Politics & Society Blog

It took only 3 ballots for 4th place Stephane Dion to climb to first place, unseating the months-long front-runner Michael Ignatieff. Not surprisingly, however, it took Gerard Kennedy's endorsement, plus close to 90% of his supporting delegates to turn Dion's luck around. One wonders what might have happened had Kennedy stayed in the race.

One pundit on a TV news show this morning commented, "Canadian politics has taken a turn for the bland," and I must say I don't disagree. Let's not forget that the Liberals are a fractured, beleagured party with not a huge amount of credibility even as the "official" opposition to the current minority government. What was needed was a leader with a clear vision, not just for the near future, but the far one. Much was made of Bob Rae's inexperience as a Liberal and Michael Ignatieff's newness to politics. But renewal and a fresh approach is what is needed for this party. Already pundits and columnists are bringing up Dion's record as environment minister under Chretien and his seat in the government during the Sponsorship Scandal. While I don't think too many Canadian voters will care much about that, it will be something that Conservatives will hammer him with, as well as columnists and journalists who have very long memories for ancient history. That matters since most people shortcut their education during election time by following media instead of doing their own research.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Dion declared himself election-ready. That was perhaps a little premature. He is not very well liked in Quebec, and not all that well known across Canada. So, he and his party have much prep work in front of them. The oft repeated, "to know Dion is to love him" will hopefully prove to be true. But that takes time and time is something Canada doesn't really have under the current government who in a few short months has taken us in a direction most Canadians are not happy with. Stephen Harper is operating a minority government with brassness and strategy as if he has full support, and opposition is letting him away with it.

It's as if everyone has been waiting on the outcome of the Liberal leadership.

I guess now we wait and see.

It might not happen face to face, or even at all but Hayder Kadhim, one of the 20 wounded victims of the September 13th shooting at Dawson College in Montreal wants to talk to Stephen Harper about his plan to scrap Canada's gun registry.

Asked about gun control by media the day after the shooting he said it was too early to talk about it. And maybe it was. Then, in Question Period last week, he was asked again by the Opposition. Mr. Harper maintained that events at Dawson College show that the current laws do not protect the public, something with which many law enforcers disagree. Harper also said that his government has already introduced manditory minimum sentences legislation and other measures to ensure criminals pay.

Maybe he's right. Kimveer Gill's weapons were legally registered. But the issue that remains outstanding is deeper. Something needs to be done to deal with the alienation and isolation that is occurring more and more among youth, especially in marginalized populations.

There was some talk about this during the federal election, mostly because we were coming off a year of really bad gun violence in Toronto. But with a government that is quick to slash and burn social programs in favour of paying off the debt and of beefing up military spending to take Canada into the new world of combative foreign affairs it's safe to say he won't be entertaining many discussions on this topic.

Let's hope that Hayder Kadhim gets his chance to talk to Mr. Harper and that the conversation has some impact.

The Conservative government's announced spending cuts, which will save approximately $1 billion, include:

Ending the visitor-rebate program that gives tax refunds to tourists.

As announced last February, a smaller cabinet.

Cuts to Aboriginal health strategies.

Hard to tell what this means, but administrative cuts to Status of Women.

Not surprisingly, an end to medical marijuana science funding.

Again, no surprises, cuts to museums assistance.

What is being called "efficiencies" in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Much to the consternation of Western Canada, removing unused funds for mountain pine beetle initiative, a problem that is plaguing BC right now.

And others.

Spending cuts are not unusual, and in this case, not unexpected considering Stephen Harper's attempt at wooing ordinary Canadians. Paying down the national debt helps with taxes. But the opposition sees it differently. All parties were concerned that these measures were taken without consultation.

"This government has a $13-billion surplus, and they cut funding for literacy. Two billion dollars for fighter jets in Afghanistan, and they cut funding for women’s programs. Over a billion dollars going to their friends in the big oil and gas companies, and what do they do? They cut funding for aboriginals and young people. Total arrogance. No consultation. No debate,” Layton said.

I'm not sure exactly how to deal in my own head, as an ordinary voter with a minority government that acts like it has the full confidence of all Canadians. It's not that I am vehemently anti-Conservative or anti-Harper. It's just that he really does seem to be making decisions and executing them in one fell swoop totally under the radar; completely aided by his effective muzzling of the media.

It's concerning and I hope all Canadians are keeping a watchful eye.

A new season of Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons is certainly welcomed by Opposition parties who haven't had the necessary forum to challenge the Conservative governments many activities over the summer. The spring session ended in June, just after the rushed vote on extending the Afghanistan mission by two years, bringing us to 2009.

Some, particularly the NDP, who are calling for troops to leave immediately, believe the mission is not going well, and that Canadian citizen support for this mission has waned during a summer that saw too many soldiers indjured or dead in combat.

Prime Minister Harper used 9/11's 5th anniversary, yesterday's speech at the UN in New York and Afghan President Karzai's trip to Ottawa as opportunities to justify the mission, and try to regain support at home. It remains to be seen if it worked.

The other issue dogging the Conservative government is gun contol, in the wake of the recent shootings at Montreal's Dawson College. Stephen Harper had been trying to scrap the long-gun registry and is defending his plans, saying that the registry, which is still this minute in place and has proven to be a huge waste of money over the years - did nothing to deter the troubled Kimveer Gill from legally obtaining at least three guns and using an automatic weapon to open fire on unsuspecting students.

Support him or not, you can't say Mr. Harper doesn't stand by his word. He's smart, adept with words in both English and French and has no shortage of confidence.

Let's see if that buys him a majority government in the next election.

Since Canada's military undertook a more agressive role in Afghanistan last February, Canadians are perhaps becoming too accustomed to hearing about soldiers killed and wounded. Last night a 10 year old Afghan boy riding on the back of a motorbike was killed, the driver of the bike wounded. General Rick Hillier, our military's top commander, assured Canadians, through the media, that all procedures were properly followed, but unfortunately these kids crossed the security perimeter on their motorbike and did not stop after two warning shots. This occured about two hours after a suicide bomber crashed into a Canadian supply convoy, killing another Canadian soldier.

In May, just before the Canadian House of Commons broke for the summer, Prime Minister Stephen Harper agressively pushed through a vote on the Canadian Afghan mission. In my opinion, he bullied Parliament into extending the mission until 2009. He did this with a version of "you're either for the troops or your against them," leaving a beleagured Liberal party, and its leadership candidates to prematurely take a stand on Canada's involvement in overthrowing Taliban insurgency; and leaving a poor taste in a volatile minority government.

Most of the Canadian casualties resulting in death have occurred this summer, while the House has been on break. Canada's continuing role in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and putting not only Canadian soldiers, but now children in harms way should be seriously and vigorously debated in the Fall session of the Canadian House of Commons. In my opinion, Canadians should have a vote in this matter, especially in view of the fact that the majority did not vote for Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

Tell me what you think...

There's been an embarrassing backdrop to the 16th AIDS Conference which is just wrapping up in Toronto; our Prime Minister and our goverment has been almost entirely absent. Actually, it's a little worse than that; Health Minister Tony Clement has been present, if only to call press conferences and then cancel them. Mr. Harper was visiting the Yukon, making announcements about committing troops to Lebanon, and taking a vacation with his family. Nice one!

Mr. Harper's control on Canadian media seems to make him above reproach on this and many other matters. But some of his decisions are based on nothing more than inexperience.

In a brief interview on CBC this afternoon, Stephen Lewis, the tireless UN Envoy for AIDS was reminded of Prime Minister Harper's comment on how AIDS conferences are too "politicized." Perplexed Mr. Lewis put it down to Mr. Harper's inexperience, and suggested that if he thinks it's politicized it's of his own making because of his decision to travel to appear elsewhere, when the AIDS conference has been on the books for a good long time.

But something else Stephen Lewis said was far more profound. Referring to the presence of such delegates as Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, and the well known philanthropy of people like Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey and Bono, he said, "We have used celebrity leadership to compensate for political leadership."

When Live8 was being promoted veteran activists and spokespeople for 3rd world causes Bono and Bob Geldof commented that the 1st world was rich enough to feed the world and dramatically decrease, if not end, disease in underprivileged parts of the globe. The tradition of actors, musicians and celebrities speaking out for causes is years-old by now so it must be time for a new trend. Some celebrities have upped the ante quite considerably from talking about it and asking their fans to dial in money to self-directed giving. When Angelina Jolie left Namibia where she recently gave birth, she left behind $300,000 for much needed ultrasound equipment there. To say nothing of her adoption of two needy children, one from Cambodia and an AIDS orphan from Ethiopia. She reportedly donates one third of her income to helping displaced refugees. Oprah Winfrey is building a school for girls in South Africa, and has taken her show on the road there to give toys and other items directly to children. Bill and Melinda Gates have set up their own foundation to combat HIV contraction and reduce AIDS deaths in Africa through much needed drug programs. Recently Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men alive, made a hefty donation of company shares in annual gifts to the Gates' foundation.

This self directed philanthropy, though much needed, should never replace government policy and long term solution initiatives.

The Canadian media, still stinging from being so restricted by Harper's Conservative government, should be a little more relentless with him, and his Health Minister on this issue. As the AIDS Conference host country, it was only right that he should be in attendance and ready with new policy and a financial committment. It was a glaring missed opportunity and an international embarrassment.

In an attempt to quell criticism of the Canadian government's handling of the Lebanon evacuation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper re-routed his plane from Paris to Cyprus to personally escort home a lucky 100 passengers. He said it was not merely a symbolic gesture, his Communications Director, Sandra Buckler, is calling it a "humanitarian mission," but the optics are curious. Yesterday, the first day of evacuations, was so chaotic and disorganized that only 280 Canadians made it onto the Red Dawn, a ship chartered by the Canadian Government. It is only now, more than 24 hours later, that those few are being processed in Cyprus and boarded onto planes. Thousands more are just now awaiting four more ships to carry them to awaiting planes in Turkey.

In order to make room for the evacuees, Harper has kicked accompanying journalists and officials off his plane, but has kept three communications employees and his official photographer. The media today are treating this "expedition" like it's some lucky lottery win that allows Canadians to fly with the Prime Minister. It's not. They are likely traumatized from avoiding and fleeing bombs and then exhausted from the long, disorganized wait in the hot, hot sun and the 15 hour journey across the Meditteranean.

Yes, this is a complex, large evacuation effort. With some 25,000 Canadians in Lebanon and that region's history of unrest, you would think that a plan might have been put in place at some point or another. Instead of measures like saving Canadians a measley 1% on GST in order to popularize himself and ensure a majority government, why doesn't Mr. Harper look at some issues of wider reaching importance. Instead of riding U.S. President Bush's coattails, why can't Harper lead by example as the peace seeking and peace keeping country.

Perhaps that is too idealistic though, in the new world order that seems to rely on hot-headed bombing of countries and killing civilians instead of diplomacy.

Let's also not forget that Prime Minister Harper is endorsing Israel's "right to defend itself" at the same time he is personally rescuing Canadians. No matter what specrum of politics you fall into, that doesn't make much sense.

Citizens journalism is a trend that's been in the making for awhile (see reality TV) but gained credibility when the terror bombs hit London in July 2005, and we saw cell phone photos of the panic and mayhem in the Underground tunnels, with accompanying personal stories. Almost every newspaper picked up these news-in-process accounts and there was some debate about what this advent meant for traditional journalism. Not surprisingly, some "true stories from real people" journalism sites have cropped up, and most newspapers and TV station news website now have reporter blogs, the ability to comment immediately on any story you read, plus the added feature of allowing ordinary people to create and post their own journalism, with photos and/or video.

Not to completely whine about this, because I believe basically it's a good thing but, although alot of people are good eye witnesses to life and news, not everyone is a writer, nor a journalist. Being a good journalist, whether writer, producer or reporter, means having a third eye and ear. It means seeing and hearing things imperceptible to others. It means processing and putting into context things seen and heard. It means making the personal universal and the universal personal. It takes much more than looking at something and writing down, or shooting and narrating what you saw. Freelance journalists work hard for the newspaper, magazine, online space and TV time they are awarded because of their talent and perception -- making connections, building relationships, finding good stories, pitching them, perfecting interviewing and writing and/or production skills. You don't just tell a story, you sculpt it. Differently for each media venue. It takes time, it takes thought.

I sort of don't mind seeing that process simplified, but to be honest, part of me really does mind the competition from those with no experience. I guess that's why some journalists ask the question every so often: Should journalism be considered a profession the way medicine and law are? Should there be some kind of formal accreditation for journalism, like a lawyer passing the bar?

Tell me what you think?

When seventeen men and boys believed to be Muslim extremists cooking up a terrorist attack in Toronto were arrested last month a great deal of ink was spilled on whether or not multiculturalism works. Have we been too "permissive" in allowing immigrant communities to hold on to their customs, language, religious beliefs? Should new immigration rules be written to ensure newcomers completely intigrate with natural-born Canadians? All was in question and some of our most respected columnists sounded racist, and full of fear and scorn.

All these opinions were being expressed and the issue bandied about against the backdrop of World Cup Soccer, when each team's ethnic representatives in Canadian cities took to the streets proudly displaying the flags of their home countries.

Results of a new poll conducted in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver reveals that most immigrants thrive living here, appreciate that they do not feel obliged to leave "home" so far behind them, and do not see their immigrant status as an either/or issue. Most are respectful, appreciative, involved individuals and families who contribute greatly to our culture and economy. In fact, we need immigration to keep our economy thriving, since we are not adding enough of our own to the mix hrough a high enough birthrate.

Maybe then, we should practice a little more respect and compassion toward people who have sometimes left war torn, strife-ridden and dangerous countries and have chosen Canada to make a new, safer, more prosperous life. It's certainly not the easiest thing to do. We owe it to them to keep our minds and hearts open.

I just read this quote from Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a story at the Globe and Mail online.

"Unfortunately the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government,” Mr. Harper told London's A-Channel.

“They don't ask questions at my press conferences now.

“We'll just take the message out on the road. There's lots of media who do want to ask questions and hear what the government is doing.”

It was reported that a couple dozen reporters walked out of press briefing at the House of Commons on Canada's role in Darfur. It seems our fragile Prime Minister is concerned that the national press are against him, so he's imposed new rules that restrict the number of questions asked and from whom. The Canadian blogosphere is full of commentary on this and with good reason. My question is, isn't it the role of media to ask pertinent, unbiased questions? And if so, who should interpret bias? The Parliamentary Press Gallery is an entity that exists to ensure accountability. Is it unfair then, for Mr. Harper to impose his own new rules about who asks questions, how many and when? I suppose in our country we are not used to such a carefully controlled messaging system from our government. In any case, the Prime Minister's answer seems to be to take his message to smaller markets. Having worked in such a market in a Vancouver newsroom, I can tell you that they will be only too happy to take sloppy seconds.