Canadian Polemic

The new Liberal ads in Quebec certainly don't seem to be going over very well. Apparently, the ads show two hockey teams - one Liberal, and one Bloc - and are designed to paint the BQ as a one-issue party, concerned only with sovereignty. And it also pokes fun at Gilles Duceppe's idea for a Québec hockey team. I haven't actually seen the ads, but the stills found on CTV certainly aren't very flattering - they look cheaply-made and juvenile. And the premise of the spot seems equally stupid to me - I can really imagine too many wavering Québec voters being bowled over by the ads and jumping to the Liberal ship. At any rate, the response to these ads is not going well for the Grits. And it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Over on Cyberpresse, there's an article that notes some anger at the ads coming from one Yvon Leduc, the director-general of the Ligue nationale d'improvisation (National Improvisation League), who argues that the Liberals have stolen the idea for the spots from him and some of his colleagues. I'm not sure if the story has made it into the English press yet but it certainly won't help matters. If anything, it'll give the BQ campaign more traction.

I admit that I'm not really finding the Liberal strategy in Québec to be terribly convincing. Calling it a de facto referendum doesn't seem to me at all to be a good idea, because it's very likely that the BQ will get more than 50% of the vote regardless of the fearmongering. Paul Wells writes well on the subject over here. This, coupled with Paul Martin's unappetizing theories on assymetrical federalism rub me completely the wrong way and leave me believing that the current Liberal team has no idea how to fight Québec separatism and is terrified, preferring instead to fire randomly in all directions until something works. How comforting. That being said, I don't really see anyone nationally (except perhaps Bernard Lord) who has the moral authority or intellectual capacity to make and lead a strong case for the future of Québec within Canada. One of my greatest fears is that Québec will separate from this country - I've told my Québecois friends here at school that countless times. It's so frustrating to see Canada's federalists floundering about with misguided tactics and stupid television ads that will likely lose more votes than they gain.

Oh well. C'est la vie, I suppose. If anyone finds a good federalist strategy for Québec, let me know.

Apparently, NDP Leader Jack Layton essentially called today for a halt to the deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, implying that Canada should perhaps withdraw from the mission altogether. Layton suggested that it was an initiative pressed forward by American President George W Bush, and that Canada shouldn't drift into a larger war. I'm not entirely sure what implications this will have for the campaign, but it seems that Layton is trying to make a bit of an Iraq parallel to Afghanistan in his remarks, and is perhaps reading off the same page as some American Democrats. I don't really see how this policy of his will help him make any gains for the NDP, though. It seems to me that Canadians are rather supportive of our presence in Afghanistan, and will continue to be unless casualties get exorbitantly high.

Beyond simply the campaign effects, though, I want to note how much I totally disagree with much of what Layton has said. He suggests that this is a war led by George Bush that Paul Martin is blindly and secretly leading Canadians into. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan mission has always been a multilateral one. At first, when the goal was to aid the Northern Alliance and topple the Taliban, the invasion had full UN backing and was endorsed by much of the world as a valid response to 9/11 - and rightly so. After the Taliban fell, the role of foreign troops turned to one of nationbuilding and security, ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a failed state and can make a smooth transition to democracy and a new government. That's why Canadian troops are there, and it's a valid mission that Jack Layton is foolish to undermine. Will there be casualties? Yes, likely - Defence Minister Bill Graham has argued as much for months. But neither that fact nor the fact that the role of Canada is expanding beyond Kandahar to perhaps the more important yet dangerous long-term role of provincial security is reason to get out and call for withdrawal. Canada is playing an important role in the stabilization of a state whose collapse would be catastrophic. Calling for our withdrawal from a multilateral effort by trying to link it to George Bush or claiming that it has been done secretly (also false) is ridiculous - as far as I'm concerned this is one reason why I don't want Jack Layton's hand on the foreign policy rudder. I hope that most Canadians think the same way.

Just finished reading an excellent book by economist Jeffrey Sachs called The End of Poverty - I'd recommend that just about anyone with an interest in political, economic or social justice issues should read it. I'll be honest and say point-blank that a big highlight for me was that it made a persuasive case for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) without resorting to too much economic jargon that I wouldn't understand. Essentially, Sachs argues that the MDGs are all within reach by 2015, and that furthermore, we have the opportunity to completely eliminate extreme poverty by 2025. That's a pretty ambitious and exciting goal, I think.

There've been many authors and activists and disappointingly-few politicians throughout the last few decades who have pressed for the need to increase foreign aid levels to developing countries (former Canadian PM Lester Pearson was the one who suggested the 0.7% target), but I think that Sachs' book is the most persuasive case so far. His background certainly helps - he's a classically-trained economist, with impeccable credentials at Harvard and Columbia, and he's had much experience advising nations around the world to the end of rebuilding economies. Several years ago, he was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to design a plan for the implementation of the MDGs. So I think that it's fair to say that in Jeffrey Sachs we have a man who should be taken very seriously.

Systematically, Sachs looks at his past experiences in economic advisory roles, and then turns his focus to the MDGs. He looks at the viability of implementing them, and concludes that not only can rich countries afford to increase their levels of foreign aid, not only will the money be used effectively (rather than be skimmed off by widespread corruption), but it is indeed in the best interests of the rich countries from a national security perspective. Not all aspects of his argument are entirely new, but he eloquently, carefully and clearly presents the material. His work is something that can be understood by many, even those without a background in economics or international finance or development, and that is perhaps its greatest value. In The End of Poverty, we read a persuasive case for ending global poverty from a world-renowned economic luminary. The MDGs are indeed within our grasp - and anyone who doubts that, as well as those who don't, should read Jeffrey Sachs' work.

UPDATE: For those of you who are interested, I'm now on to A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. And on another note, my blogging activity level will likely decrease exponentially from about 16 December to 9 January. During that time, I'll be at home eating good food, enjoying the snow and showing only a cursory interest in the campaign.

UNRELATED UPDATE: This isn't really worth a new post, but I was rather entertained by a phrase in a CTV story regarding the potential income trust leak investigation. According to someone who heard of the income trust decision in advance, "the specifics were vague." Hooray for vague specifics - could that quotation make any less sense?

In a move that's sure to have Jack Layton grinning widely today, the Muslim Canadian Congress endorsed the New Democrats in the upcoming election. While the MCC isn't the only organization representing Canada's Muslim communities, I think it's pretty telling to note that it has never before endorsed a political party. The Liberals have long been the party of choice for Canada's immigrants and minority populations, and while I don't think they've lost that support for good, they're perhaps not working as hard to earn it as some of the other parties. I'm not sure how much this'll hurt the Grits in the election - I don't know how prominent the MCC is in the Muslim community, but it's certainly a blow in terms of votes. It could, I suppose, be a watershed moment from which the LPC ceases to be the party of Canada's immigrants - or it could not. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting development.

As far as I'm concerned, though - and I know it's probably bad politics - political parties shouldn't aim to win over the Muslim, Indo-Canadian, Jewish, female, elderly, Chinese or whatever populations with specific policies and ideas. Enough already with the special interest groups and catering to every single minority and specific request/situation - let's look at the things that are common to all Canadians, and put together a national vision that includes everyone. It's possible, though certainly more challenging than putting together a myriad of different plans for a myriad of different ethnic or demographic groups. And it's better in the long-run.

Is it just me, or have the Conservatives been completely outperforming the Liberals so far this campaign when it comes to new ideas? So far from the Tories, we've heard of several key campaign planks that represent new thinking. As an opening salvo of the campaign, Stephen Harper suggested an independent Director of Public Prosecutions, to be responsible for all federal prosecutions, instead of the Attorney-General. Granted, the Tories then ran into a few problems with questions of encroachment on provincial jurisdiction and some communications issues between Harper and Peter MacKay - but the fact is that it's an idea that's pretty substantially different from recent thinking on the sponsorship mess. As MacKay pointed out, without drastically shifting federal reponsibilty on criminal matters, it wouldn't be able to touch folks involved in the sponsorship scandal, but it's probably not a bad idea, regardless.

After that, it was the pledge to reduce the GST to 5% from its current 7% rate. Arguably good politics but bad economics, this is a policy issue that can be debated at length by the leaders throughout the campaign. Against this new call, the Liberals are stuck to argue for the status quo (that is, more personal income-tax cuts) and to defend the tax that they so vehemently opposed in 1993. It provides some nice contradictory Paul Martin soundbites for the Tories to play with, as well.

Now, the Tories have begun to tackle health care, proposing a Patient Wait Times Guarantee, to ensure that patients can get access to health care in a medically-appropriate period of time. I'm not entirely sure of the feasability of this, but it's a policy idea designed to respond to the Supreme Court Chaoulli decision and, supposedly, to protect public health care yet innovate within it.

I'm not convinced that all of these ideas are necessarily the right way to go for the country, but (and this shows how low we've sunken) at least they're ideas. At least they're not a reaffirmation of the status quo. Even the NDP has suggested plans for helping the auto industry, though I'm spectacularly unconvinced of their efficacity. The Bloc proposed that Quebec hockey teams play on the international level. On the other hand, the Liberals have been reduced to explaining what they've done for the last 12 years, telling people how much money they've thrown at all of the problems and issuing "Fact Check" press releases slamming their opponents. I'm just disappointed in the Liberals, really - there's wonderful liberal ideas that exist, and great liberal thinkers to suggest them. But the current Liberal team seems to be bereft of both. The way this campaign has opened to date (and granted, there's still a good month-and-a-half left) only underscores my conviction that the LPC needs some time on the sidelines to sit back, reflect and come up with some new ideas. You can only govern for so long - sometimes you just need a break.

Regarding the impact this will have on the campaign - I suggested before that the party that ran the most positive campaign would likely see dividends at the polls. Apparently, though, Harper is running into problems in that his positive message is being drowned out by his negative image. It's too early yet to say how it will turn out, but it seems that a positive campaign isn't everything - though it should be. At any rate, it's good to see the Tories moving away from simply repeating Gomery rhetoric and starting to tell Canadians what they'd do with a mandate.

Incredibly enough, today's top headline on CNN.com has nothing to do with American domestic politics. It has nothing to do with the conflict in Iraq. Instead, it's a report on Malawi, a nation in Africa facing heavy famines and continuing to struggle with tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. It's about time that the mainstream news networks saw fit to put some of these critical stories about human existence and the extreme poverty in Africa and other developing nations on their front pages. This is certainly a step in the right direction, though I'm a bit cynical in that I doubt we'll see this kind of thing much more often. At any rate, here's the story, published front and centre on CNN - and rightfully so.

Koinange: Hospital scene like 'hell on earth'
African nation of Malawi battered by AIDS, drought
By Jeff Koinange

BLANTYRE, Malawi (CNN) -- Walking into the highly restricted tuberculosis ward of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Malawi's second city of Blantyre is a lesson in humility.

To enter, you need to fill out a lot of paperwork letting the hospital know that if anything happens to you, it is not liable. This takes a couple of hours.

Once you're cleared, you get a surgeon's mask and a guide and off you go.

Our team did this recently and entered a scene that's the closest thing we've seen to hell on earth.

In bed after bed, the dead and the dying lie side-by-side. Patients stricken by advanced tuberculosis brought on by AIDS cough uncontrollably while relatives try to comfort them.

The faces of the sick are thin, their eyes set deeply in their sockets. Their bones protrude to make them appear deformed. Many are too ill to talk. We are at a loss for words.

This is present-day Malawi, a landlocked central African nation nestled between Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique. The toll taken by TB is just one part of Malawi's multi-dimensional crisis.

This is one of the world's 10 poorest countries; life expectancy is a mere 37 years; two-thirds of the population live on less than a dollar a day; one in six adults is HIV positive, and nearly half the population of 12 million faces starvation in coming months if help doesn't arrive soon.

That's 5 million people, which is half the population of London or New York City.

Malawi is in deep trouble after a fourth straight season of failed rains, which made farmlands and fields bone dry. November was supposed to usher in the rainy season -- but the skies were a clear blue and no clouds are in sight.

The majority of Malawians are subsistence farmers - and they are crying out for help. In the south, once the agricultural heartland, people line up for hours under a scorching sun at food distribution centers run by international nongovernmental organizations. But here, too, rations are fast running out.

Supplies meant to last for four weeks now last half that time because of the growing number of people who need food. Aid workers show us empty warehouses, the result of what they say are empty promises by a donor community fatigued by cries for help from Africa.

They tell us this has been a particularly tough year -- the tsunami, earthquakes, drought, hunger, famine -- one pestilence after another, almost biblical, it seems. At the children's ward of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre, the beds are filled with the severely malnourished, half of whom are also HIV-positive.

Doctors tell us the hospital is usually the last resort for many desperate mothers. In a country steeped in myth and superstition, mothers would rather take their children to "local" doctors, a way of saying "witch doctors." When this fails, it's a desperate rush to the Queen Elizabeth, but in most cases that's much too late.