Laura Steiner's Blog
Posted by Laura Steiner
This past week, two of the most unlikely words were uttered in the same sentence: Torture and Canada. A top diplomat Richard Colvin, currently serving at the Canadian embassy in Washington testified before a House of Common's Committee. He used those words, alleging Canadian troops continued to hand over prisoners to Afghan authorities despite reports they were being tortured in prison.
The federal government of course is discrediting the guy, by saying Colvin's story has holes, and painting him as a liar. To throw a question back at them: Why would somebody risk his enitre career by accusing his own government of covering up torture? He has nothing to gain, and potentially everything to lose with potential jail time for contempt of parliament.
That's why I'm siding with the opposition on this one. Canada has enjoyed an unparlalelled reputation for being a champion of human rights. Canadians have written the UN declaration of Human Rights, and we've served on War Crimes Tribunals. Canadians are known as the ones who ask the hard questions, the ones who uncover these types of scandals. It would be a black mark against us, and our international reputation if it's uncovered the Canadian government is complicit in torture. For that reason alone, at the very least these allegations should be take seriously. The public deserves to know if their government is committing war crimes.
Top government officials: Defence Minister Peter MacKay, his predecessor Gordon O'Connor, and even the Prime Minister himself are being implicated in this matter. Why not have an inquiry and clear these gentlemen? If proven true these allegations have the potential to harm the credibility of the Prime Minister's Office, not to mention the possibility of war crimes charges.
Have the public inquiry, prove yourselves innocent. And give the country back its good name.
For more information please see:
Posted by Laura Steiner
Rumours have surfaced in Ontario the McGuinty government is planning to introduce legislation to implement HST a little earlier than planned. Some media reports say legislation will be introduced as early as this week to make the controversial tax policy law.
The opposition has banded together announcing they plan to use every parliamentary tool at their disposal to stop this from happening. Now, the HST isn't too popular in the Liberal party itself and see if you've got enough numbers including Liberal MPP's to defeat them, and go for a non-confidence motion. This one's a financial bill, and if it is voted down the government will fall. Yes, I'm well aware the Liberals have a majority government, and this is a gamble that has little chance of success. But if there's anything worth taking that gamble it's this.
I hate the idea of the HST. I think it will setback any economic recovery in this province at least a year, perhaps more. With the new HST, essentially prices are raised on most items 13%. Making people pay 13% more on virtually everything, while a lot of us are looking for jobs is unforgiveable. It's time to start a revolution. It's time we talked about it everyday, and did everything in our power whether it's something as simple as writing a letter to physically protesting on the lawn of Queen's Park to get this thing stopped. We have to do this for Ontario's own good. And when the next provincial election comes around we remember this, and every other broken promise and scandal.
Let's show the McGuinty Liberals we're not as apathetic as we appear. Let's add our voices to the opposition and yell about this, loudly and often until somebody hears. Let's start a revolution, and show we care.
For more information see:
Posted by Laura Steiner
I honestly don't know where to start with this one. $24.7 billion?! The number is shocking. I can understand running a deficit now- the entire world is running a deficit. I grant that they had to bail out the car companies, (around $11 billion there) put extra money into education, and retraining for the unemployed.
So where did the rest come from? Logic dictates there has to have been some mismanagement going on... oh wait there was. $1 billion wasted on eHealth- $75 million on Cancer Care Ontario, and those are just the scandals we know about. And it seems McGuinty has no real plan to help fight it. Or rather he's unwilling to rush it. It does take time to come up with a solid plan that's easily doable. Allow me Mr. Premier, on behalf of the pissed off Ontario voters to offer my suggestions:
1. Premier& Cabinet Pay and perks cut: This might be only a symbolic gesture, but every little bit counts. If you get into cutting out some of the perks, you'll start saving.
2. Public Service Raise adjustment: Ask all Public service unions (including teaching uinons) to take a cut on their raise in exchange for a longer contract. For example say a union signed an agreement for a 6% raise over three years, working out to 2%/ year. Ask them to shave a half percentage point off, in exchange for an extra year added to the agreement. The government gets labour peace, and a little extra money, while the unions still get their raises in the end.
3. Consultants: Cut them all out. Most of what consultants tell you, is what common sense should say. Do the work yourself!! You may find you'll learn something.
4. Rollback or stop the tax harmonization: The thinking is, tax harmonization will raise revenues. And it will in the short-term. But in the longer term people will realize they're paying more tax, and tax on items they didn't before. It'll cause people to stop spending money and set this so-called economic recovery back, maybe even lengthening the recession.
5. Rollback or stop the Implementation of all-day kindergarten: This is the kind of thing, that should be done only if it's done right. It will work I think, only if you've got fully qualified teachers teaching. At a price tag of approximately $1 billion over five years we have to ask ourselves: do we really have that kind of cash with a $24.7 billion deficit hanging over our heads?? The answer should be no.
Whatever happens, healthcare should be left alone. With all this debt hanging over our heads, we at least need that. These are suggestions Mr. Premier, a starting point. Now it's time to get a plan.
For more info see:
Posted by Laura Steiner
The auditor-general's report is out. And the wastefulness was worse than I thought. It was worse than most of us thought. $1 billion of taxpayer's money was wasted on this thing- and to be honest that boggles my mind. I just imagine how many nurses could be hired for that (a McGuinty promise left unfulfilled so far), or what cures could be researched for that amount of money, or what badly needed equipment could be bought. How many hospital beds could you re-open for $1 billion? How many people could get badly needed treatment for $1 billion... I could go on, but you get the point. $1 billion is much better spent.
And what were these people thinking?? $2700 flights from their homes in Alberta. What are they doing working for the Ontario government- did they just feel like commuting.... sheesh. And being paid to watch television, and discuss it on the subway in Toronto- what a joke!!! All the while, the rest of us work hard, and pay our taxes... if we're lucky enough to have a job. These people are just so out-of-touch with reality. How can they possibly think it is remotely okay to spend taxpayer dollars like that? With no respect for the sweat and hard work that went into earning them? It's absolutely disgusting.
Well, I for one say it's not okay. As of today, I am demanding better. I am demanding my government respect my tax dollars; respect the hard-work it takes to earn them. I vow to remember all the broken promises of Dalton McGuinty a year from now, and when the time finally comes I will mark my "X" beside a party other than Liberal.
Yes, I know such corruption exists despite the governing party. The fact the Auditor'General's report goes back futher than the McGuinty years is proof of that. But we my fellow Ontarians must stand up, and demand better of our elected officials. We must vote out the McGuinty Liberals, and then if or when whomever succeeds them is caught in a similar scandal we'll vote them out too. It's the only way they'll get the point. Because we deserve better- and now is the time to demand it. Who's with me??
For more information see:
Ontario Health Minister David Caplan Resigns
Posted by Laura Steiner
Last week was a landmark week for Canada in the international community. First at the United Nations, our delegation including Lawrence Cannon walked out on Iranian President Ahmadinejad as he began his speech. Second, came the announcement that Canada would host the G8, and G20 summits in Muskoka next June.
Taken as separate occurences, not a big deal. Canada walks out on a contrversial leader on one hand, and gets picked to host two summits so what? But let's look at what it means for the country when you put them together.
To this point, Canada has been considered a 'middle power' on the world stage, better known for its friends in Britain and the United States, than for being a power in its own right. In recent years the country has begun carving out its own niche. In Afghanistan, Canadian troops took on a major combat role, and in 2003 Prime Minister Jean Chretién broke with two traditional allies in the British and Americans by refusing to enter Iraq. Since Prime Minister Harper took powe in 2006, Canada has taken clear positions against Iran, and supporting Israel.
Walking out on Ahmadinejad is the strongest gesture you can make on an international stage such as the United Nations. That Canada led, instead of followed shows the country is taking a principled stand for human rights, and democracy. It also fits with the country's foreign policy on Iran, one the country has taken every chance to express. I'm proud of those actions taken by the foreign minister because it's so rare Canada ever leads anything.
Hosting the two summits is a big deal. The economic downturn has hit many of the world's richest economies hard. Canada is lucky; we've got a strong banking system that has weathered the recent problems well, and has the country in a stronger position than many others. The G8 will make its last hurrah in its current format under the summit co-chaired by Canada and South Korea.
Hot on its heels will be a G20 summit. At the recent summit in Pittsburgh, the G20 was designated as a premier economic forum. The first summit next June in Canada means the country's leaders will have the ability to craft the agenda. Potentially, the world's future economic policy could be determined largely by Canadian minds.
So put these two things together and you get a country that is taking a principled stand on foreign policy issues. And one that could eventually turn the country into something more than its current middle-power status.
For more information please see:
Posted by Laura Steiner
An election has been stopped, the Conservatives look likely govern likely until next spring. They are supported for now at least by the socialists (NDP), and the separatists (BQ); proving the old adage politics does make strange bedfellows.
But it takes the wind out of Conservative attack ads doesn't it? They were all set to hit voters over the head with the fear of a Liberal-led coalition supported by the so-called "socialists and separatists" and now here they stand supported by the same two parties they so loathe. But voters have to ask themselves: how long will this last? How long will the left-leaning NDP be able to support the right-leaning conservatives? How long until Stephen Harper introduces policy so completely reprehensible the other two parties will refuse to support it?
The answer: Apparently not very long. For about a day, we had peace. For one day it looked like we were going to have a government that would actually govern. It turns out, that we may have been jumping the gun. The Liberals have announced they're seeking a deal to quickly pass the EI legislation, in order to take the alibi away from the NDP. Ignatieff gets to look a little statesman-like; responsible because he's sticking up for the unemployed. But it also looks like his various attempts to cause an election are nothing but a naked power grab. His party should be jumping for joy there's no election; they're losing big time in the polls- the latest one giving a 5 point lead to Harper's Conservatives in Ontario, and they're fairly unpopular in Quebec as well.
And as for the NDP, it is quite possible Jack Layton had a moment of clarity. Maybe he woke up one morning, and in glaringly obvious moment realized that his far left NDP was putting itself in knots supporting the right-leaning Conservatives. Maybe he realized his party is alienating their core base of support, and now he wants an out. That could be part of what Ignatieff's doing; helping his fellow opposition leader out of a jam.
It's a shame if I'm right. Because, like many other Canadians I find much to my own disbelief and horror that for once, I agree with Jack Layton. He's right, Parliament needs to work, and it has to work. Because there are more practical ways to spend $300 million, because the Canadian economy is in recovery mode. And if there's anything investors dislike more, it's political instability. So, why can't Michael Ignatieff see that?
For more information on Harper's EI Package see:
Ignatieff Says No To Coalition
For differences between a Majority and a Minority government see:
Posted by Laura Steiner
Canadians don't want an election. We never do; it could be because there's really not much of a choice right now; nobody in the race to inspire us to shake off the cynicism and vote. Or it could be because we're getting tired of elections; if this happens, it'll be our fourth in five years.
And each of them have ended in a minority government. You'd think by now, our elected officials would get the message: Canadians want you to work together. Mr Harper: We like you enough to keep giving you a shot, just not with a majority. The thing is; we all have to work with people we don't like- so smarten up and do it. And Mr. Ignatieff: We don't really know you all that well; you've been out of the country for the past few years. At least give us some time to get to know you. You can oppose without causing an election; you can present alternative policy ideas or use committees get some of your ideas across. Give us time; I don't think we're ready for you to be Prime Minister yet.
Canada is exiting the recession. This means the economy right now is still a little bit unstable. And any political instability might set us back. This election, if it happens will cost $300 million- enough to buy a whole subdivision, put a whole lot of students through a year of university. With unemployment at near record levels, isn't the money better spent elsewhere? Why not take part of it and put a down payment on the deficit?
And speaking of unemployment; this could be an election fought over employment insurance reform; an issue that should be addressed. But I don't think it should be addressed in an election campagain. It's a serious issue that affects people's futures; if I ran, I'd wait and address it when I had a majority and could do something. It will get lost in all the bitter sniping, and grandiose promises made along the way. There is no overarching issue to campaign on; our troops aren't due home from Afghanistan until 2011, and nobody has begun seriously mentioning the word: extension yet. Nobody has recently been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, or doing something they shouldn't be, so we're good there. The deficit is higher than anticipated, but is that really enough to justify an election, especially one caused by a party whose main answer to the question of reducing the deficit is: "you'll see".
I appreciate Ignatieff may have gone too far to turn back now. But an election now ignores the will of the people- quite simply: we don't want one, and there are better ways to spend the money. The bottom line is: we put you guys there to work together, not make a grab for power every year or so. In all likelihood we are going to the polls sometime in November, and will likely be back to exactly the same point we are right now: in a minority government situation. Maybe this time they'll get it?
For more information see:
Three Opposition Parties To Force Election
Posted by Laura Steiner
Canadians are sick of federal elections. We've had 3 in the last four years, each resulting in minority governments. There isn't any appetite for one now and yet that's direction we're going. After the federal Liberals had their caucus meeting in Sudbury, their leader Michael Ignatieff came out and announced his party would be pulling its support of the reigning Conservative Government.
Effectively that means if the three opposition parties together vote against the government, we're going to new elections. The NDP are making noises about a possible deal, but that isn't very likely because they're pretty much polar opposite.
This makes the unwanted election unavoidable. From a Liberal standpoint it's a big gamble. They're gambling on Canadians being unhappy enough with Stephen Harper, and the way he's handling the economy to want to vote for them. They're gambling on Canadians forgetting their anger at the party who caused an election in time to go vote. And they're gambling on the fact Canadians will like the policy we see, even if at the moment it is next to nothing but fairly employment insurance reform.
This is a recipe for possible frustration. Suppose Canadians vote a minority government in again? In six months maybe one year we're going to be talking election again. Or the other way; suppose Canadians vote Harper back in with a huge majority unseen since the Mulroney years? Ignatieff is left holding the bag for his big gamble, and the Liberals are reduced to one, maybe two seats at most. And Canada loses an effective opposition.
Whatever happens, it has the potential to be a fairly interesting campaign. Ignatieff is already out making announcements. Today he said that if elected the Liberals would be able to wipe out the deficit without raising taxes. So he's learned; taking a page from Harper's book, attempting to be the one that controls the message.
For more Information please see:
Canada's Liberals, NDP Gear Up For Fall Election
Posted by Laura Steiner
Stating my baises up front, I dislike the Khadr family. But there comes a point where you should just stop fighting it. That's where the federal government is right now with their latest decision to appeal a federal court ruling on the repatriation of Omar Khadr to the Supreme Court.
The Federal Court has now ruled twice that his incarceration in Guantanamo Bay violated Khadr's constitutional rights. Like it or not, it has. But flipping it around, he allegedly committed an act of murder against a citizen of another country- shouldn't he have to face some kind of justice?
The circumstances surrounding the crime open themselves up to debate: Is killing someone against the backdrop of a war really murder? Or is the victim just another casualty of war?
Was Omar Khadr at age 14 a child-combantant and therefore not fully responsible for his own actions? Surely at 14 years old should know the difference between right and wrong, or at the very least have a decent idea that killing somebody is wrong.
Legal arguments, and constitutional rights aside it's time the federal government brought him home. Yes, his family is contemptible and his own actions are likely illegal. But two federal court decisions have ordered he be returned to Canada, and honestly it's a waste of time and money to pursue this further.
Bring Khadr home. And if the US government decides his case is worth the time and effort of a trial military or civilian, then let them extradite him. Like it or not he's our citizen and we should take responsibility for him.
For more info see:
Canada's Federal Court Upholds Khadr Ruling
Posted by Laura Steiner
The Ontario government last September started Ehealth Ontario- an agency designed to take our medical records and put them on computer. The thinking behind it was simply that it would make it easier for doctors and specialists to access the records- one record for a patient's medical history... simple idea that makes sense right?
Somewhere along the line something went badly wrong. The accusations being levelled against McGuinty are that he hired the now ex-CEO Sarah Kramer against the advice of others; that he had a direct hand in appointing her. She was appointed as part of an order-in-council meaning the lieutenant governor directly appoints her based on the advice of a minister- in this case allegedly the Premier. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he did... Mr. McGuinty hasn't had the most sterling of reputations lately.
A spending scandal developed; it was revealed consultants were billing hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars to the taxpayers for little or no work. Contracts were being given out not to the company who could do it for a reasonable price, but to those that were allegedly friendly toward the Liberals. Somebody even claimed $1.65 for tea for goodness sake- would it honestly hurt somebody to lose that much? A 3-minute speech was written for $25,000. I looked at that one and thought: I could write it for $20 thousand.
Two people have now lost their job: Sarah Kramer, the ex-CEO, and Chariman Alan Hudson. Kramer got a bonus for her troubles. A third should lose their job: Health Minister David Caplan. This happened on his watch, and he should bear some of the responsibility. How he missed being shuffled out of Health in that cabinet shuffle, I'll never know.
This waste of money disrespects the taxpayer. It's like nobody cares about the money we work hard for, and give to the politicans in our tax dollars. And we 'trust' them with it to look after our needs as a society. It seems to me this project should either be shelved until we get a government we trust, or altogether reworked so that it's a lot more transparent.
For more information see: Ontario's Ehealth Chariman Alan Hudson Retires
Posted by Laura Steiner
The time has come to begin discussing the end to the mission in Afghanistan. Canada's combat troops are scheduled to be pulled out in 2011, and there are requests from NATO (North Atlantic Trade Organization) that we stay in that capacity. Foregin Minister Lawrence Cannon's answer was no, the government would respect the will of Parliament and pull the troops as planned.
And No is the right answer. By the time the troops arrive home Canada will have been at war for 10 years- a long time for a nation associated with peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. And it feels like the Canadian army has done its share of the fighting, lost 128 of our best men and women. And for that price, our army deserves a rest from its combat role.
But, if Canada decides to stay it should be in a humanitarian role; one in which we have excelled. All over Afghanistan Canadian forces have helped build schools, roads, and infrastructure. Aid money is going to fund the reconstruction of Dahla Dam, and the establishment of Deh-E Bagh a town just outside of Kandahar City held up as an example of how reconstruction could be accomplished in a secure environment. If Canada stayed, it should be in the humanitarian role, begin rebuilding what has been destroyed; begin teaching Afghans how to build a sold country. Because NATO's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was right; a stable Afghanistan is in the best interests of the world.
I think a firm No on a combat role beyond 2011 is the best answer, and the Canadian government should stick to it. Canada has done its share, it's time NATO went elsewhere for combat troops.
For more information on this issue please see:
NATO: Canada Should Stay In Afghanistan
Posted by Laura Steiner
I don't live in Toronto. That means there are some people out there who will give me ample change for adding my two cents worth on the Toronto garbage strike, and that's fine. Consider this then the opinon of someone who loves the city; someone who no matter how bad things get sees the potential for Toronto to be the world-class city it wants to be.
And that's all it's been so far; potential. The countless announcements on funding for the waterfront, rennovating Union Station, plans for transit... all talk and no action. And that's what in the end the garbage strike was: all the talk about standing tough against the unions- all the talk about not giving in on the banking sick days issue, the city having to tighten its financial belts was just talk. The union has gotten everything they wanted and then some. In their settlement they got a 6% raise over the next three years; existing workers who have worked there over 10 years get to keep their sick time or have it bought out by the city. To top it off: any sick and vacation time earned throughout the strike is counted, and as part of a back to-work protocol nobody is to face any penalties for slashing tires or other illegal behavior. It's like a case of revisionist history; as if the strike never happened.
And the sad part is, it seems like that's how the mayor wants it. Throughout the course of the strike it appeared to me as if he was playing both sides against the middle. On one hand he was the tough-talking, take no prisoners, stick up for the voter Mayor Miller. On the other hand he was the guy with alleged union sympathies who was content to allow the illegal behavior to continue (no filing for injuctions), and one who refused to play it as hard as he should've with them. (ie: hiring replacement workers).
Now Toronto is stuck with a settlement about which there are doubts the city can afford. The sick time buy out alone is said to be in the thousands. But Miller will pay the political price. Opponents are already lining up- beginning with 11 councillors, and rumoured candidates for Mayor George Smitherman, and John Tory.
The voters will not easily forget the strike, and line up against Miller as well. Torontonians deserve a mayor who will stick up for them, no matter the consequences... even if it means the city will stink of garbage, and being the unions least favourite person. The city deserves a mayor with the vision for the city and the guts to make to it happen. Hopefully Toronto voters will remember the past 7 weeks and Miller's conduct in another year and do something about it. I don't want to think of what could happen otherwise.
Posted by Laura Steiner
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced last week Canada is going to put visa restrictions on visitors from Mexico and the Czech Republic. This set off a string of reactions including the Czech Republic recalling their ambassador from Canada and threats of placing similar restrictions on Canada. Mexico for their part is going to require Canadian diplomats and officials to have visas, but haven't placed any restrictions on tourists.
Kenney defended his government's actions: "All too often people who truly need Canada's protection find themselves in a long line waiting for months, and sometimes years to have their cases heard." While I agree with his sentiments, and the decision to start cracking down on false refugee claims this isn't the way to do it.
As of 2007, Canada had 3000 people claim refugee status from the Czech Republic. It's said the majority are Roma who have accused the Czech government of human rights abuses. Let's suppose for a moment their rights are being abused, and they "truly need Canada's protection," should we make them wait, and possibly risk lives in the process while applying for visas? Or let them come because they need our protection?
Kenney argues of the situation in Mexico that most are in fact middle-class who can afford plane tickets. that might be true, but what of those who face persecution? Do we deny our protection to those who need it? I don't think we do, I don't think we can.
This whole situtation has been handled without regard for diplomacy: Czech Republic and Mexico are both trading partners, and allies. Canadian officials should've told their Czech and Mexican counterparts what the problem was, and what they were considering. Then they should've asked how best to implement it with as little fuss as possible.
Kenney's intentions were good: putting Canada forward as a sanctuary for people who truly need it while cracking down on those who don't. His execution wasn't that great.
For more information on this issue see: New Visa Rules For Czechs, Mexicans
Posted by Laura Steiner
You've got to hand it to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff this week. On Monday June 15, he handed the Prime Minister a losely-worded ultimatium, demanding he look at reforming EI, and asking for answers on the isotope situation. And on Tuesday June 16, the two adversaries met twice to discuss ideas to reform Employment Insurance. On Wednesday June 17th the pair announced a deal to form a blue-ribbon 'working group' to look at ways of extending some benefits to self-employed workers, and of standardizing the system.
It was a major win for Ignatieff. He gambled on Harper wanting to avoid an election at all costs and got everything he wanted. Three of his MP's (Members of Parliament) are being named to the working group. He asked for and recieved an extra quarterly financial report to Parliament in late September (the week of September 28th), and an opposition day two days later, when it's expected he'll try and bring down the Conservative government.
But What did Harper get? It seems to me, nothing. He got a stay of execution; a chance to ready his troops for what will likely be his fourth consecutive minority victory in the fall. He found a way to keep one of his election promises by trying to find ways to extend EI benefits to the self-employed, but that's about it really.
It seems to me he's starting to come across as a man who doesn't care. He's found some solutions to the economic problems, and is doing a decent job of governing the country. But this week when he was facing the possibility of his second election in under a year, it was like he didn't care about the outcome.
Maybe wants out? Maybe that's what he got from the deal: a way out. He knows in all likelihood on the opposition day in September the Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats are going to bring down the government. Maybe he plans on fighting the election, and when his party wins (my prediction at the moment) its fourth minority he plans on tendering his resignation. Like a General, he wants to pick his battles.
Harper is probably tired of fighting elections that come like clockwork every year or so. He's probably sick of hearing threats of an election every few weeks, and having a metaphorical gun held to his head by Michael Ignatieff. We'll know for certain in the fall.
For more on this please see: Harper-Ignatieff Reach Deal On EI
Posted by Laura Steiner
Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper presented his quarterly economic report. It was a rosy picture- Canada is going to recover sometime next year, 80% of the infrastructure money has left federal coffers, and our economy is strong despite the recession. The Bloc and NDP are going to vote against it, but Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he'd read it, and let us know what his party would do.
Well he let us know, and it's as clear as mud. He doesn't want an election- well so do the vast majority of us. But, he also wants to fix EI, and answers on what Harper's government plans to do regarding the isotope shortage. He's willing to let the House continue sitting in order to answer these questions. But at the press conference following his announcement, he was asked if his conditions weren't met, would his party vote against the update.
To put it in plain Ignatieff speak: An election if necessary, but not necessarily an election. In other words, for now we're safe from the election ghoul, but he reserves the right to reconsider. Or, I want an election only if somebody else causes one.
He talked in his little speech about standing up for principles... how principled is doublespeak? Why won't he give us a straight answer? It's all Canadians want. Either he wants an election or he doesn't- it's that simple. Either his party is principled enough to offer Canadians an alternative vision of the country in an election, or it's not. It's not rocket science.
Posted by Laura Steiner
It's nothing to do with politics, or what's going on with the latest scandal in Ottawa or Queens Park (Toronto), but it is current events and an occasion that should be recognized. It was 65 years ago today that Canadian troops together with their allies stormed the beaches at Normandy France, spelling the beginning of the end for Hitler's Third Reich. Canadian troops gained the most ground that day, and proceeded to fight all the way to the Rhine over a year later.
But it's not just events of the one day that should be celebrated. It is the fact that Canada made a huge contribution to the war efforts that should be celebrated- one history largely ignores. The Canadian soldiers who fought on the beaches were volunteer; all chose to leave their lives, and loved ones to serve King & Country. Canada served as a training ground for allied pilots, escorts for supply convoys, and refuge for many. We finished World War II with the fourth largest navy, and had one of the largest armies- no mean feats consider there were only 11 million of us.
I know we prefer to think of ourselves as peacekeepers who go in and help rebuild war-torn countries. And that's a good reputation to have, it means everyone likes us. While enjoying that reputation we forget that before Canadians were peacekeepers, we were warriors. We fought on the beaches at Normandy, and before that in the muddy trenches of World War I. We did the unexpected like taking Vimy in World War I, and liberating Holland in World War II. It is all of this that should be remembered.
Vetrans of the Second World War are aging, and there are fewer every year. We shouldn't let the memories of June 6th fade, and die out with them. We should teach our children of the sacrafices made during World War II, and on June 6, 1944. We should tell them that besides being peacekeepers, Canadians are warriors.
Posted by Laura Steiner
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Canada's deficit has now hit $50 billion- the highest in recorded Canadian history. And it could grow, thanks to auto industry aid and increasing unemployment numbers. It's forced Flaherty to revise his deficit prediction over 5 years to approximately $80 billion.
Now of course such an announcement has caused the usual bickering. The Liberals say Harper wants to raise taxes in order to cover the shortfall. They have according to one news source issued a release to that saying Harper will not present another budget until he decides to raise taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't that constiute an attack? And didn't Ignatieff just say he wouldn't use attack ads.
And speaking of attack ads, how about those Conservative attack ads against Ignatieff? Aren't they effective? I would say they are. I think because they're close enough to truth. I know one question I'd love to ask Ignatieff: If he's elected, how does he expect to govern a country he hasn't lived in much for the last 35 years? I know he'll have read books on Canada, articles on what went on, but it's one thing to read about these things, and another to live them. I think he won't have a true sense of what Quebec separatism is like, not being here to experience the referendum in 1996, and the desperation we went through. Not to mention the two failed attempts to gain Quebec's signature on the constitution by Mulroney, or signing onto NAFTA. What about the fisheries' collapse? Or the rise of Alberta? All issues have had far-reaching consequences that we're still dealing with today; they still raise Canadian's passion and it's important to understand why- and I think a measure of that understanding is missing if you weren't here to experience it.
And that brings me to this whole idea of election timing. Ignatieff wants an election over E.I. something I've previously opposed in another blog entry. The next chance to call one comes in June as Flaherty presents his economic update; vote against the update and the government falls. It's bad timing- if Liberal numbers are increasing, just think what they'll be like after a summer of unemployment forces Flaherty to revise his deficit projections again.
Even though it's bad timing I think it stands a decent chance of happening. The Conservative attack ads have started, and I honestly don't think they're going to last all summer. If they do, then expect a lot of television purchases because Canadians will eventually throw their tv sets through a window.
So Canada: get set for either an election, or a very long summer of attack ads. Either way it could get ugly.
For more information see: Flaherty: Canada's Defict At $50 Billion, or: Harper Speech Signals Election Readiness.
Posted by Laura Steiner
Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2002. Most of that time we have been there in a combat role, fighting in the southern end of the country near Kandahar, and doing reconstruction work such as rebuilding schools, and dams. According to a Parliamentary vote, the military mission is set to end in 2011, but recently the federal government has begun signaling it might be willing to extend the mission but in a more humanitarian role.
A recent poll showed Canadians to be divided on the matter. Some think Canada should extend beyond 2011, others want the troops immediately brought home. Canada is traditionally associated with peacekeeping, and humanitarian efforts; the combat role never sat well with some people. A return to those activites may appease Canadians who don't want to extend the mission.
The Russians showed in the 1970's there is no graceful way for an occupying army to exit Afghanistan. Perhaps extending the mission in that humanitarian role could be the way to withdraw. We work with the Afghan government on rebuilding the country, and as the country grows stronger we begin bringing the troops home.
We have fulfilled our responsibility as a member of the international community in a combat role for Afghanistan. But as Peter MacKay says there is still a lot of work to be done after 2011. Canada was among the NATO countries who started the mission, shouldn't we help finish it? Don't we owe it to Afghanistan, to the surrounding region to leave the country as stable as is can be?
Canada has the opportunity here to make the deaths of 117 soldiers count for something positive, why shouldn't we take it?
Extending the mission is something that should be considered, but we must respect the will of Parliament- if our MP's say no, then bring the troops home. But we should at least discuss it.
To find out more see: MacKay Hints At Extending Afghanistan Committment
Posted by Laura Steiner
Canada is a liberal democracy. And being citizens of a liberal democracy we have certain rights and freedoms. We have the freedom to speak our minds, and disagree with each other. We have the freedom to move around when and how we choose, and the freedom to assemble with anyone we feel like it.
We have a right to a fair trial before the law. Women are viewed the same as men in Canada, and discriminatory practices based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation aren't allowed. We have the right to protest- something I'm positive all reading this will take advantage of at some point in their lives.
Canada's Tamil community have been taking advantage of their right to protest, most recently blocking the Gardiner Expressway; a major route in and out of downtown Toronto. They stood blocking the highway for six hours, protesting the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka. They have a valid reason to protest- the civil war in Sri Lanka is tragic; the loss of life, and persecution of a people is inexcusable for humanity.
But is blocking a city's major roadway the right way to protest? I don't think so. It risks everyone's safety. And it also doesn't garner any more sympathy for the cause. If anything, I think Canadians are less likely to support the Tamil community, and that's a shame because there is something worth supporting there. There is something worth fighting for.
In blocking the roadway the protesters impeded traffic, and broke the law. Following my logic, every last one of them should have been arrested. Toronto Police showed restraint and concern for public safety by not doing just that. I think breaking the law takes away credibility from the cause- it's one thing to show you're passionate and willing to fight for your cause but when you break the law it takes away from the impact of the protest.
Sanctions would hurt more than help the situation. Canada has very little political influence, being what can be best described as a middle power- so using it wouldn't be an option. Armed intervention isn't an option because Canada's army is stretched to the limit- fighting in Afghanistan plus the numerous other peacekeeping missions. Canada is calling for cease fires, and giving aid money because it's all we can do.
What more does the Tamil community want? Find an answer to that question, and then we'll talk. Until then keep the protests off the major highways because it isn't doing the cause any favours.
For more on this see: Tamils Occupy Gardiner Expressway.
Posted by Laura Steiner
By now, everyone has heard the story of Ruby Dhalla. The Brampton-Springdale Member of Parliament (MP) stands accused of mistreating two nannies and a housekeeper, brought to Canada to take care of her mother. It is alleged the family underpaid them, forced them to perform duties such as cleaning floors daily, shoe shining, and cleaning chiropractic clinics, and forced them to work overtime without pay. The family also allegedly took away their passports.
All of these are allegations- nothing has been conclusively proven, and under the justice system she's innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, public perception disagrees. Ruby Dhalla spoke at a press conference yesterday... or rather her labour lawyer spoke at a press conference yesterday. Ms. Dhalla read a few prepared remarks, but sat silent for most of it, letting her lawyer take all the questions. If a lawyer has an innocent client they know is innocent why not let them speak? By remaining silent so long she appears guilty at least in the eyes of the press.
If Ruby Dahlla truly is innocent why didn't she come forward when word of the allegations first broke? Why wait for nearly a week before speaking publicly? In most cases silence in the face of something this serious speaks volumes, and gives the perception of a slight possibility there's some grain of truth to these allegations.
The two caregivers came forward at a public meeting with Ontario's Labour Minister Peter Fonseca, and Education Minister Kathleen Wynne. The pair encouraged the ladies to come forward with their allegations of mistreatment, and did so- then the ministers responded by giving them a phone number to call and voice their concerns. Aside from the obvious appearance of cold-heartedness toward the suffering of our fellow human, is there something wrong with this picture?
I think there is. As Labour Minister Peter Fonseca had the responsibility to at least investigate allegations this serious- especially if they're against a fellow elected official. The fact he didn't suggests the perception of a cover-up, or at the very least gross incompentence. He should either resign, or be fired. Personally I'm not giving any the Liberals that much credit- it's likely incompetence. And as for the accusations of some kind of smear campagin by her political rivals; setting up those two caregivers to talk at that particular public meeting seems to be too much work to smear someone.
The conduct of her lawyer toward the press does her no favours either. During her press conference, he often appeared confrontational and defensive. If Dhalla's guilty, then she needs the press to stay on her side in order to foster sympathy, and help rehabilitate her image. If she's innocent, then the media could be useful to forward the cause of foreign workers. Being confrontational gives the perception that there's something to hide- and the press have a habit of finding out.
 |
Posted by Laura Steiner
The Liberal Party Of Canada hasn't been very kind to its leaders of late. There was Paul Martin, who was ushered out on the heels of the sponsorship mess- and for losing an election. Next came Stephane Dion; the former professor who fought and lost an election because he wanted a carbon tax. Then came the absolute debacle that was the coalition.
Dion resigned, and we're left with Michael Ignatieff, confirmed as leader at the weekend Liberal Convention in Vancouver. Dion illustrated that you get one shot at winning an election and if you don't then you resign.
Michael Ignatieff has one shot at winning an election. And it appears he wants to fight it on changes to Employment Insurance (EI)- specifically over the amount of hours worked. Right now, where unemployment is lowest employees have to have worked 700 hours in order to qualify for EI. Where unemployment is highest the limit lowers to 420 hours. The Liberals are proposing legislation that would see it standardized to 360 hours.
If the other two opposition parties support the Liberals against the Conservatives, and at this point it looks like they are, we're going to an election. And no suspension of Parliament is going to stop it. My prediction of the results is that Stephen Harper will likely win with a reduced seat count, causing the Conservatives to seek new leadership.
And Ignatieff, will have wasted his shot. Because EI regulations are just arcane enough to make people even more apathetic than usual, and voter apathy is a big enough problem in this country. If Ignatieff is going to take a shot; if he's going to an election, make it count. Make the main issue something Canadians care about: Afghanistan, healthcare, or the economy.
It's a bad idea to fight an election over EI regulations because Canadians don't care. All they care about is they're not working, all they care about is getting a job. Propose a practical solution to that, and the Liberals will win. Fight an election over Employment Insurance, and people tune out before it even begins.
To read more about Igantieff and the Liberal Convention, see: Ignatieff Confirmed As Liberal Leader
Posted by Laura Steiner
At a recent press conference Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced they were buying a 2% interest in Chrysler Canada for $3.8 billion. And then Chrysler promptly announced it was seeking bankruptcy protection from certain creditors in the USA. They were both pleased; another step taken to get the auto industry back on the road to recovery.
But was it really such a good move?
Ever since this whole mess began I've had some misgivings. On the one hand, Ontario depends on the auto sector for thousands of jobs; and if we lose it the province will be in bad economic shape for a long time. It's become a case of: 'well we have to help them, if we don't we lose jobs, and the economy goes down the toilet.'
On the other hand, it almost seems like we're throwing good money after bad. In the early '90's Bob Rae declared numerous businesses including the automakers 'too big to fail.' This meant that no matter what happened, the Ontario government aka: us would cover retirees pensions if say Chrysler went bankrupt. With that legislation a fund was established into which companies 'too big to fail' contributed up to $5 million. Now that fund is up to only $100 million, enough for each Chrysler retiree to have only $1,000, like that gets you a lot. So that puts the burden to cover the pensions on this version of the Ontario government.
Since the last recession under Premier Bob Rae, Ontario has enjoyed prosperity as have the big three automakers who have allegedly underfunded their pensions. Things began worsening last December. Last month, Premier McGuinty said he wouldn't garauntee the pensions; a very logical thing to do because Ontario can't afford it.
In buying a 2% share in Chrysler we may have to afford the pensions. Ontario, and Canada have effectively become part of the employer, and what do employers do? They take care of their employees. Some auto industry experts say the bankruptcy could last as little as 5 days, while others say it will last longer. If it lasts longer, as the employer the province of Ontario and the country of Canada are going to be on the hook for potentially billions of dollars in pension.
That could break Ontario's financial back. The province is already forecast to be in a $14 billion deficit, government spending is going to be higher than it ever has been. Buying shares in a failing auto company just doesn't seem like good business sense to me.
There comes a point where throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it. And I think we've not only reached that point, we've gone past it. The taxpayers of this province shouldn't have to pay for business's mistakes; it's time to stop funding a failing business and prepare for what happens next.
To find out more about this issue please read: Chrysler Files For Bankruptcy
Posted by Laura Steiner
The Mulroney-Schreiver Inquiry is a public investigation into business dealings between German Businessman Karlheinz Schreiver, and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It boils down to the question of whether or not Mulroney took money from Schreiver while he was Prime Minister or afterward when he allegedly worked as a lobbyist for the German businessman.
The whole thing leaves more questions than answers. Schreiver has been in jail awaitng extradition to Germany on a variety of tax-related charges. He's changed his story regarding Mulroney multiple times, and worse still lawyers have caught him on it.
Question #1: Why should we believe someone who has been caught lying on the stand, and is facing charges in another country? I don't think we should. We should allow the extradition to go ahead, and have done with him.
When Mulroney left office, he was arguably disgraced. He'd tried twice to get Quebec to sign the constitution, and failed both times. He'd signed NAFTA (North American Free-Trade Agreement), and introduced the G.S.T. (Goods & Services Tax) both measures which angered Canadians. He also lost a few members of his caucus when they left to form the Bloc Quebecois, a federal separatist party. His credibility, and reputation were ruined. He still isn't well-liked even today.
Question #2: What is there to gain by reaching back over a decade and further wrecking an already-ruined reputation? Mulroney is an old man, and I'm having trouble finding the merit in putting him through this. Besides, he was Prime Minister of this country, and like the guy or not he deserves some measure of respect.
The inquiry was called by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It's costing taxpayers approximately $5 million. It's also rumoured have caused Harper some problems in his caucus as various MP's including Defense Minister Peter MacKay speaking up in Mulroney's defense.
And that brings me to 3 more questions:
#3. In these tough economic times, isn't there a better way to spend $5 million? I think so. Of the top of my head there's a few roads that need repair, and hospitals as well as other infrastructure that need improvements.
Mulroney is supposed to be one of Harper's closer advisers, and friends:
#4 Why go to such an extent to publicly disgrace someone who is supposed to be among your friends?
#5: What does Stephen Harper have to gain by this whole thing? Does he appear as the guy who pursues accountablity to the ends of the earth even if damages his own party? Or is there a more personal agenda at work here? If there is, then maybe we should consider looking at Harper for abuse of power.
We'll be no closer to the truth after this inquiry is over. As a matter of fact I think we might find out a thing or two we wish we hadn't.
For more information on rift in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's caucus see: Mystery Surrounds Mulroney's Conservative Status
*** Update*** August 5, 2009: Karlheinz Schreiber has been deported to Germany and faces charges of tax evasion and bribery. If convicted he may face up t0 15 years in jail.
For more info see: Karlheinz Schreiber Deported to Germany.