1990, 15 years of experience. Much of his work has been within public prosecution, and he has had his law degree for 30 years. Certainly qualified as a judge and as a legal mind. What is not quite as concrete as yet is his commitment to strictly interpreting the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. This is what must be ascertained from a series of disciplined and respectful Congressional hearings. Everyone has their own political leanings, however strong or weak - but what is critical is how they will let those leanings as well as their religious beliefs and cultural prejudices impact their interpretation of laws that effect an entire nation.

Whether Judge Alito is pro-life or pro-choice seems to me to be irrelevant in this situation. So long as he strictly interprets the law and does not seek to use the Supreme Court as a method of imprinting his own worldview on the country, he should be confirmed with all due haste. What America needs on the Supreme Court is smart legal minds with a wealth of different experiences as a group who will interpret the law properly and strictly. I sincerely hope that Americans can recognize this and forego the lengthy, protracted and emotional debate that the country does not need.

I wonder if many other Canadians are getting as tired of Stephen Harper and his Conservative rhetoric on the Gomery inquiry as I am. Their talking points on the matter haven't really changed since they first got a whiff of the scandal - the latest press release on the matter from the CPC war-room states that "the Conservative Party is the only Party who will clean up government, fight waste, mismanagement and corruption." When will they learn that this kind of rhetoric can only go so far - you need actual ideas and policies beyond the fact that you're not the guys currently in power if you want to get elected.

I also find it really interesting that for months, the CPC has been reasonably supportive of Gomery, although they preferred an election before he had finished. Regardless, MPs and spokespeople were noting that the Liberals were the ones trying to shut Gomery down (Chretien's attempts, fair enough), and that he should be allowed to complete his inquiry fully. Great.

But when the Gomery Report completely exonerated Paul Martin, the CPC began to completely disregard the report they had been so anxiously awaiting. Deputy Leader Peter MacKay came out today disagreeing with the Gomery conclusion that Paul Martin knew nothing. "Willful blindness is a pitiful excuse for leadership. You can try to blame it all on Jean Chretien, but [Martin] was in the best position to try to stop what he knew was wrong." Well, Gomery has just completed a lengthy investigation into the matter that the Conservatives are otherwise agreeing with, and Peter MacKay is simply an observer, last I checked - no credibility on his comments here.

I think that Canadians must be getting tired of this kind of rigmarole. It's one thing to argue that the core of the party is rotten, and that it should go for that reason. But to completely disagree with Gomery's assertion that Martin is in the clear and try and pin the dirt on him that way simply looks childish. The CPC still has much to learn, I'm afraid, about political leadership.

CNN is reporting that Australian PM John Howard just held a press conference in which he said that his government had received word of a terror threat to the country. Mr Howard gave Australians much-needed information about the threat, noting that "you will understand that there are sensitive operational matters and I cannot and will not go into further detail." Howard also told Australians that "I don't want to overstate the situation, but I don't want to understate it," and finished by arguing that "I can't go into any more detail because if I do I might weaken the capacity of authorities to respond."

Ah yes, more useful information from Mr Howard that will help Australians to respond to this latest threat and that will really impact their daily lives. If all you're going to say is that you can't say anything, and that you don't want to make too much of a deal of it, but you don't want to forget about it and again, you really can't say anything, why say anything at all, really? Some common sense here would be much appreciated.

It seems there's cause for a bit more hope this afternoon, regarding the situation on the Korean peninsula. According to the New York Times, the two Koreas will be competing together as one nation at the 2006 Asian Games and at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Apparently they've been trying to do this for many years, but things have never really gotten off the ground.

Personally, I think this is great news for the region. This kind of co-operation can only be good news, really. Add this to recent successes in the multilateral nuclear proliferation talks, and a pretty positive scenario is painted. Granted, there's still a long way to go, but these good developments generally tend to go unreported in favour of the more negative ones - see recent coverage of Syria. Perhaps one day in the near future, we'll see a unified Korea - it may seem like an unrealistic pipe dream to some, but we need some hope in this world, don't we?

The Paul Martin Liberals are so predictable - the day before the dreaded Gomery Report is to be released, they announce exciting things to draw attention away. Well, actually, they announce huge spending projects that tie up billions more of the Government's purse. This time, it's speculation about a relief plan for the softwood lumber industry. No details, mind you, but the Cabinet is definitely thinking about it, and they thought they'd let us know right at this moment, to keep us informed - they don't know how much it'll be yet, but it's coming. Really. It's really coming. And the other thing was that they'll be spending $3-billion on improving conditions on First Nations reserves in Canada. Not now, mind you, they'll actually spend the money probably later in the month. But they're really thinking about planning on spending that money. They really are.

How predictable - when will it stop? I've certainly stopped being captivated by these sleight of hand tricks - I wonder how many other Canadians have as well.