Canadian Polemic

I couldn't really be much more content with the results of yesterday's elections, to be honest. Yes, we have another minority Parliament, perhaps as divided (if not moreso) than its predecessor - but the makeup of the 308 individuals headed to Ottawa to form Canada's 39th Parliament could not be much better for Canada. Let's take a look.

So Paul Martin's Liberals were humbled, and rightfully so, though not crushed, which is important. They will make up a very strong Official Opposition with 103 seats. After spending 13 years in power, many of them without a rudder or exciting policy direction, the LPC now gets a chance to return to Opposition and begin the process of re-energizing. We've been scraping the bottom of the barrel recently, and let's be quite honest - it's time for a break. We now have an exciting leadership campaign shaping up, and Liberals need to ensure that it doesn't turn into a repeat of Martin's coronation in 2003 - that is, that someone like Frank McKenna doesn't end up winning 95% of the vote against one remaining, out-of-the-question candidate. We need a discussion about new ideas, about vision and about leadership. This is a perfect chance to reaffirm what Canadian Liberalism stands for.

Stephen Harper has finally won his election, albeit with a minority mandate. This is a great chance for him to bring some new ideas and perspective to how Canada is governed, and I look forward to some energy and excitement in Ottawa again. He's known for his ability to build consensus, and I hope that he can apply those skills both with regard to Canadian federalism and the business of the House of Commons. As I've said before, I will likely disagree with him on many issues, but I begin his mandate with a positive attitude. I wish him luck and success as he prepares to govern the country. Just keep in mind, Mr Harper, that you are leading a minority, and that this may well be a vote against the Liberals rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of your policies.

The Bloc Quebecois and its leader, Gilles Duceppe, were also humbled last night. Despite the talk of breaching the 50% threshold and wiping out the federalist seat count in the province, they lost three seats and a good 6 or 7 percent of the vote. I would just as soon see the BQ wiped off the Quebec electoral map myself, but this is a step. Another benefit of their drop in the polls is the fact that the CPC won some Quebec seats - a critical factor for the formation of a government. It would be a dangerous situation had the Tories been shut out from the province.

And finally, the Jack Layton's NDP is up by 10 seats or so, making them a more powerful voice in the House of Commons. This is also a good thing - they bring different priorities to the table, and though I would never want them governing, it's important to have their voice heard loud and clear. I was hoping for a second that Layton might be unseated by Liberal candidate Deborah Coyne, but you can't win 'em all. Layton should really lose the whole 'working families' thing - it drives me nuts.

So, all in all, a brilliant election result that I'm very happy with. For a variety of reasons, it appears that it will lead to a more vibrant Canada, and it is a demonstration of the health of Canadian democracy. Canadian voters have, as always, chosen wisely.

LIBDATE: A good piece here by Andrew Coyne on the possibilities these results hold for the Liberals. His thoughts line up pretty much with my own.

No, I'm not talking about Canada. The first results from Iraq's parliamentary elections were published today, giving the combined forces of the Shiites and the Kurds just under the 2/3 majority needed to form a government. They won a combined total of 181 of the legislature's 275 seats. This means that in order for a government to function, these two groups (both of which were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's regime) will have to collaborate with other elected groups, including the Sunnis, who were favoured under Hussein's regime.

Now, whether or not one agrees with the invasion of Iraq (I personally tend to think that the notion of dealing with Mr Hussein was dealt with very poorly), one must concede the value in the country's latest elections. Iraq's nascent democracy certainly isn't perfect, and it cannot be seen as an easy cure for the country's struggles, but I think it's valuable that the democratic experiment is well underway. It's good for people to be voting, it's good for all groups (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) to be represented together in the parliament. Hopefully, the new Iraqi coalition government includes the Sunnis and works as a national unity government - it seems to me that that may help and quiet the insurgency a little. Everyone should be involved in the nature's future, and a coalition government may be the best way to accomplish that. Different interests will be taken into account, and parties may moderate their positions slightly in order to make progress. A friend of mine who hails from Iraq doesn't have much faith in his country's new democracy - I hope that a successful minority government can prove him wrong, and that it doesn't descend into bickering, chaos and new elections. Cross your fingers.

GIVE-ME-A-BREAK-DATE: This is really not a front page story, if a story at all. Now this is a bit of media bias, methinks - shame on the Globe for printing it. Harper's been at it for 6 weeks - so what if he wants the last weekend to be a little quieter?

It's ironic, really. And quite hypocritical. Here we have Paul Martin accusing Stephen Harper of instantiating the Republican Party of Canada through his party's press releases, campaign rhetoric and TV ads - fine, fair enough. Not really a great line of argument, but fine. Now, (and this is the ironic part), he lowers the level of debate in this country by suggesting (without any evidence, mind you) that a Conservative government would stack the Supreme Court of Canada with right-wing ideologues. Doesn't that sound familiar? To the talking points of America's Democratic Party? Absolutely. Martin's argument that since there is a vacancy to be filled, Stephen Harper would use it to slant the court drastically to the right smacks of desperation to me. No evidence, and it's not like the Liberals haven't had their chance to fill a vacancy or two.

These kind of unsubstantiated arguments are pretty disgraceful, and only drag Paul Martin's legacy further through the gutter. And, I think, insult the intelligence of many Canadians. Paul - where are the new ideas and solutions for health care, the military, foreign policy, Canada's cities and crime? That's what Canadians want to hear from you, not this kind of rubbish. It boggles the mind as to why Martin's advisors can't see this.

DISAPPOINTED UPDATE: No, no, no - Stephen Harper has returned to his old Gomery rhetoric in the face of a dip in polling numbers. The positivity was working so well, and he should have spent the last few days of the campaign talking about ideas for the future, not Gomery. Unfortunate.

It hasn't really been a big campaign issue, that's for sure, but one of the biggest policy and leadership disappointments in Ottawa (for me at least) over the past few years has been Canadian foreign policy. Or the lack thereof, I suppose. Paul Martin's Liberals have for several years trumpeted their creation of a role of 'pride and influence in the world' for Canada, but haven't delivered. As a matter of fact, it goes back to Jean Chrétien, who spent way more time worrying about domestic issues than international ones. Despite what his supporters may say, refusing to do something (ie. the Iraq war) does not a foreign policy make. A foreign policy can't just be what we don't do. The question is, though, if any of the current leaders can offer anything better.

I should first note that for me, an ideal Canadian foreign policy would be one in which we do not hestitate to stand forward and be vocal about injustice when and where it happens. And further to that, we should be willing to put our money where our mouth is, and volunteer resources, soldiers, logistics or other support to ensure that we can follow through. Canada must act in a way that recognizes both our national interests and the world's human interests - two notions that are not always incompatible. Canada should lead a moral foreign policy - God knows the world needs it.

So has Paul Martin's foreign policy been a success? I would say, quite spectacularly, no. What was Mr Martin's guiding principle in terms of how Canada interacted with the world? Well, he ricocheted from not having any to having too many. His L-20 suggestion, a fundamentally-good idea, was mostly ignored. Despite Ottawa telling us how involved Canada is in Darfur, the violence in that country continues. Ottawa had trouble even standing up to Iran when one of our citizens, Zahra Kazemi was murdered. Canada refused to commit to a timeline for implementing the 0.7% target for foreign aid - a target originally set by Canadians! Some supporters will point to Canada's refusal to stay out of the U.S. missile defence programme and Mr Martin's supposed willingness to stand up to the United States. Again, a foreign policy is not solely what we do not do, and to judge it solely based on that is inappropriate. But also, Mr Martin has needlessly antagonized the United States - that's not standing up, that's just being stupid and trying to gain cheap political points. I fail to be impressed by Martin's foreign policy - though I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

Let's look at what the other parties are offering. Are any of them willing to commit to the moral foreign policy that (I think) Canada and the world both need and deserve? Well, the Liberal platform consists of a lot of repetition of what the Martin government has supposedly done, which isn't really much of a platform. And some of those observations aren't really anything to do with Mr Martin (the fact that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a Canadian, for example). New ideas include a ban on all space weapons and Pearson Scholarships for international and Canadian students to study multilateralism and international relations - both decent ideas, but not really smacking of much vision. And lacking the moral component, as well.

The Conservative plan is pretty darn vague - the Tories will "articulate Canada's core values [...] on the international stage." OK, great. They'll also advance our interests through foreign aid and let Parliament ratify treaties. Doesn't it already do that? At any rate, not much vision and even fewer concrete ideas for how Canada should act internationally. The New Democrat version is equally uninspiring, on the whole. Pledging to only commit Canadian troops to missions under international organizations seems to me to be rather closed-minded and inflexible, and cleaning up DND dumpsites isn't really foreign policy. Like the other two parties, some interesting ideas, but no coherent vision and no mention of the ethics needed in foreign policy.

It's fairly obvious to me that none of the current parties offer a coherent, viable or moral vision of Canadian foreign policy, which is unfortunate. I want to make it clear, though, that Canada has done good things internationally in the past few years - but we're not doing as much as we could, as well as we could. As a nation, we must formulate something along the lines mentioned above or risk having our influence in the world slip further and further away. Canada can play an important role, a moral and ethical role, but we're not on track to do so at any time in the near future with the leaders that we have. For more great reading on the subject, take a look at Jennifer Welsh's book, At Home in the World.

HAT-TIP: Kudos to The Blog Report over at the CBC for the attention yesterday.

GIMMICK ALERT: WestJet is giving away free flights anywhere in Canada on the day after the election to anyone with the same last name as one of the 5 federal leaders. Anyone willing to look at a quick name change for the sake of a free flight? Congrats to those lucky enough to get it without the bureaucratic rigmarole.

The situation in Toronto just seems to be getting worse and worse - I'm not speaking about Liberal fortunes, mind you, I'm talking about the spate of gun violence that has gripped the city for the past year or so. Once pretty much contained in certain corners of the city, namely up near Jane and Finch, it recently exploded into what is more or less downtown Toronto. I'm talking, of course, about the Boxing Day shooting near the Eaton Centre on Yonge Street. So much for keeping it contained. Since then, there's been more talk from municipal, provincial and federal officials about what to do about the mess, and it's obviously become an election issue, with (current) PM Paul Martin proposing a ban on handguns, among other proposals.

One thing to notice about most of the suggestions, however, is that they deal primarily with wanting to deal with the causes of crime, namely poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, etc. There's also this hesitation in Canadian circles to describe the Toronto violence in any kind of racial terms - it's blatantly discriminatory, some say, to say that this is perpetrated by mostly black gangs. And let's be honest, they continue, it's not their fault - it's ours for not offering them enough opportunities. This position is one that's really hard to argue against for fear of seeming insensitive or outright racist. But I think it's necessary that we consider the problem more completely and avoid simply falling into the chasm of political correctness on default - sometimes, it's more productive to call a spade a spade.

Check out this interview for starters. It's a Maclean's interview with William Bratton, the former police chief of New York City, now heading up L.A.'s police force. "By the time Bratton left the NYPD, murders in New York had fallen to 984 a year, from a high of 2,262 in 1990," the article writes. "During his first two years in Los Angeles, overall crime has dropped 13 per cent, homicides 20 per cent." Impressive, for sure. But how does he achieve these miracles? Not by adopting the same careful, political rhetoric surrounding the issue of crime that exists in Canada. Read some of what he has to say:

You need to talk about [the racial makeup of the gangs]. It's all part of the issue. If it's Jamaican gangs that are committing the crimes, well then, go after the Jamaican gangs. And don't be afraid to go after them because they're black. That's the last thing you need to be concerned with.

Blunt stuff - I bet you that if he said that in Canada, he'd be fired. Oh, wait - Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino was fired. Not sure why, but he did get on the wrong side of the Police Services Board over some similar comments on racial profiling. Here's some more from Bratton - how about this rather insightful point?

When you put too much emphasis on the idea of poverty being the cause of crime, you're as much as saying that just because you are poor or disadvantaged, you are going to resort to crime to get by. And that's a phenomenally racist and insensitive attitude. The vast majority of people who are poor do not resort to crime. A small percentage do. But he is correct that one of the influences on crime is poverty. If you make a city safer, you will create more jobs. In our case in Los Angeles, and in your case in Toronto, you'll create more tourists coming in, who will spend more money, create more jobs and create more tax revenue. But if the place is deemed to be unsafe, you are not going to have that economic benefit.

At any rate, I think we absolutely need to think twice about simply ascribing the crime problem in Toronto to lack of opportunity, as the NDP might. As Bratton points out, that's equally racist. That being said, a balance is needed between some community outreach work and some simple arrests. And if the gangs involved are predominantly black, then target those gangs. It shouldn't matter what colour they are - they're the ones committing the crimes. Finally, again paraphrasing Mr Bratton, it should all come down to individual responsibility - it's no one else's fault but the people who pull the triggers. It seems to me that that's how we should deal with things in Toronto and across the country, but more importantly, we need to feel comfortable talking about it and rethinking our current approach. Otherwise, we're just missing the real problem and things will likely get worse. When people's lives are at risk, perhaps we can put aside the political correctness for once?

IRRELEVANT UPDATE: I see today that Stephen Harper is on the cover of Maclean's - a close up of his eyes looking very shifty, and the headline? The Harper Agenda, which can be found here. Will this torpedo his campaign, as some speculate it did in 2004? Doubt it.

LIBDATE: You know a campaign is finished when you see an article like this.

I've discovered that I don't think I would be a very good partisan. Someday I'd like to run for public office, likely under the Liberal banner, but I don't think I'm very good at sticking to party dogma at all costs. This might end up to be problematic. I consider myself a Liberal deep down, but I have no problem with criticizing Liberal policies or statements, or applauding them, for that matter. The same goes for anything coming from the Tories or the NDP. Sometimes I go even further than simply criticism of the Liberals - this election, I've temporarily shifted allegiances in what I see to be the best interests of the country and the party. I hope that none of those who know me disown me because of this, but I cast my ballot last week, and I voted for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. This isn't a fundamental shift in how I see the country - Liberal principles of equality, justice, strong social programmes with responsible fiscal management and a strong central government continue to resound strongly with me. But I'm convinced that a Liberal vote from me isn't the best way to achieve that.

Now, I know what the first response to this will be - trying to convince me that Harper would create a Canada that none of us would recognize (to paraphrase Paul Martin). He would allow rampant two-tier health care - in fact, he would privatize all of our public services. He would essentially turn Canada into the international lapdog of the United States. He would roll back same-sex marriage. He refuses to defend a woman's right to choose. He would eat our children and cute animals like rabbits and puppies. He doesn't love Canada, for goodness' sakes! Now, some of this is true and valid, and some of it is not - I leave you to decide for yourself which is which. The criticisms that are made of Harper along similar lines as above often border on the ad hominem and really do nothing to raise the level of debate. I admit readily that I disagree with some of Harper's policy planks (such as trying some 14-year olds as adults! Gah!), and if he becomes our Prime Minister, I'll likely disagree with lots of what he does. But this brings me to my next point.

Why, some of you are asking, in God's name are you voting for the man if you disagree with him on these policy issues? Well, in all honesty, there's plenty I disagree with policy-wise from each of the leaders, so it's difficult to plant myself firmly in one camp in that regard. For me, it came down to more long-term questions.

Are current Liberal policies towards Quebec viable in the long-term? The question would be easier to answer if there were some coherent ones. Despite Paul Martin's attempts to portray him as Captain Canada as it were, the only man capable of beating back separatism and achieving national unity, his actions haven't much impressed me. And the notion of a 'OUI' referendum win terrifies me to death. I'm not at all a fan of assymetrical federalism - I don't think it's a good idea at all to be signing side deals with each province all the time instead of looking at things from a national perspective. Are there different needs in different provinces? Yes, and everyone should be treated equally in that they get what they need - but I think there should be much more of a focus on national agreements and partnerships than special deals with each province. It just rubs me the wrong way. And it's starting to grate to hear Paul Martin floundering around in Quebec as the Bloc continues to surge. I don't know how best to deal with Quebec, I admit - but surely we can do better than the current Liberal tack in the province. Yes, you point out, but Stephen Harper will be worse. Maybe. But I think we've got to give it a shot and let someone new try. If he can't cut it? Well, that brings me to my next point.

Do we really want more than 13 years of government by one party? The Liberals have been in power since 1993, and they've done a decent job. The slaying of the deficit was impressive and important, and we can now concentrate on new spending priorities. (Note: to those of you who blame Martin for putting the bulk of the weight on the provinces, I'd like to hear your alternative way of getting rid of the massive deficit. It ain't easy.) But 13 years is a long time in office. You start to get tired, you scrape the bottom of the barrel, and yes, let's be honest, some of your members start to feel that sense of entitlement that Harper goes on about. You run out of steam and ideas - that's not good for the country. That's where we are right now, I think. The Martin government has been rather rudderless - but the end of Chretien's last mandate was pretty rudderless, too. It's time for the party to have a bit of a time-out, to examine things from the Opposition benches and to eat some humble pie. The LPC needs to find a new leader with bold new ideas for the country and preferably a vision that the party and the country can really get excited about. We're not going to get that if the Liberals stay in government for any longer.

You know, I'm probably going to disagree with some of what Stephen Harper does. I hope he doesn't screw up the Constitution or Quebec too much, because that would just be disappointing. But you know, it's a chance I'm willing to take. Because the final question is this:

Can my Liberal philosophy be best achieved by another Liberal win? And the answer is no. My Canada is one that includes a strong Quebec and in which all provinces feel respected. It's one with strong social programmes. It's one that leads a principled role on the international stage. And I'm just not convinced that another Liberal win is the best way to achieve that Canada. We need a break to get some new ideas and energy that will resound with other Liberals and with all Canadians. If we need a Conservative government, however temporarily to give us the chance to re-energize so that I can get the Canada I want, I'm willing to take that risk.

VINDICATED UPDATE: Canada's national newspaper tends to agree with me, for the record.

Well, I'm back to some slightly less sporadic blogging after a reasonably restful Christmas break back in Ontario. The weather didn't co-operate with me and there wasn't really any snow while I was home, but that's OK - if I can take months at a time of grey and rain out here in BC, I can take it back in the Centre of the Universe, too. See on the side, there? That's the snow that I didn't get this Christmas. Looks like plenty of interesting things have happened politically since I retreated from the blogosphere, too. I won't bother commenting too heavily on it all because it's likely been commented on to death, but suffice it to say that I'm not terribly surprised or disappointed in the latest Tory surge. But I'll get more into that later. Did my civic duty, too, and cast my first ballot. Huzzah - not a terribly enthusing election in which to do it, but what can you do?

I read a fantastic book over the holidays called The Trouble with Islam Today, by Irshad Manji - absolutely should be a required read for anyone interested in understanding our world. I don't think it was as relevant to me as it might have been if I was, say, a Muslim, but it was still interesting. Written as an open letter to Manji's fellow Muslims, the book challenges what she sees as mainstream, modern day Islam's rejection of independent thought. It asks good questions about the role of women in Islamic society, the power of the Arabic influence within Islam and the apparent lack of approval for independent interpretation of the Quran. She particularly takes up the cause for ijtihad, the tradition of independent thinking within Islam that ended at the end of that civilization's Golden Age, and begins looking at ways to revive it. It's engaging to read, and it's undoubtedly bold - Manji has received countless death threats due to her writings. My one concern is that she paints Christianity and Judaism as much more open to independent thought - I can't speak for Judaism, but my experience with Christianity suggests to me that that's not always the case. There are certain quarters of Christianity that are still pretty resistant to anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. At any rate, our world is shaped in many ways by the power of religion, and this book asks some fundamental questions about one of the largest faiths in the world. Her website has lots of interesting reading on it, as well.

Well, I'm off to watch the exciting leader's debate - expectations are pretty low for me for all of the leaders. Is it really that difficult to have a debate instead of either a shouting match or a series of prepared statements read to the camera? Here's to more of the rather boring, banal pablum we've come to expect from our leaders.

UPDATE: Excellent news - Israel has decided to let Palestinians in East Jerusalem vote in the upcoming elections. Hopefully we'll see more of this kind of direction from Kadima, despite having lost Ariel Sharon.