Stephen, If This Is It, Please Let Me Know

Dear Stephen,

It seems we need to talk.  Our relationship just isn’t what it used to be, and now that you’ve decided that we need a break for a few weeks, I think it’s time that we re-evaluate just where we think we’re headed.

I remember when we first met.  From what everybody said, you just seemed perfect, ooh, he’s soooo wonky.  Sure, you didn’t have the usual charisma that we’ve all come to expect, but that’s really overrated.  I was looking for someone of substance, and you were supposed to be it.  From that initial courtship, everything seemed good.  I knew that it would be an up hill climb, and that all the chattering classes would be predicting our failure, but I had faith in us.  Even if no one else saw in you what I saw, it didn’t matter.  You seemed like a keeper.

The initial flair of a relationship never lasts.  No one is the perfect vessel we believe them to be upon first meeting – one in whom we can pour all of our dreams and expectations.  Dreams linger and fade, and life interrupts honeymoons.  Through such stresses, all we need is to find someone who will still, in essence, be the person we always thought they were; be the person we always needed, even when blinded by desire.

We certainly had our share of ups, but we also had a few downs.  The downs seemed to mount, and grow, and envelop that initial flame.  I may have had some harsh words, but I was mature and confident enough to know that no relationship can be perfect.  There is no Suzanne Somers for my Patrick Duffy, but I didn’t care.  Waking up from a dream or nightmare, I still believed you were the right choice for me.

But I don’t know why you had to go after my friends.  I don’t know why you were so worried about what they might say.  I already knew you weren’t perfect, and I wasn’t expecting perfection; I was expecting the intestinal fortitude, the confidence, I was led to believe you had.  Unfortunately, your jealousy seems to have gotten the better of you.  Insecurity does wear well, Stephen, even on you.  I don’t know if I will be able to remain true to you, if you do not remain true to all the principles I thought we shared.

So here we are, the dark days of January.  Ottawa has been cold; Ottawa has been grey; Ottawa has been quiet.  I know you will return, but I know it won’t be as soon as you’d promised.  You say you need some time.  You need to get composed, take care of some housekeeping issues, and then come back fresh after the Olympics, ready take on everything anew.

I hope you get some rest, Stephen.  I hope you have the chance to reflect on the past few years we’ve spent together.  They’ve meant a lot.

I’m not a child.  I know that people grow.  I know that people’s priorities change.  I’m sad to think that yours have changed so much… or maybe it’s just that I never quite knew you to begin with… no, I don’t think that can be it.  I was prepared for some disappointment, but not this much.  You broke my heart, Stephen, you most cynical of pols.

We’ll talk when you return.

Farewell,

Jonathan

The Olympics, Prorogue and the Moral Vacuity of the Conservative Party

Well, the rumours aren’t true… well, at least the part about them being rumours are no longer true.

Parliament will not resume on January 25.  It will resume in March.  On March 3rd, we’ll have a speech from the throne.  On March 4, we’ll have the joy of a budget presentation.  There is a lot of conjecture as to why Parliament will be prorogued for two months, from the trite (MPs want to go to the Olympics) to the strategic (Mr. Harper wants to send some more Tories to the senate) to the abhorrent (the Conservative Party wants the whole Afghan detainee scandal to go away).  No matter the reason, it is cynical and distasteful.

If it is all about the Olympics – whether the desire to attend or the desire to avoid a tough session of Question Period during the Olympics – the Conservatives are children playing in an adult world.  Suspending a democratic legislature for the sake of international spectacle is not what a mature nation does, not when there are important issues to deal with.

If they are doing this to stack the senate, well, then they are who we thought they were: Politicians, of the same ilk as any other cynical politician, be it Jean Chretien, Belinda Stronach or Brian Mulroney.  In such a case, they deserve not only our scorn and ridicule, but also a little – just a little – of our pity.

But I’m not an idiot.  These issues may play into the political calculations (rarely would a government act without considering a variety of implications), but there is little doubt that they are trying to make the populace forget that this government is an accomplice to torture.  The Conservative Party has attempted to thwart investigations into the question of the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan for months.  More and more evidence is appearing implicating various members of our government of, at the very least, unacceptable ignorance of torture.  As this story has grown and evolved, the government has acted all the more guilty, all the more complicit.  Where we once might have accepted a mea culpa, we must now only accept a scalp.  Sadly, not since Brian Mulroney was burned in electoral effigy, via the repulsion of Kim Campbell, has the Canadian electorate taken serious their duty to repudiate a governing party so greatly steeped in political transgression.  It is my worry that when responsible government returns in March and, later, when our current government is forced to stand before voters, the voters will shrug.

Writing at what is, generally, a fairly conservative web site, I fully expect vitriolic responses from Conservatives.  Once, reading about Levi Strauss, I witnessed him described as a conservative, in that what he wanted to conserve is liberal democracy.  It is those conservatives to whom I write.

(As always, you should be reading Scott H. Payne for insight on these matters.)

Michael Ignatieff is Right About Pay Equity

Below, Richard notes a couple of new initiatives by the Liberal Party, including their intention to recognize pay equity as a human right.

Here’s the thing, they are, partially, correct.

A quick caveat, I am, generally, not a fan of the way pay equity is wielded.  A concept that was born to address discriminatory behaviour against vulnerable segments of the population has become a weapon used to engineer wealth redistribution surreptitiously.  It’s dishonest, and it’s an abuse of the legislative process.

A second caveat, I am on record as being against the expansion of ‘human rights’.  I hold a narrow definition, and I do not think pay equity (even the good kind) falls into it.  Further, I am offended by the Human Rights industry in Canada.

So, let’s assume, arguendo, that we’re talking about an acceptable form of pay equity, and by ‘human right’ we mean some good legislation that the government enforces through an appropriate process.  (I know this is open for debate, but these topics are being debated thoroughly on Richard’s post; I want to talk about something more narrow.)  With these assumptions, Michael Ignatieff is right.

From the article in The Toronto Star:

To that end, he [Michael Ignatieff] introduced Wednesday a private member’s bill aimed at reversing a controversial measure in the 2009 federal budget.

The budget essentially reclassified pay equity as a labour issue to be negotiated in collective agreements, stripping the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its authority to adjudicate pay equity complaints.

Anyone see the same problem with the Conservative’s re-classification that I do?  The Conservative’s measure has put pay equity in the hands of unions.  If we assume that pay equity (however defined) is worthwhile, it has no place as a bargaining chip in a contract negotiation; a union should not have the right ditch it on behalf of its membership and those who will eventually join the union.

You could almost argue that Stephen Harper’s government is acting as a shill for Big Labour.

(By the way, I’m not suggesting that any unions would do away with pay equity in order to secure a better dental plan; I’m just saying we shouldn’t even give them the option.)

Now, I can envision a convincing counter-argument that pay equity isn’t a good thing as it is currently enacted, and that its enforcement shouldn’t be delegated to Human Rights Commissions.  These may be solid points, but they do not justify the action taken by the Conservative government.  Just as it is wrong to use pay equity to enact wealth re-distribution, it is wrong to use procedural measures as a salvo against the nature of pay equity and the use of Human Rights Commissions.  It seems especially egregious to do it through the budget.  If the government wishes to take on pay equity or Human Rights Commissions, they should do so head on.  Crafting duplicitous legislation is unbecoming of a democratic government.

I still don’t trust Michael Ignatieff with the task of crafting appropriate pay equity legislation, but I don’t really trust Stephen Harper with it either.

Jim Prentice Not Swayed by ‘Climategate’

National Post is reporting that the Conservative government is not changing its opinion on the science behind climate change, despite the recent CRU email scandal:

OTTAWA – The Harper government said controversy surrounding hacked e-mails of climate scientists doesn’t change its concern about global warming or its position heading into a major international summit this month in Copenhagen.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice said it was unfortunate that a prominent scientist was forced to resign because of revelations in the e-mails, but the government still believes the science is clear that human activity is causing climate change.

Take this for what it’s worth.  We all know that the words and deeds of politicians do not always coincide.  However, I’m cautiously thinking this is a good thing.  As Mark noted the other day, skepticism is healthy.  If the government is going to be a blind follower of conventional wisdom, that’s not good.  However, I don’t recall Stephen Harper ever sounding like Elizabeth May, so I’m guessing the Conservatives will never actually be leading the fight against climate change.

(Yeah, I hate the ‘-gate’ nomenclature for political scandals, but whatcha gonna do?)

(H/T: @stageleft.)

Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says

Well, the news is here.  After the Conservatives failed to keep Richard Colvin silent or ignored, we learn that Canada may have sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.  Mr. Colvin, a diploma with Foreign Affairs, described a pattern of misbehaviour among Canadian officials in Afghanistan that facilitated torture.

Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.

The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.

So, who do we believe?  The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”

Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.

My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished.  Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity.  Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin.  The government’s argument is weak and implausible.  It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured.  Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.

Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices.  If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.

It is imperative that any investigation be public.  Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.

Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?

Martha Hall Findlay: “Not Left. Not Right. Moving Forward.”

Meet the Players

The Eighth in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

“Not Left. Not Right. Moving Forward.” That is the slogan that greets all visitors to Martha Hall Findlay’s website. It’s easy to write off that greeting as mere political rhetoric, empty words, or, as we say in my native French, la langue de bois.

They may indeed be empty words when spoken by most politicians but they aren’t when spoken by Hall Findlay. (Or at least I would like to think they aren’t!)

Proof positive is the text of the interview that follows below. Hall Findlay, as you will read, appears genuinely interested both in inviting and engaging in constructive dialogue. Whether ideas trace their origin to the left or to the right does not seem to matter to her as much as whether those ideas can lead to better solutions to enduring problems.

Why can’t we have more people like her in Parliament?

There is much to find compelling about Hall Findlay. A quick look through her life’s work will show you why. Championship skier, distinguished graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall, attorney at a high-powered international law firm here, corporate executive there, 2006 Liberal leadership contender, and now Member of Parliament for Willowdale—all while raising three children, aged 24, 26, and 28. To describe all of that as impressive might be the understatement of the year.

What impresses me most about Hall Findlay, though, is a certain quality she possesses, one that eludes most people in her current line of work: authenticity.

Some are eloquent, some have great organizational skill, others have born leadership ability, many are smart, most are ambitious, and all have worked indefatigably to win their seat in the House of Commons.

But few exhibit authenticity.

Whether Hall Findlay is authentically authentic, or whether it is a carefully developed and deliberately managed strategy developed over her years of successfully navigating vast and competitive social structures, I cannot say for sure. But I sure hope she is authentically authentic because I’m convinced that she is.

But you can decide for yourself in this eighth installment of our continuing Meet the Players series.

One quick word about the mechanics of the interview: Hall Findlay received my questions by email on September 12, 2009—just as speculation about a Fall election reached its apex. But I did not receive her answers until a few days ago. To be fair, September and October were busy times for Liberal MPs, so I hope you will forgive her delay, as I have.

You will see that it has been well worth the wait.

Richard Albert (RA): So, Martha, what’s your latest take on whether Canadians are heading to the polls this Fall? I’m skeptical. So much so, in fact, that I’ve issued an open invitation to my readers: I’ll give 30-1 odds against an election taking place this Fall. (And while I got you on the line, you’re a lawyer, right? Perhaps you can tell me whether the famous Carbolic Smoke Ball case applies to my open bet. I hope not!)

Martha Hall Findlay (MHF): Wow, it sure shows how long it’s taken me to answer your questions, when the first one is about whether we’ll have an election this Fall. My feeling badly about taking so long is reinforced by the fact that it now already feels like winter outside. The good news is that we’ve come so far this Fall without an election.  Did anyone take you up on your 30-1 bet against one happening? You’re looking more prescient every day…  As for whether the Carbolic Smoke Ball case would apply (even though it was 25 years ago when I first studied it, I remember it fondly)—you didn’t put any money on the line. No consideration, not a valid contract. A no-risk proposition, one might say, other than reputational damage if you turned out to be way wrong. Good news for all, it looks like you might be right.

RA: Your predecessor in Willowdale, Liberal MP Jim Peterson, held your seat in Parliament since 1980 (with one term of interrupted service as a result of the conservative sweep of 1984). Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, Peterson achieved over 50 percent of the vote in every federal election since 1988, including the last election he contested in 2006.

In 2008, which was your first general election following Peterson’s resignation, you earned less—a little less, but still less—than 50 percent. Any idea why Peterson’s supporters did not all move to you?

MHF: Jim Peterson indeed did very well in almost all of his campaigns in Willowdale.  An almost continuous run of 27 years. (We don’t talk much about 84-88, or his first run in 1979 which he lost.)  You are correct that in the General Election I managed just under 50%.  I will note that in the by-election in March, 2008, when I was first elected, I managed just shy of 60% of the vote.  In the general election of 2008, the same thing happened in Willowdale as happened all across the country—the Conservative Party vote in fact went down; the NDP vote went down.  The problem was that a lot of Liberals stayed home, and the Liberal vote went down even further.  We look forward to getting those wonderful Willowdalean liberal voters back out the next time—just not anytime soon.

RA: You recently said that the next election will be “fought on attitudes.” Interesting. What did you mean by that?

MHF: Attitudes—Ken Dryden put it best when he described the Harper government as “pinched”.  It’s the perfect word. “Let’s see what little we can do. Let’s give as much up to the provinces. Let’s see how far back we can pull from our Canadian participation on the international stage.” It’s pinched. I find it all rather grumpy. I just don’t believe that Stephen Harper has much optimism about Canada—I get the impression that he’d be just as happy if we were one of the United States of America. I don’t. I see Canada as a place, and as a group of people, with immense potential to do so much, both at home and abroad. Glass half full v. glass half empty. I am definitely a glass half full person. I feel a personal responsibility to start a de-grumpification process. (Yes, that’s my own word, but it’s pretty good, no?)

RA: Bottom line, though, Martha. Why is your leader better for Canada than the current prime minister, Stephen Harper?

MHF: Michael Ignatieff is better than Stephen Harper for a number of reasons, but first and foremost relates to my last answer.  Michael is hugely optimistic about Canada and Canadians—what we are, what we have been able to accomplish, what we can do going forward, what we can become—leaders once again in the combination of economic prosperity, but prosperity with a purpose—a social justice purpose.

RA: My very first guest in this interview series was Warren Kinsella, the master Liberal strategist who is apparently slated to run your Party’s war room in the next election. I asked him whether he thought the Liberal Party was doing enough to be more inclusive to, and encouraging of, female candidates. To his credit, he said no and expressed his wish that your Party do more. Surely you agree, as I do. But can you articulate for our readers precisely why it is so important to have more women in Parliament?

MHF: We do need more women in government. At the federal level, we make up only 21% of MPs. Compare that with the fact that we women make up 52% of the population as a whole (yes, that’s a majority!).  As such, we are the ‘consumers’, or ‘recipients’, if you will—the majority of those affected by—legislation. My answer is therefore simple: women make up more than half of those affected by legislation, therefore more than half of the people around the table when that legislation is put forward, debated, and passed, should be women.

RA: Does it bother you at all that you are always asked for your thoughts on how to bring more women into politics? It seems to be everyone’s go-to question for you. Kind of like what I am doing now.

MHF: It used to bother me a bit. As a lawyer and businessperson, with a considerable focus in past lives on international relations and international trade and business, I used to respond with, “Can we please talk about economics, finance or foreign affairs?” But particularly after the 2006 Leadership campaign, I recognized that I am seen as representing a minority that shouldn’t be one, and I do feel a responsibility to work to effect that kind of change. I also realize that an awful lot of women, young and old, are really interested in getting involved, but don’t really know how—and more importantly don’t know just how accessible political involvement is. I really enjoy encouraging more women to run, by sharing my experiences, giving advice, occasionally being a shoulder, etc…  I rebel at the label “a woman in politics”—I am “a politician”.  But (based on the last time I checked ) I AM also a woman, who happens to be in politics, so therefore have a role and a responsibility that I enjoy taking on.

RA: It is admittedly still a little early, in my view, to assess people and events from the 1990s. We need more distance. Nonetheless, how do you think history will remember Kim Campbell, Canada’s first and only (until you become Liberal leader, perhaps?) female prime minister? Has she been treated fairly since her departure from Canadian politics?

MHF: Kim Campbell will be recognized, rightly and importantly, as the first female Canadian Prime Minister. She faced a huge challenge insofar as the federal Conservative Party itself was facing a huge challenge from the Reform Party at the time—and the story of what happened in the election in which she, and the Conservative Party, suffered so much, was in my view much less a story about her (despite much of what was said and written) but rather much more about the success of the Reform Party. As such, I do not think she was treated fairly, nor do I feel she was treated fairly by her own party as the situation became so clearly challenging. The fall, at the time, of the Conservative Party was by no means the fault of Kim Campbell alone, yet she bore, unfairly, much of the blame. Remember that she was, before that, an extremely highly respected Minister of Justice and was highly regarded for her performance in other roles.

RA: So, on another topic, where is your Big Red Bus? It is still fueled up somewhere, ready to go next time around?

MHF: The Big Red Bus did its job well, and has been granted appropriate retirement—at least from me. The MHF wrapping was removed, and my “home” for many months was sold. I hope that the new owners are enjoying travelling across this fabulous country as much as I did!

RA: Let’s transition to a couple of lighter questions as we prepare for the super-fun lightning round. If you could have any superpower, what it would be? And why?

MHF: Any “superpower”? Is  “wisdom” a superpower? I think it should be, although it doesn’t exactly make for exciting comic book material. No matter—I choose “wisdom”.  I dare you to come up with an exciting costume for that one.

RA: (A costume for Captain Wisdom? I bet some people would think a mask that looks like this would be just right. Others, though, might think this is more like it. My own personal choice, though, would be this.)

Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have ever met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at Pourquoi Pas?, one of the finest restaurants in your riding? Why?

MHF: Having been to Pourquoi Pas? a few times already, I would certainly love to go back with any of my favourite people. As for three living Canadians whom I’ve not yet met … Hmmmm … That’s a challenge because I’ve been so fortunate to have met so many interesting Canadians with whom I’d love to have longer conversations. So I’m going to break your rule, and list three I’d love to have longer conversations with, whether I’ve met them or not.

Alice Munro, because I love her work. Her stories suggest that she’s had many experiences that resonate with my own personal experiences, and it would be fascinating to hear more about them.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, because he occupies an incredibly influential position that, ironically, prevents him from doing too much—I’d like to know what he really thinks.

Preston Manning, because although he and I disagree on many policy issues, I am a big fan of his trying to make change that he honestly felt would benefit Canada and Canadians—I’d like to learn from his experiences.

RA: Ok, Martha. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

MHF: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

MHF: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

MHF: PC (although kudos to MAC for great marketing).

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

MHF: Oh, good heavens—it has to taste great! Our team actually has to work to make sure I eat enough. “Less filling” is not an issue for me.  (Example: I never drink “light” beer—that’s for girls.).

RA: Favourite band?

MHF: I’m listening to Dave Matthews’ Band as I’m writing this, but that’s just because they were next in my iTunes library list. There are so many great bands… so instead of “favourite”, I’ll plug the newest addition to my collection, a great young duo from Toronto called Dala. Great harmonies and some really good songs.

RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?

MHF: Sid the Kid. (Sorry, Wayne.) I mean, that Tim Horton’s ad where he gets off the bus and joins the kids on the outdoor rink? How can you not love the guy?

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Statics? (Do you care either way?)

MHF: I bristle at the concept of “Great Men”, but only because it ignores all of the great women who either influenced history and events themselves, or hugely influenced the men who ended up as “great” in their influence of history and events. That being said, I agree with Carlyle’s theory. I believe in the power of individuals to make change. If, as Spencer suggests, those individuals become who they are because of other factors, so be it—it is the individuals who ultimately go through those doors, take those chances, take those risks, make those decisions.

RA: Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake?

MHF: Not having met Blake and despite political challenges, my great respect for Stéphane Dion’s honesty, integrity, vision and passion for Canada remains strong and undiminished.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

MHF: There is no one Canadian who can be called “greatest”. That does a massive disservice to all of the many, many Canadians, some unsung heroes, who have contributed so much to this country and its people. Sorry, I know that’s avoiding the easy answer, but that’s how I really feel. When you think of it, maybe that’s quintessentially Canadian—we’re not big on singling out individuals, but really proud of what we can do collectively.

RA: Two more questions, Martha. Greatest prime minister?

MHF: I have a three-way tie.

Pierre Trudeau, mostly because of how he inspired Canadians and made us all feel so hopeful about what we could, individually and collectively, accomplish, both here and abroad, but also, of course, because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lester Pearson, for the obvious peacekeeping initiatives and how he established such respect for Canada abroad, but also because under his watch we established health care, CPP, the flag—no small feats.

And Louis St. Laurent, for quietly accomplishing a great deal for this country, but doing so in a way that was always conscious and respectful of the English and French duality of Canada, and his insistence on conducting politics with respect and civility.

RA: And greatest politician never (or never yet) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot say the current Liberal leader, nor can you choose Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake.)

MHF: I can’t speculate on the future, and you’ve limited my options. I also assume you mean Canadian politicians (as opposed to others from other countries) who have not become Prime Minister. My Liberal friends may not be happy, but out of Canadian history, I would say Robert Stanfield. He was respected by a great many people, of all political stripes. That says a lot.

RA: It does indeed say a lot. Not only about Bob Stanfield. But about you. That you would say such nice things about a Tory like Stanfield and also about a movement conservative like Preston Manning is out of the ordinary for a Liberal politician, at least in the current political climate enveloping Parliament. I hope some of your grace rubs off on your colleagues—of all parties.

Thank you for participating in our Meet the Players series, Martha, and for sharing a bit about yourself and your views with our readers. We’re grateful. Continued best wishes to you.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
• Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009
• Elizabeth May, November 1, 2009

One Life the Gun Registry Couldn’t Save…

…it’s own.

MPs voted by a clear margin Wednesday to repeal the federal long-gun registry, signalling for the first time since the program was adopted 14 years ago that it is headed for the scrap heap, despite police assertions that it saves lives.A private member’s bill, sponsored by Conservative backbencher Candice Hoeppner, had the backing of all the Tories, from Prime Minister Stephen Harper down, and enough opposition MPs to clear its first major hurdle of winning support in principle.

The bill passed by a surprising 164-137, winning more supporters than expected as 12 New Democrats, eight Liberals and one Independent cast their votes with the government.

The Gun Registry has been a supreme waste of tax money.  That alone should be sufficient to kill it off (even if it has taken 14 years).  This is pretty much a no brainer for conservatives and libertarians.  What’s great to see is a number of MPs from left wing parties supporting it also.

The thing is (and conservatives and most libertarians will admit to this), sometimes it is necessary for the government to do things.  Sometimes, they have to spend our money.  It is for this reason that progressives, liberals and big government conservatives (and anyone else who supports lots of government intrusion in our lives) should be especially horrified by the Gun Registry.  It has become such a punch line – such an emblem of wasteful, useless government – that it damages the credibility of the government.  By extension, it hurts our democracy.

The Greenest of Jobs: Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Meet the Players

In 1980, a newcomer to the game of politics set out to challenge the powerful, to force those in government to take notice of matters relating to the environment.  In the election of that year, Elizabeth May ran for Parliament in the riding of Cape Breton Highlands – Canso.

She earned 272 votes, and it would be 26 years before she would again seek office.

In the meantime, Ms. May – a writer, lawyer and activist – held numerous positions within the environmental movement.  She was a founder of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and was the founding Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. She was even a Senior Policy Advisor in the Mulroney government.

In 2006, she again became an active politician, securing the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. That fall, she ran in the by-election in London North Centre, finishing second with 26% of the vote. Next, she took on Peter MacKay, a senior cabinet minister, in the 2008 election. Again she was the runner-up, this time garnering 32% of the vote.

Come the next federal election, Ms. May will be the Green Party candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Being both friendly and tenacious, Ms. May has the political chops to be a threat to Gary Lunn, Minister of State (Sport) in the current Harper government.

Jonathan McLeod (JM):  I would just like to congratulate you on the nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Elizabeth May (EM):  Thank you, although it was really not in doubt.  It was only because of the strong support I had in this area that we made the decision as a party that I should move here.  I’m a strong believer in living in any community in which you are running for office, other than a bi-election, of course.  To make the decision to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands I’d already moved, was living here, so it was something of a surprise that a Green Party member who doesn’t live in the area would decide he wanted to contest the nomination. But you know, fair enough, it does demonstrate that the Greens are very grassroots and that there is no top down decision making, even in the case of the leader’s riding.

JM:  Well that’s fantastic.  And it is great that you are actually going to be a representative there rather than just a carpet-bagger.

EM:  Exactly, and it’s a very exciting move for me.  You’re younger, but try to imagine being a 55 year old single woman whose daughter has just gone off to university.  It’s kind of a good plan to move to a new place.  It’s very encouraging.

JM:  Alright, so to begin with my questions:  why did you, and why should anyone select the Green Party? Would your talents not be better used within a larger, more established party with similar philosophical underpinnings, like the NDP or the Liberal party?

EM:  Well if those other parties had similar philosophical underpinnings, that would be possible.  My life in what you might call politics – small-p politics –  has been  one where I’ve been asked numerous times, because of being well known in the environmental movement.  I’ve been flattered to be asked numerous times by various NDP leaders, by the liberal party and even by the Progressive Conservatives, in their day, to be a candidate federally for parliament and often offered something that was supposed to be a safe riding or as a “star candidate”.  They’re very good at dazzling you with these types of offers, and whenever it came right down to it, as much as I could see my way clear to working with and liking lots of people in those parties -working with and finding acceptable some of their policies – when it really came down to it, I couldn’t accept these really nice offers for an easy route to Parliament.

So, if I wanted an easy route to Parliament, I wouldn’t have decided that the right thing to do was run for leadership of the Green Party of Canada.  What I’ve been desperately concerned about, and more as I’ve gotten older, is to watch the deterioration of civility in Parliament; the abandonment of principles at a moments notice by all the parties in Ottawa right now, with the weird  exception, I must say,  of the Bloc Quebecois, which has stuck to its guns on climate as an issue in ways that the other parties haven’t.  But of what relevance is that when you’re a party that wants to see Quebec sovereign and doesn’t care about the rest of the country?  So it’s a very strange political climate right now, and my conclusion at the end of the 2005/2006 election was that none of the existing parties could be relied upon to raise issues consistently.

And injecting respectful discourse and ideas whose time had come – ideas with the power of history behind them – that was not going to come unless there was a new kind of politics and a different voice.  So that’s why.  I actually think that your question is also flattering, that I have talents and skills that might be used anywhere.  The truth of the matter is if I were elected in any of the other parties, I would be squashed by the top down political partisanship system that requires of members of parliament to do what the leader tells you to do.  And that would be a situation in which I would be entirely unhappy and likely would resign the first time it happened.  So I think I’m better staying with a party whose philosophy I completely embrace and where, as leader, I know that when I have a caucus in the House of Commons, I won’t be squashing anyone – just as we didn’t squash Mr. Hertzog’s attempt to run against me for the nomination.  We respect people who come forward and have a view, even if it’s not the official party view.  If we have a vote in the House of Commons and we have a caucus of Greens and a member says ‘look my constituents, the people who sent me here, simply will not tolerate it if I vote the party line on this.’  Well, that’s something you have to respect because that’s how democracy should work; that’s how the parliamentary system should work. So I think I would be utterly miserable in any other party.

JM:  Well that’s a good reason not to join them.  I’ve found dealing with a lot of these politically involved people that they are getting tired of the partisanship.

EM:  Yes, it’s gotten to the level that it actually is corrosive to the functioning of democracy and to the health of government.  So, our constitution calls for Peace, Order and Good Government, and we’ve got… well thank goodness we’ve got some peace, but we’re also apparently at war in Afghanistan; and we have order but it’s of a stultifying Nixon-era like order; and we have absolutely putrid government, so this is not good and something needs to fix this.  And I think that the presence of Greens in the house will be a tonic to the whole system and to other MPs who feel the way I do, who would like to say, ‘yes let’s form a non-partisan caucus on climate; let’s form a non-partisan caucus to address issues of poverty or what we do about immigration – how we should respond to refugees on our shores.’  These are issues that really matter, and there are bright engaged committed people in all the other parties, but they can’t break out of this partisan straightjacket which really is the enemy of democracy.  We have to face it and reduce the power of organized political parties, because five of them can run rough shod during an election, but once their MPs have formed government, that political party structure should back off and let MPs work together to come up with the best possible solutions.

JM:  Now moving on to the political game, if you will, I read that in 1980 you ran for the Small Party.

EM:  Yes, I started it.  It is worth noting that I started it not because I want credit, but I paid dearly for it, because it was the days before internet and to find twelve candidates to run in six provinces, we tried to get a candidate in every province… anyway, to make a long story short, at the end of the campaign, I had this horrific telephone bill for long distance calls which prompted me to sell my car to pay my phone bill.  Which made a very good decision in changing my life and I didn’t end up owning a car between 1980 and 2007, so that was a good outcome of starting the small party.

JM:  But in the race you were against Allan MacEachen who was a very decorated politician.

EM:  Yes, he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

JM:  And I think he held other cabinet posts throughout his career.  It must have been a real learning experience.

EM:  Well it was great.  One of the things that was a surprise for me was – and I really admired Allan MacEachen for lots of reasons: the fact that the agenda for decent social programs in those days; he made a real difference in terms of pensions, and unemployment insurance schemes, and all kinds of things that improved, the health care system, which came in during the era of his time in parliament – there was a lot to admire about him, but he didn’t have any notion that environment mattered, and the Trudeau government was busy building up the nuclear enterprise in Canada, and we wanted to make sure those were issues.  So the big surprise for me was that there were no all candidates meetings.  There wasn’t a single all candidates meeting.  So I never did get to debate him on any issues, and he wouldn’t go into any communities in the riding unless they’d raised a minimum amount of money for the liberal party.  But where I did know that I affected him was that I spoke in a lot of schools, and high school teachers would tell me that when McEachen would come, if all the questions were on environment and nuclear, he’d say to them, somewhat testily, ‘was Elizabeth here already?’  It was the only time he got any hard questions.

But we’ve remained friends over the years.  And I didn’t expect to win; the point was to raise issues and change the tenor of the election campaign.

JM:  Speaking of important issues, and poverty being a big one these days, going through the Green Party’s web site, I noticed that your party supports going towards a Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Yes.

JM:  Now some of our readers might be interested to know that this is a position that was also supported by the noted University of Chicago economist, Milton Friedman.

EM:  Was it?

JM:  Yes, he supported doing it more through a progressive income tax system, but he supported some sort of Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Well, I don’t think that Milton Friedman’s approach looks anything like ours.  The person we quote in our policy document is Martin Luther King.  Milton Friedman’s approach is so antithetical to Green Party values that even if he supported what we wanted and were alive to say so, I would reject his support.  A more relevant example is Senator Hugh Segal, who is a Conservative, but comes from the last – well I don’t think he’s part of Harper’s circle – part of that caucus who actually represents something of a Red Tory.  But his view and my view aren’t that far different, and the party did a lot of policy research on it.  We actually called it a Guaranteed Liveable Income, because it’s very important that the amount people receive is actually something on which you could live, but which would impel you to want to live better so that you could actually earn more money on top of your Guaranteed Liveable Income cheque; there wouldn’t be a clawback.  We could eliminate all of the shame-based poverty programs, whether we’re talking about disability payments, welfare or EI… or even minimal pension programs – all could be replaced with this one simple plan, administered through the tax system.  There are a lot of savings to be accrued through it, but I’d have to go back and look to see what Milton Friedman’s approach was, because, given his vision of an economy, this can’t be the same program.

JM:  It is often surprising where viewpoints overlap for people at different points on the political spectrum, and why it is worthwhile not to just get caught up in your own partisan circle.  That being said, if you were to form the government next time, what three people outside of the Green Party would you seek for guidance?

EM:  Can I just say, first of all that I’m not delusional, and that we’re not going to form government at the end of the next election.  Where we will be useful, immediately at the end of the next election because I will be a member of parliament and I hope other Greens will be there with me, is that we can advance ideas and advance a co-operative approach to solutions immediately.  I see the Greens in a political evolution as being about where Tommy Douglas was at the point that Canada embraced universal health care.  He didn’t wait to become Prime Minister to bring about an idea that was critically needed and for which all Canadians are deeply grateful.

That said, what three people outside of the party would I consult regularly?  That is a very interesting question.  Peter Victor comes to mind, because I think his most recent book – he’s a professor of economics in Toronto – Steady State Economy by Disaster or Design is an extremely useful guide to how one could re-invent an economy in such a way that it both was more resilient and not as prone to bubbles that burst as the wildly speculative financial markets that got us into the current recession.  So I think Peter Victor would be someone.  I do consult him now, as it is.

Another person I consult now actually is Jim McNeil.  You may not know his name but Jim McNeill is one of Canada’s leading international diplomats.  He is retired.  He worked with Tommy Douglas, actually.  He worked with the Saskatchewan government, and was one of the national figures in the CCF in his day.  He then went to Ottawa and became a deputy minister.  He then led a number of U.N. summits, including the Habitat Conference in Vancouver, and then went to the OECD and ended up being the Secretary-General to the Commission on Environment and Development.  Jim McNeil is actually the author of the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future.  I find on almost every issue that we end up discussing together, he has the most clear eyed, realistic assessment of where we are on the planet and what needs to be done.  And he doesn’t get fooled by political rhetoric, so he’s been a really important political advisor for me.

And the third person, if that covers economy and sustainability, I think Gro Harlem Brundtland, actually.  I’d like to talk to another woman who’s been Prime Minister, who brought in a carbon tax, who made it work, who was head of the World Health Organization so could advise me on health issues, and who I know will answer my call.  So that would be it.  If I could get advice from the former Prime Minister of Norway and from Jim McNeil and from Peter Victor, I’d be getting really good advice.

JM:  That’d be a pretty strong team to have helping you out.  Do you have a couple more minutes for what we call our lightning round?

EM:  Oh sure.

JM:  BlackBerry or iPhone?

EM:  Blackberry.  Canadian technology, please.

JM:  Facebook or Myspace?  Or Twitter?

EM:  Facebook, and Twitter, I do both.

JM:  Mac of PC?

EM:  Oh, here’s the ideological rift.  I’m a PC person and I try not to fight with my Mac friends.

JM:  Less filling or tastes great?

EM:  Tastes great.

JM:  Favourite band?

EM:  It’s still The Beatles.

JM:  The Great One or Sid the Kid?

EM:  Sid the Kid, I mean I’m from Nova Scotia.

JM:  But you’re out west now…

EM:  Yeah, but I’m not in Edmonton, so I don’t have to abandon Sidney Crosbey.

JM:  But you might have to go with Roberto Luongo, now.

EM:  I really like Steve Nash.  Different sport, but way impressive, and impressive politically.

JM:  Really, I’m not actually aware of his political views.

EM:  Well he wore an anti-Iraq War t-shirt in a workout with his team, I think in Houston TX, a few years back.  And I thought, “now I’m proud; I’m proud of that young Canadian lad.”  I don’t know anything about him except that he’s the Most Valuable Player.  I think you’re the Most Valuable Player when you’re willing to put yourself out in any way out there like that in Texas.  I can’t remember what the slogan was, but it was pretty explicit and he wore it in front of media at a workout in Texas.

And he’s from Victoria.

JM:  Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Forces or do you care either way?

EM:  I don’t believe in either.  It’s not The Great Man theory and it’s not social forces.  It’s a combination of both and it’s a large dose of serendipity.  Often it’s people who aren’t the so-called Great Man who happened to be in the right place at the right time.  I think the fact that both of those theories come from men might explain the fact that they missed the effects of networks, serendipity.

I’m more in the school of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point theory, that is a bit of both.  I’m much more of that school of thought of what makes change.

JM:  Who is the real Captain Canada: Steve Yzerman or David Suzuki?

EM:  David Suzuki

JM:  Who’s the greatest Canadian?

EM:  Tommy Douglas.

JM:  And who’s the greatest Prime Minister?

EM:  Tommy Douglas, though we never had him.  I’m going to go with Sir John A. Macdonald, for what he did, for what he pulled off.  He came from a coalition.  It was the great coalition and to pull together a country and make all the regional divisions work and to have the vision of a national train – which we need again; we need high speed rail coast to coast.  The mediocrity of recent leadership; the failure to see any bold vision for the country makes me kind of nostalgic for Sir John A. Macdonald.

That, and that he was a leader who ran in Victoria for a seat when he couldn’t win at home.

JM:  Well, yes, that’s definitely a good thing.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
• Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009

Should Parliament Repeal the Faint Hope Clause?

There is a debate going on at The Mark inspired by the Conservative government’s desire to do away with the Faint Hope clause (which allows for a chance at a parole hearing after 15 years for those sentenced to life imprisonment).  I can’t believe I’m going to type this, but I’ve got to side with Pierre Trudeau over Stephen Harper on this one (it was Trudeau’s government that initially brought in the Faint Hope clause).

Despite my inclinations, the debate at The Mark is clearly won by Bob Tarantino, who is arguing for the clause’s repeal.  Simon Fraser’s Neil Boyd does a wretched job making a cased for the Faint Hope clause.  His opening statement focuses not on the subject at hand, but on drug laws and minimum sentences for drug offenders.  I’m in agreement that our drug laws are confused and ridiculous, but that doesn’t really have a lot to do (specifically) with the Faint Hope clause (which tends to apply to murderers).  Mr. Boyd’s rebuttal is minimally more persuasive.

Mr. Tarantino, however, puts together a strong argument against the Faint Hope clause.  Nonetheless, he manages to steal a base:

Bizarrely, he then states that “such legislation certainly wouldn’t enhance the safety of the men and women who work in Canada’s prisons.” This is an implicit admission that the very people the faint hope clause releases into the community are dangerous, even to prison staff. If the people who are being released under the faint hope clause are such a threat to the safety of prison workers, then why is Boyd so intent on making sure these same people have the chance of being released? Won’t they be that much more of a threat to people outside prison? In a perfect distillation of the inversion of rational thought which governs so much of our criminal justice system, the criminals that Boyd thinks are too dangerous to keep in prison are the same ones he thinks should be allowed to apply for release.

Considering the obvious intelligence of Mr. Tarantino, I must assume that this paragraph is intended to score points against Mr. Boyd’s article rather than actually address the argument that the Faint Hope clause makes Canadian prisons safer (hopefully not just for guards, but for inmates, as well).  Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose.  Regardless of what crimes they commit while incarcerated, they cannot be executed; all that can happen to them is that they are doomed to a similar fate to the one they were already facing.  The argument is that the Faint Hope clause is the very thing that fosters rehabilitation and leads to fewer attacks against prison workers.  It is a point that can be rebutted, but it is a point that Mr. Tarantino does not address.

There may never be a prisoner deserving of parole gained through the Faint Hope clause; there may be no rehabilitating this type of criminal (though I’d suggest there is), but hope is perhaps the one thing we can afford these people.  Whether they deserve it or not, we should give it to them.

As an aside, in his preface to the debate, the editor of The Mark notes that the issue comes down to the question of whether the primary purpose of the justice system is to protect or to punish.  I tackle that here.

The Conservatives Deserve to Pay For This… a Little

Apparently, some MPs, when they’re handing out government cheques to fund projects in their riding, like to give all credit to the party and none to the country:

Caught red-handed, the Conservatives have hurriedly disavowed an MP who splashed the party’s logo on mock cheques dispensing government funds to a local riding.

But the MPs are free to doctor the cheques in other ways, the government insists.

The misadventure lends credence to opposition concerns that the Conservatives are using stimulus funds and other government spending for partisan purposes, having campaigned against exactly those shenanigans.

This isn’t a huge deal.  It’s mostly just politics as usual… except people like Gerald Keddy didn’t have enough shame or good sense to try to hide it.  I’m not trying to excuse the behaviour; it’s pretty awful and Canadians should be disgusted.  No government should use the public’s money for such blatant partisan purposes.  However, kept in perspective, this scandal, in and of itself, is not sufficient to rightfully doom the Harper government.

Still, if there is any justice, Gerald Keddy’s political career should be nearing an end.

(H/T: Richard.)

« Previous Page — Next Page »