Hello There

Now that I've succeeded in reducing the amount of readers on this site to close to zero, I think I might try to start writing again.

What is there to write about? Like some others out there, I've seriously lost interest in Canadian politics. I still watch the news and even watch bits and pieces from the daily political shows, but there's something uninteresting about watching the current state of Canadian politics, and there's really no one to blame (well sort of no one to blame). If the party more closely associated with your views is in power, it can only really be interesting if they're reform minded and actually getting interesting things done (See Bobby Jindal in Louisiana) Because of the nature of a minority government and because of the ridiculous nature of the promises made by Stephen Harper in the last election (I'm referring specifically to the GST cut here), there just isn't much to get excited about. Canada was also, to be fair, relatively well-governed by the Liberals in a lot of respects and so wholesale change wasn't exactly seen to be urgent.

A lot of the reforms from the government seem fairly common-sense, including the immigration reform and the law and order stuff (it's finally illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old!), but I think there's just a general feeling that the Harper government hasn't been innovative enough on the domestic policy front, especially as it relates to taxes (how taxes could have been reduced by as much as they have been without any changes to marginal rates is beyond me - I don't care what anybody else says.) On the spending side, I think obviously, expenditures related to Afghanistan are wholly justified, although, once again, I think it's inescapable to note that the government should have gotten more out of the provinces in exchange for what it gave up in terms of increased transfers. Rhetoric on a more harmonious economic union sounds terrific, but what other bargaining chips does the government really have to force the provinces to produce results? There also hasn't been any progress on getting the provinces to set up better mechanisms for the recognition of foreign credentials. In fact, there hasn't been much progress with the provinces (as a whole - i.e. the Council of the Federation) on much of anything! What ever happened to working towards an HST? Any progress at all?

Stylistically, I think the government has been founding wanting as well. I think I may have defended it at the time, but when Stephen Harper accused the Liberal Party of opposing the renewal of the Anti-Terrorism Act because of some secret to deal to protect Navdeep Bains' father - I really think a new low was struck in Canadian politics. I find it far easier to see that now in hindsight. The irrationality combined with the simple ugliness of that charge really make it unique for me.

On the whole, I'd still give this government somewhere along the lines of a B-. I just hope that the Prime Minister recognizes that any legacy he hopes to achieve will only materialize with more big picture accomplishments. Competence, which Harper seems to possess, is only half the equation - governments have to be able to accomplish things that substantively and positively change the landscape of their countries if they are going to be looked back at fondly. In my opinion, Canada really hasn't had a lot of impressive governments over the past 50 years. A lot of Canadians look back fondly at a number of provincial governments, but I haven't seen this happen often for federal governments (except for the rare Trudeau-maniac). I think the current government still has the opportunity to go down as a historically good, but it's going to have to really change its overly cautious approach and on a number of files, engaging actively with the provincial governments is going to be unavoidable. That of course would be easier if idiots like Dalton McGuinty and Danny Williams didn't exist... but that's no excuse.

Why Bruce Allen is an idiot

Bruce Allen is not a racist. He might give comfort and misguided ideas to racists and xenophobic people and in doing so, he deeply poisons our social harmony, but he himself is not a racist.

He has, however, made extremely short-sighted and ignorant comments.

More than anything else, Allen's comments were deeply undemocratic. He said for immigrants to "shut up" if they had any problems with living in Canada. Allen's supporters regularly defend their support for him on the grounds of free speech. Why would they defend someone who tells people to shut up if they have concerns? How do you square your support for free speech with support for someone who tells Canadian citizens not to pursue their democratic rights if they don't correspond with his own values?

And what exactly else is Allen trying to say? That the law should never change? The status quo is perfect? The motorcycle helmet issue is another case of Allen's supporters being completely hypocritical and attempting to use any case to bolster their xenophobic fears. A lot of his supporters consider helmet laws and other such state interventions to be 'nanny-statism' and things that the government should not interfere with. But if it allows them to loudly express their misguided xenophobic fears, then there's no problem with helmet laws, right?

Allen's other points were even funnier. The passport pictures dealt with one rogue individual who was clearly acting in a way that made no rational sense. The children who were taking their pictures were easily recognizable and were in fact more recognizble since that's how they looked all the time. But no, Allen can't stand people standing up for their dignity and self-respect, since I guess only certain types of people are entitled to that.

On the name change issue, it's funny as well. He refers to an "immigration plan" to have Sikhs change their names before immigrating to Canada. What fiction! The ideas of a couple of bureaucrats in New Delhi to make their jobs a little easier hardly qualifies as some kind of centrally coordinated "immigration plan"! He made it seem as if the Government of Canada was taking a sophisticated approach to integration by forcing Sikh immigrants to choose new names. What a fool. If he looked into these issues even slightly, he would recognize that wasn't the case at all.

At the end of his rant, Allen talked about how we have laws in this country. Could he explain how the passport and immigration issue had anything to do with the law? They didn't. They were about rogue individuals who were treating Sikhs in an undignified way. There was nothing else to it. And the helmet issue... that IS the law now! There wasn't always a helmet law, then there was and now for Sikhs with turbans, there isn't. The law can change. Immigrants will continue to lobby changes to the law if it affects their personal dignity and there's nothing Bruce Allen can do about that. We're citizens too. We love Canada, our home, just like he does.

One last point. I've heard a few xenophobic types say recently "If you don't like it here, leave." The interesting thing with that comment is people like that aren't speaking for any kind of silent majority. The vast majority of Canadians find that sentiment apalling, no matter what you might be hearing in the media recently. Let's see if a mainstream Canadian political party went out there and said "If you don't like it here, leave." They would be decimated at the polls. They'd be reduced to fringe party status. So to those people who make that comment, why don't you leave instead? Your opinions are actually a lot less mainstream than those of us who feel that while we live in a liberal, secular nation where we have many things that unite us all, there is also room for the richness of diversity. The vast majority of Canadians view Canada as a beacon to the rest of the world, where we're welcoming of those that are willing to come here, contribute and feel as if they are a part of the Canadian fabric. No matter what anyone says in this debate, we should never lose sight of that reality. The xenophobes and the racist will never win this battle.

Baseless fear mongering by the CBC

I've never seen such a blatant attempt to plant fear and misinformation into the Canadian public than I saw tonight on the CBC.

I've never seen such a blatant abuse of journalistic power than Terry Milewski's piece on The National.

It doesn't take very much to slant a piece of journalism to suit the journalist's goals. When people give interviews, all you have to do is use them very selectively. Working as a journalist carries certain responsibilities, and the most basic tenet of journalism is to strive for fairness.

Terry Milewski's reporting on the Sikh community is anything but fair. It is malicious, it is divisive and it is a great shame that the CBC chooses to air his "reporting".

It doesn't take much to find a few nutjobs and air their opinions as the opinions of an entire community, and yet Milewski does this on an almost weekly basis, and the editors at the CBC seem to have no problem with it.

I've tried to come up with a rebuttal of Milewski's piece. Some of my rebuttal is based in clear fact and some of it is based on my observations of the Sikh community over the years.

- The most important starting point is that a violent movement for a Sikh state is virtually dead, in Punjab, in Canada and throughout the world. There still exists a number of Sikhs who wish to establish a Sikh state, but these people wish to do so through peaceful means.

- Tarek Fatah is someone who is deeply intolerant of anyone who doesn't buy into his rigid view of secularism. His view of secularism essentially calls for all religious people to cut their ties to their faith. He also seems to suggest that it is somehow beyond the pale to question the "unity" of India. How foolish. It's alright for Jewish Canadians to have nationalist sympathies with Israel and yet it isn't alright for other Canadians to have nationalist sympathies elsewhere as well? Are all national borders cut in stone? Are no nationalist movements worthy of sympathy? Does state-sponsored terrorism exist nowhere in this world? Most Sikh Canadians who are also Sikh nationalists are fully loyal to both Canada and to their aspirations for a Sikh state.

- This has been stated above, but Milewski makes a conscious decision to interview the most ignorant (and perhaps mentally imbalanced) people that he can find. He interviewed someone who said he spoke for a temple. That is a complete and utter lie. That person speaks for himself and nobody else.

- I can't state enough that there is very little appetite in any segment of the Sikh population that calls for any kind of violent behavior. I've never met a Sikh who wasn't horrified by the Air India tragedy. I've never met a Sikh who didn't realize that the Air India tragedy hurt the Sikh image immensely. Having said that, I have met Sikhs who aren't fully convinced that Sikhs were even behind the tragedy. Now I have my doubts about their theories, but unlike what Milewski kept trying to state as a fact, no Sikh was ever convicted of the Air India tragedy.

- Milewski's interviews of Dave Hayer and Ujjal Dosanjh were just laughable. Dave Hayer's dad distributed sweets outside of the main Sikh temple in Vancouver when Indira Gandhi was killed. Dave Hayer's dad called Jarnail Singh Bhindravale one of the greatest Sikhs ever. The point is that people change. Because someone expressed a view in 1984 doesn't mean that they still hold those views now, or even 10 years after 1984. What happened to Ujjal Dosanjh in 1985 was horrible and disgusting - but Dosanjh's inability (while perhaps somewhat understandable) to let go of a 20+ year old grudge clouds any objectivity that he might have.

- Milewski's attempt to isolate the Sikh community from any political power is as transparently obvious as it is malicious. Instead of perhaps offering some commentary that being integrated into Canadian society would be a good thing - Milewski's prescription is that isolating and shunning 100,000 Sikhs, 99% of whom do not favour any kind of violence for political ends, in India and especially in Canada, would be the best way forward.

- Milewski stated many many other falsehoods in his piece. For example, the WSO is a moderate Sikh group that expressly rejects any kind of violence. And yet he somehow portrayed them as some sort of violent extremist group. Milewski tried hard to portray as much as the Sikh population as possible as violent, raging, angry extremists. Why would he do this when it isn't so? Is it just because these sorts of lies get better ratings, or does Milewski have some other sort of deep seated dislike of Sikhs?

I was used for opposition research! (I think)

In a video recently put out by the Liberal Party of Canada on Youtube (a very silly video I might add), Dominic LeBlanc, an MP from the Maritimes makes reference to the government's ridiculous use of the phrase of a "safer, stronger and better" Canada. When pointing to evidence of the government's use of this phrase, the MP points to (among other things) a PMO press release.

The PMO press release used by the opposition was the same press release I linked to back in February, when I commented on the government's use of the slogan, and how the slogan was poor because of how packaged (and therefore focus-grouped) it sounded.

So yes... this could've just been a coincidence, but I doubt it... since there are approximately 70 PMO releases that contain that phrase, and out of all of them, they used the one I linked to!

Who knows... it still could've been a coincidence, since I almost never update this site anymore. (but it could've been found through google, where I'm on the first page of a likely search in case someone was doing research)

In any event, even though I didn't like the video itself (because of it's absolutely mindless anti-Bush theme), I don't mind being used for research that highlights the element of this government that I can't stand the most... even more than the lack of tax relief. Actually, that's not true... the lack of tax relief is what I can't stand the most. But yes, the pre-packaged/focus grouped nature of this government drives me absolutely insane.

An added note

In the post below, I quoted Steven Fletcher who talked about how Stephen Harper is making Canada "stronger, safer and better".

This is actually a common phrase coming out of the government these days. For example, it is included in this PMO press release. (It has to be said that I actually agree with the slogan on all three counts.)

Singing from the same song sheet is all fine and well when it comes to a united policy front and not going off script when it comes to contentious issues that could potentially hurt the party in terms of public opinion. Harper seems to have been determined to unite his party's messaging after the 2004 defeat, but it looks like they've just gone way too far in how they go about it.

While a united policy front is practical and looks disciplined, using the same catchphrases and slogans just comes across as cynical and artificial. Wouldn't Steven Fletcher have looked more genuine if he said something a bit more off the cuff? Like Stephen Harper is making Canada "safer, stronger and more prosperous" or whatever? (The use of better seems odd and comes across as a bit egotistical in how it overstates the Government of Canada's ability to immediately impact the nature of the entire country in a positive way)

Sorta disgusting

Was watching an announcement by Stephen Harper earlier today, where he was announcing funding for spinal cord research with Rick Hansen and Steven Fletcher. Fletcher is one of Harper's MPs who is paralyzed, and he seems like a likeable enough guy, but his introduction of Harper was more than a little over the top.

"Rick Hansen is one of my heroes, and I'm also blessed today to share the stage with another hero of mine. A man of extraordinary energy and determination, who has also surpassed expectations and defied preconceptions. A man of conviction who delivers on his committments and who is singleminded in his resolve to make Canada stronger, safer and better. A man who as leader of my party and as Prime Minister of Canada, is getting things done for all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper."

"is getting things done for all of us" - including the party's next campaign slogan in his introduction of Harper at a spinal cord funding event - WAY over the top!

And how do you go from hailing a genuine hero like Hansen to describing your political boss in even more glowing terms? It just seemed really... eastern-bloc/Soviet-like. I couldn't imagine Harper was comfortable with it at all. It's as if Harper's MPs buy into the whole idea of the leader-based party and what not more than Harper would even prefer. Or perhaps they simply need to go over that whole relationship a bit better in caucus. It's one thing to hail your leader as a man of integrity, someone who has a spine of steel, etc. etc., but it's quite another to behave as Fletcher did earlier today.

Now probably, Fletcher is angling for a post in the cabinet... and today's comments shouldn't disqualify him or anything, but they surely should not in anyway enhance his prospects.

Cabinet Report Card

The NDP put together a report card of Harper's cabinet, so I thought I might as well myself.

So... without further ado:

Rona Ambrose - Environment: Overall C. This was always going to be a tough file. And while Ambrose isn't objectionable in anyway otherwise, her handling of this file has been confusing and has not inspired confidence in anyway. On a number of occasions, it's seemed as if she's actually supported emmissions credits, but then she says she doesn't and it goes back and forth, on and on. When it seems as if the minister herself doesn't know what she believes in, it's difficult for this file to be successful. The C also comes from the fact that many people (myself included) have always sort of wanted to see more Thatcher-like figures in high-profile public positions: strong, unbending, stubborn women who inspire both respect and fear. None of the women in the Conservative ranks have any of those qualities.

John Baird - Treasury Board: Overall B-. His grade would be higher, but his attacks on the Liberals are just way too ridiculous to be taken seriously. This guy is over-the-top partisan when he's on TV. The Liberals were never really that corrupt. They had several fatal flaws, but corruption was never as deeply ingrained in the system as Baird suggests. I mean, c'mon, we live in Canada, not some third-world country.

Maxime Bernier - Industry: Overall A-. Generally impressive in his willingness to take on the CRTC and actually implement his stated preferences for free-market solutions in the marketplace.

Jean-Pierre Blackburn - Labour/Economic Development Quebec: Overall C+. It's difficult to give a high grade to the guy who's responsible for dishing out pork to the province of Quebec. Though otherwise he's been fairly steady as it has related to the anti-scab legislation.

Lawrence Cannon - Transport, etc.: Overall B-. Of course, his performance during the nation debate was embarrassing, but otherwise he's a fairly coherent spokesperson for the party in Quebec.

Michael Chong: Overall B+. Resigned on actual principle, gave up lots of money and a personal chaffeur. All of that merits credit, even if he didn't handle the situation perfectly.

Tony Clement - Health: Overall B. The wait-times guarantee was an impossible task, so he gets no marks off on that front. Otherwise, the reason he doesn't get an A is because he's absolutely not led in any way when it comes to innovation in the healthcare field.

Stockwell Day - Public Security: Overall A. I think I might be unique in feeling this way, but to me, Stockwell Day just exudes competence and leadership on his file. It's still a tragedy that he couldn't get into Foreign Affairs (somewhat rectified byHarper himself take more of a lead on that file), but Day just seems very prepared and knowledgable about his file. The Arar situation was a bit messy, and Day would've gotten an A+ if he didn't express his confidence in the commissioner so close to the commissioner's resignation.

David Emerson - Trade: Overall B. It's difficult to really see what's going on in this file, though I assume that since Emerson's days in government are numbered, he's likely working away quite eagerly on drafting trade agreements with a number of countries. The Softwood file didn't work out perfectly, but in the end, it turned out alright.

Diane Finley - Human Resources: Overall B-. Hard to really judge her, though her performances infront of the camera have been a bit weak.

Jim Flaherty - Finance: Overall A-. Has seemed fairly steady and generally seems to inspire confidence. The GST cut still drives me insane, but that wasn't his fault. And to the extent to which circumstances allow, he seems fairly committed to cutting taxes.

Michael Fortier - Public Works: Overall B-. No real comment to make... Apparently he wasn't exactly successful in revamping the government procurement system.

Loyola Hearn - Fisheries: Overall B. Has seemed fairly competent. Not very flashy at all, but he seems fairly passionate as was shown in the fight against Paul McCartney.

Gary Lunn - Resources: Overall B. I want to see more action from Lunn when it comes to allowing oil and gas drilling off the coast of BC. There's been a number of mixed signals sent on this front, but if Lunn somehow contributed to creating a more dynamic oil and gas industry in BC, that'd be excellent.

Peter MacKay - Foreign Affairs: Overall C+. Has been caught in a few embarrassing situations when he's made premature pronouncements on a number of files, but otherwise, he's been fairly decent when he's been out and about in the international arena. Still though, he just doesn't get it in the same way that a Stockwell Day would.

Rob Nicholson - House Leader: Overall B. The house has been run reasonably well, it would seem.

Gordon O'Connor - Defence: Overall B. He seems like he knows his file and that he knows the mission well, however, he's just not very effective when he's communicating. For example, on a couple of occassions, he's explicitly said that the opposition wasn't "supporting the troops" by talking about the mission as they were. That was O'Connor speaking personally as a soldier, as a general, when instead, he needed to realize that he was in a political situation as a MINISTER and political comments from other parliamentarians shouldn't be dismissed in such a way. It's true that the opposition isn't supporting the troops by calling for a withdrawal from a mission that the troops overwhelmingly endorse and wish to see out, but a politician shouldn't speak in such terms.

Bev Oda - Heritage: Overall C. Just doesn't seem very effective in the house. Doesn't seem to have the strongest grasp on her file either.

Jim Prentice - Indian Affairs: Overall B. Seems to personify managerial competence, but he's still not someone I could imagine in a leadership role, since he seems to lack that common touch and an ability to relate to the conservative base.

Carol Skelton - Revenue: Overall Incomplete. I have not really heard or seen this minister since the swearing in. Of course, it was difficult to not include her in cabinet given the fact that she's a woman.... From what I've seen of her, she seems like an incredibly nice and easy going person, but I can't imagine her being an effective minister. She appears to be a strong Harper loyalist, and so it's no surprise that she was chosen ahead of a few other women to become a minister.

Monte Solberg - Immigration: Overall B+. Everyone seems to like Monte Solberg, but he hasn't been visible enough in his new role. He needs to unveil significant reforms and seriously grab a hold of his file and signal that he's in control.

Chuck Strahl - Agriculture: Overall B+. Good stuff on liberalizing the wheat and barley market.

Greg Thompson - Veteran's Affairs: Overall B. Veteran's issues seem to be in pretty solid hands with Thompson. They've unveiled a few initiatives and otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any problems.

Vic Toews - Justice: Overall B-. Sometimes he seems to talk a bit too much. Being a law student, sometimes I feel like maybe I'm just being brainwashed to be suspicious of Toews, but... there is certainly something to be said about being cautious when reforming the justice system on some issues. However, on some other issues, the system is certainly broken and is in need of major revamping and Minister Toews seems to be providing leadership on those files.

Josee Verner - International Cooperation: Overall B-. Does her best to convey the humanitarian victories in Afghanistan, but hasn't ultimately been successful.

Nightmare!!!!

One of the most likely political scenarios in the spring is for the Liberals and Bloc to push for an election and for the NDP to help keep the Conservatives in power (due solely to soft NDP poll numbers).

I'm not even going to consider the policy ramifications of such a scenario (they're going to be bad), but let me just say that the idea of Garth Turner holding the balance of power in the house is truly terrifying. He'll once again milk the media spotlight he gets for all it's worth.