Really, Mr. Harper?!?! The Speaker of the House of Commons ruling against your government on withholding cost information required by law, as well as at least one of your ministers "misleading" a parliamentary committee?!?!?! Really?!?!? And you call this a "distraction" and a "game" by the opposition??!?!?! Really??!?!?! Excuse Canadian voters, for they did not know that democracy is an inconvenience to you!
Of course Canadians are concerned about their jobs and the economy, but in a Westminster Parliamentary system, the opposition MPs have the right to question the government on its programs, receive information on the cost of proposed government bills, among other things, to show all Canadian constituents what the government plans and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. Your Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, just standing up and saying trust me, just doesn't wash. He did the same thing when he was Finance Minister for Ontario, and he left a mess for the new government that took over, not to mention his statements over the past couple of years like no recession, no deficit, and small deficit.
Clearly, your government is engaging in a lot of obfuscation, so who is really playing "games"? You rode into Ottawa on a platform of "transparency" and "accountability", yet time and again, media reports that you and your cronies are doing the exact opposite. Tell me, are your former Reform colleagues bristling in their seats, trying to keep their mouths shut?
Democracy is not just about elections. Check your Oxford Dictionary. It's defined as, "government by all the people." Are you that cynical that you think that ALL Canadians would act in this manner. Who is really playing games?
A cynicist would say that you are doing anything and everything possible to not only retain power, but try to win a majority in the next election (and it seems, taking lessons from the American political process, i.e. attack ads). According to the latest polls, your party is way ahead, but just short of majority territory. However, we'll still have to see the polls after the Speaker's rulings. But, as many have said, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Should you win enough seats to form another government in the next election, I pity Canadian voters (and especially those that don't vote). But it reminds me of the saying, "Every nation has the government that it deserves."
March 11, 2011
March 09, 2011
Coporate tax cut: Job creator, or fatter bonus?
Will a Canadian corporate tax cut of 1.5% really create jobs? That's what the Conservative Government and a number of economists will lead you to believe. However, I'm wondering if they're relying too much on economic theory and coming up with an easy sound bite for the public to digest. Or is this just another political move for the Conservatives to finally achieve the majority that has been just out of their reach all these years?
I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.
So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.
The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.
I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.
What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!
I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.
So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.
The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.
I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.
What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!
March 07, 2011
Engage in the political process
A new organization has formed to engage Canadians in the political process. They are Leadnow.ca. I've only just heard of them (since they went public just last week). They claim to be a non-partisan organization that are getting Canadians to hold their politicians to account.
I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.
This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.
It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."
To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!
I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.
This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.
It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."
To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!
The passing of Jim Travers, Star columnist
James Travers, Toronto Star Columnist on political matters, died last week. Many accolades have been coming from colleagues, politicians and the general public alike. As a tribute to him, The Star reprinted a story he wrote on Apr 4, 2009, called, "The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy." I suggest everyone take the time to read it.
I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.
My condolences to his family.
I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.
My condolences to his family.
March 04, 2011
Going off the rails on a crazy train?
Another scandal for the Harper Government. Using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes, i.e. campaigning for contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada. And to think, Helena Guergis, the MP kicked out of the Conservative caucus for suspicion of wrongdoing, was the ethical one when she refused to participate in the "in and out" campaign funds maneuver that is currently under intense scrutiny by Elections Canada. Add to that the Bev Oda affair, Lisa Raitt, Maxime Bernier, etc. Does this mean the Harper machine is finally running off the rails? Well, no doubt they'll try to spin the Liberal sponsorship scandal as something more heinous, as they are oft to do.
I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.
The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.
I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.
The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.
March 01, 2011
Libya, a Lesson in Democracy
The current events in Libya are troubling. Not just that a dictator is using violence, killing the citizens of his country, to hold onto power by his fingernails, but also the responses by world leaders. The wave of protests throughout North Africa and the Middle East have shown that the citizens of these countries have had enough of their officials, whether they are corrupt, not doing enough to reduce unemployment, and/or not being able to elect new leaders to respect their democratic voice. The fact that Western nations are talking about overtly interfering (calls to impose a “no fly zone” to protect Libyan rebels from pro-Gaddafi air attacks), or whether they are already covertly supporting the rebels (at this time, there are no reports of Western advisors making contact with the rebels, nor supplies being delivered), one thing is clear. This protest has turned into civil war. The question is, should other nations intercede, or at the very least, take sides?
No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.
But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.
There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.
Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.
I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.
At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?
Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.
There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.
It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”
No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.
But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.
There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.
Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.
I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.
At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?
Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.
There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.
It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”
December 11, 2009
Deja Vu All Over Again?
The latest controversy with the Prime Minister Harper Conservative Government in Canada: Did Canadian soldiers hand over detainees to the Afghan National Police, knowing that it was likely these detainees would be tortured, on the Conservatives' watch?
Whether Canadian soldiers did or not appears not to be the fault of the soldiers, but rather whether the ruling government received the information and acted appropriately to change the situation. Poor Mr. Colvin was directed to appear in front of a Commons committee and the Conservative government used every trick in the spin book to try to discredit his testimony. The committee demanded uncensored documents to be presented...no can do...national security. The opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry. No, the Conservatives cite the current economic climate as a reason not to spend money to get at the truth.
Apparently, in last year's election, when the Conservatives campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability, they either crossed their fingers, or they had a little asterisk that referred you to the bottom the page which stated it didn't apply to them. And of course, whenever they couldn't come up with a good counter argument to any issue (not just this one), they defaulted to bringing up the Liberal sponsorship scandal to deflect criticism.
It seems as if Canadians are not really interested. Poll numbers show that this is not a ballot question. The electorate ask: did Canadians torture Afghans? If the answer is no (and that appears to be the case), then it doesn't matter. The truth is, if Canadians handed detainees over to the Afghan police knowing that they would be tortured, then Canada is contravening international law. The fact that the Conservative government is using every trick they can to discredit statements made to that effect, that they are withholding documents that may or may not implicate them, certainly gives the appearance they they are hiding something. So much for transparency.
The soldiers are not at fault here. They were doing their job. The Canadian government is the one responsible for setting the policy and procedures in place, since this was a government-to-government transfer. It appears that the Conservative government either knew something and chose to ignore it, or did not know anything and chose not to seek out what was going on. Either way, there appears to be a lack of leadership on their part. The fact that the Conservatives are blocking attempts to get at the truth does not bode well. So much for accountability.
Something I find coincidental is that the Somalia affair, which occurred in March 1993, happened while the Conservatives last formed the Canadian government. This is where a couple of Somalis were either killed outright, or captured, tortured and killed, by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, while engaging in a military operation in Somalia. It's not likely that this incident alone brought the government down, but it certainly cast a pall over them.
Canadians need to take notice of the current situation with Afghan detainees. Their ambivalence over whether Afghans are torturing Afghans is shameful. Does this mean if Canadians were torturing Canadians, that it would be okay? What about Mr. Mahar? After a public inquiry, it was determined that Canadian officials were complicit in handing him over to Syria to face months of torture, ending in a settlement worth millions of dollars. Canadians used to be known as the nice guys of the world. Is this changing? Should Canadians turn a blind eye to international commitments when it's convenient to do so?
Canadians need to hold the Conservative Government to their transparency and accountability promise. If they're not transparent on the Afghan detainee issue, will they be on issues that affect Canadians more directly? How about stimulus spending? Bailouts? Long gun registry? And whatever else comes along?
The Conservative government needs to man up on this Afghan detainee issue. They need to release uncensored documents to those investigating that have the proper security clearance. They need to take responsibility. They need to lead. Instead, they scurry around with their strategists' supplied briefing notes discrediting everyone and everything except their own "message". The fact that some uncensored documents have been leaked to the media shows that there are some people with knowledge of the facts that are concerned enough to do so, knowing that they may face prosecution for leaking secret documents. The fact that these documents were leaked indicates something is amiss.
Whether Canadian soldiers did or not appears not to be the fault of the soldiers, but rather whether the ruling government received the information and acted appropriately to change the situation. Poor Mr. Colvin was directed to appear in front of a Commons committee and the Conservative government used every trick in the spin book to try to discredit his testimony. The committee demanded uncensored documents to be presented...no can do...national security. The opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry. No, the Conservatives cite the current economic climate as a reason not to spend money to get at the truth.
Apparently, in last year's election, when the Conservatives campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability, they either crossed their fingers, or they had a little asterisk that referred you to the bottom the page which stated it didn't apply to them. And of course, whenever they couldn't come up with a good counter argument to any issue (not just this one), they defaulted to bringing up the Liberal sponsorship scandal to deflect criticism.
It seems as if Canadians are not really interested. Poll numbers show that this is not a ballot question. The electorate ask: did Canadians torture Afghans? If the answer is no (and that appears to be the case), then it doesn't matter. The truth is, if Canadians handed detainees over to the Afghan police knowing that they would be tortured, then Canada is contravening international law. The fact that the Conservative government is using every trick they can to discredit statements made to that effect, that they are withholding documents that may or may not implicate them, certainly gives the appearance they they are hiding something. So much for transparency.
The soldiers are not at fault here. They were doing their job. The Canadian government is the one responsible for setting the policy and procedures in place, since this was a government-to-government transfer. It appears that the Conservative government either knew something and chose to ignore it, or did not know anything and chose not to seek out what was going on. Either way, there appears to be a lack of leadership on their part. The fact that the Conservatives are blocking attempts to get at the truth does not bode well. So much for accountability.
Something I find coincidental is that the Somalia affair, which occurred in March 1993, happened while the Conservatives last formed the Canadian government. This is where a couple of Somalis were either killed outright, or captured, tortured and killed, by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, while engaging in a military operation in Somalia. It's not likely that this incident alone brought the government down, but it certainly cast a pall over them.
Canadians need to take notice of the current situation with Afghan detainees. Their ambivalence over whether Afghans are torturing Afghans is shameful. Does this mean if Canadians were torturing Canadians, that it would be okay? What about Mr. Mahar? After a public inquiry, it was determined that Canadian officials were complicit in handing him over to Syria to face months of torture, ending in a settlement worth millions of dollars. Canadians used to be known as the nice guys of the world. Is this changing? Should Canadians turn a blind eye to international commitments when it's convenient to do so?
Canadians need to hold the Conservative Government to their transparency and accountability promise. If they're not transparent on the Afghan detainee issue, will they be on issues that affect Canadians more directly? How about stimulus spending? Bailouts? Long gun registry? And whatever else comes along?
The Conservative government needs to man up on this Afghan detainee issue. They need to release uncensored documents to those investigating that have the proper security clearance. They need to take responsibility. They need to lead. Instead, they scurry around with their strategists' supplied briefing notes discrediting everyone and everything except their own "message". The fact that some uncensored documents have been leaked to the media shows that there are some people with knowledge of the facts that are concerned enough to do so, knowing that they may face prosecution for leaking secret documents. The fact that these documents were leaked indicates something is amiss.
December 11, 2008
Yet Another Fib: Tory Senate Appointments
Will it never end? Yet again, Prime Minister Harper is engaging in "Do as I say, not as I do" antics.
Today, Prime Minister Harper announced that he intends to appoint 18 (Conservative) Senators to the "House of sober second thought." Yet, even before he was elected two and half years ago, he's been on the platform of reforming Senate by having them elected, and working to that end. The reason for this quite transparent...he faces losing a non-confidence vote in the House at the end of January, when MPs return from their unscheduled vacation (i.e. the PM requested proroguement ends). So, why not stack the Senate with as many Conservatives as possible before he leaves? His enduring legacy.
Another example of Prime Minister Harper saying one thing, then doing another to suit his purposes. As always, there's plenty of spin. Apparently, these newly appointed Senators are going to be asked if they would step down, should an elected Senate come into being. I'll believe that when I see it.
If I can paraphrase that famous quote that's been bantied about Parliament Hill over the past several days (with apologies to Mackenzie King):
Senate elections, but not necessarily an elected Senate.
Prime Minister Harper's mother is quick to admonish people for calling him Steve, but has anybody told her about Stephen's fibbing?
Wings Over The World
Today, Prime Minister Harper announced that he intends to appoint 18 (Conservative) Senators to the "House of sober second thought." Yet, even before he was elected two and half years ago, he's been on the platform of reforming Senate by having them elected, and working to that end. The reason for this quite transparent...he faces losing a non-confidence vote in the House at the end of January, when MPs return from their unscheduled vacation (i.e. the PM requested proroguement ends). So, why not stack the Senate with as many Conservatives as possible before he leaves? His enduring legacy.
Another example of Prime Minister Harper saying one thing, then doing another to suit his purposes. As always, there's plenty of spin. Apparently, these newly appointed Senators are going to be asked if they would step down, should an elected Senate come into being. I'll believe that when I see it.
If I can paraphrase that famous quote that's been bantied about Parliament Hill over the past several days (with apologies to Mackenzie King):
Senate elections, but not necessarily an elected Senate.
Prime Minister Harper's mother is quick to admonish people for calling him Steve, but has anybody told her about Stephen's fibbing?
Wings Over The World
December 09, 2008
You Can't Lead From Behind
There are two basic tenets of Leadership (I made it upper case "L" on purpose) that I learned many years ago:
1. Lead by example, and
2. You can't Lead from behind.
In the political mess that is happening in Canada these days, there has been little of either lately...until today!
Let me start with the top. Prime Minister Harper has shown little of either even before election day in October 2008. During the election campaign, he denied Canada was going into recession and that there was no need for Canada to go into deficit to get the country moving again. The Conservatives formed a minority government and Canadians heard from their Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that there will be a "technical" recession, but that Canada will have a small surplus. Prime Minister Harper stated on election night, and again in the Throne Speech, that he was reaching out to the opposition parties to work with them to help Canada through these tough economic times. Instead, Mr. Harper came out with an economic statement that was widely regarded as regressive to Canadian rights and a blatant attack on the finances of the opposition parties, yet had nothing that would stimulate the Canadian economy. He had his head in the sand.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Chief confirmed that there will be a deficit this year. The Bank of Canada reduced their prime rate by 75 points (0.75%), which was 25 points more than economists expected, because of the Bank of Canada's fear of a deepening recession. Yet, the Conservatives have not introduced any significant economic stimulus (aside from their "tax breaks" since becoming the governing party in 2006), and Parliament has been suspended until the end of January 2009, when the Conservatives are expected to introduce their budget, albeit two months early.
Cap all of this off with an economic crisis that turned into a political crisis, because the opposition parties formed a coalition to counter the Conservatives, with Prime Minister Harper getting proroguement of Parliament from the Governor General. And Prime Minister Harper raising the rhetoric by making all of this a unity crisis because the coalition includes the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec sovereignty party.
One last thing about Prime Minister Harper, if he was really concerned about the economy. If he really wanted reduce the cost the political parties were exacting from the public purse, then why did he appoint 38 cabinet ministers, six more than he had prior to the election, with their higher salaries, additional staff and perks like limos for their use? These are not the actions of someone who Leads from the front, or by example.
But let us not forget the Liberal Party. Their divisions go back to when Paul Martin was making his bid to replace Jean Chretien as leader several years ago. There was bitterness between both camps that went beyond Mr. Martin's ascension to Prime Minister, until at least his downfall, if not after. And it appears as if more of this was going on as supporters tried to get Mr. Ignatieff elected as leader during the last leadership race that Stephane Dion won, and possibly again as the race heated up to replace Mr. Dion.
Canadians only have to look to their neighbours south of the border to see a real example of Leadership. President-elect Obama suffered many political attacks from within the Democratic party, as he sought to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 election. Mr. Obama suffered further attacks as he faced off against the Republican candidate John McCain, to win the election. Did President-elect Obama show vindictiveness towards his political foes? Is he waiting to be inaugurated to tackle the economic crisis in America?
President-elect Obama has reached out to his opponents, in order to work with them to do what's best for Americans. He made his Democratic Party leadership foe Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State. The President's representative to foreign nations. He retained Mr. Gates as the Secretary of Defence, a Republican, to ensure continuity while America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has invited Mr. McCain for discussions, to work with him. He has announced his planning of an economic stimulus package to get the American economy moving again. Something he can't actually implement until he is inaugurated on January 20th. These are the actions of a Leader.
What a sorry state Canadian politics are in at this time. The one bright spot is Bob Rae. Today he announced that he was withdrawing from the Liberal Leadership race and is putting his full support behind Mr. Ignatieff to become the new Liberal leader, so that the party (and coalition) can prepare for the resumption of Parliament. This is a man who has had many years in political life. He lead the Ontario NDP, became premier and went into federal politics with the obvious intention of becoming the Liberal leader, and possibly Prime Minister, which would have been the crowning achievement of his political career. In the best interests of the party, the country and the Canadian people, he has stepped down, thus potentially ending the possibility for him to become the leader of the party (because of his age).
Bob Rae is a man who not only Leads from the front, he leads by example!
Many politicians can learn from Mr. Rae...including Prime Minister Harper.
Wings Over The World
1. Lead by example, and
2. You can't Lead from behind.
In the political mess that is happening in Canada these days, there has been little of either lately...until today!
Let me start with the top. Prime Minister Harper has shown little of either even before election day in October 2008. During the election campaign, he denied Canada was going into recession and that there was no need for Canada to go into deficit to get the country moving again. The Conservatives formed a minority government and Canadians heard from their Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that there will be a "technical" recession, but that Canada will have a small surplus. Prime Minister Harper stated on election night, and again in the Throne Speech, that he was reaching out to the opposition parties to work with them to help Canada through these tough economic times. Instead, Mr. Harper came out with an economic statement that was widely regarded as regressive to Canadian rights and a blatant attack on the finances of the opposition parties, yet had nothing that would stimulate the Canadian economy. He had his head in the sand.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Chief confirmed that there will be a deficit this year. The Bank of Canada reduced their prime rate by 75 points (0.75%), which was 25 points more than economists expected, because of the Bank of Canada's fear of a deepening recession. Yet, the Conservatives have not introduced any significant economic stimulus (aside from their "tax breaks" since becoming the governing party in 2006), and Parliament has been suspended until the end of January 2009, when the Conservatives are expected to introduce their budget, albeit two months early.
Cap all of this off with an economic crisis that turned into a political crisis, because the opposition parties formed a coalition to counter the Conservatives, with Prime Minister Harper getting proroguement of Parliament from the Governor General. And Prime Minister Harper raising the rhetoric by making all of this a unity crisis because the coalition includes the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec sovereignty party.
One last thing about Prime Minister Harper, if he was really concerned about the economy. If he really wanted reduce the cost the political parties were exacting from the public purse, then why did he appoint 38 cabinet ministers, six more than he had prior to the election, with their higher salaries, additional staff and perks like limos for their use? These are not the actions of someone who Leads from the front, or by example.
But let us not forget the Liberal Party. Their divisions go back to when Paul Martin was making his bid to replace Jean Chretien as leader several years ago. There was bitterness between both camps that went beyond Mr. Martin's ascension to Prime Minister, until at least his downfall, if not after. And it appears as if more of this was going on as supporters tried to get Mr. Ignatieff elected as leader during the last leadership race that Stephane Dion won, and possibly again as the race heated up to replace Mr. Dion.
Canadians only have to look to their neighbours south of the border to see a real example of Leadership. President-elect Obama suffered many political attacks from within the Democratic party, as he sought to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 election. Mr. Obama suffered further attacks as he faced off against the Republican candidate John McCain, to win the election. Did President-elect Obama show vindictiveness towards his political foes? Is he waiting to be inaugurated to tackle the economic crisis in America?
President-elect Obama has reached out to his opponents, in order to work with them to do what's best for Americans. He made his Democratic Party leadership foe Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State. The President's representative to foreign nations. He retained Mr. Gates as the Secretary of Defence, a Republican, to ensure continuity while America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has invited Mr. McCain for discussions, to work with him. He has announced his planning of an economic stimulus package to get the American economy moving again. Something he can't actually implement until he is inaugurated on January 20th. These are the actions of a Leader.
What a sorry state Canadian politics are in at this time. The one bright spot is Bob Rae. Today he announced that he was withdrawing from the Liberal Leadership race and is putting his full support behind Mr. Ignatieff to become the new Liberal leader, so that the party (and coalition) can prepare for the resumption of Parliament. This is a man who has had many years in political life. He lead the Ontario NDP, became premier and went into federal politics with the obvious intention of becoming the Liberal leader, and possibly Prime Minister, which would have been the crowning achievement of his political career. In the best interests of the party, the country and the Canadian people, he has stepped down, thus potentially ending the possibility for him to become the leader of the party (because of his age).
Bob Rae is a man who not only Leads from the front, he leads by example!
Many politicians can learn from Mr. Rae...including Prime Minister Harper.
Wings Over The World
December 07, 2008
Canadians to Decide: Coup or Dictatorship
What's happening in Canadian politics these days is very disconcerting. It seems as if Canadians must decide between a coup d'etat...or a dictatorship.
Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative minority government was supposed to provide the Canadian public with an economic statement that would allay fears Canadians had about the economy. Instead, they made a blatant attack on public funding of the opposition parties that would effectively bankrupt them. They also intended to roll back pay equity and suspend the right to strike for public service employees.
In response, the opposition parties (Liberals, NDP'rs, and the Bloc) banded together and came to a coalition agreement to oppose the Conservative government. This caused the Conservatives to back off on their plans. In addition, the possibility of a non-confidence vote in the House prompted Prime Minister Harper to request of Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until January 26th. That means no debate in the House until then. As strange as it may seem, experts have said that all of these actions are perfectly legal within the Canadian Constitution.
Some people (including the Conservative government) have called the coalition of opposition parties an attempt at a coup d'etat over the democratically elected government. If that's true, then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government have become a dictatorship. Because the opposition parties individually could not mount an effective defence to the Conservatives, the parties banding together and forming a coalition has scared the Conservatives into thinking their government could fall. By closing Parliament until the end of January, they have effectively taken away the right of the Canadian voters' representatives from being heard in the House. This sounds too much like the actions of a leader of a small African country trying to tenuously hold onto power. The difference being there aren't any tanks around Parliament Hill or the Prime Minister's residence...yet!
The black humour in all of this is that Canadians have fought and died in foreign lands to combat coups and dictatorships. Canada has a long history of supporting democracy and ensuring the people of a country retain their right to choose those that would represent them in government. But the actions of the current Canadian government does not provide leadership by example.
In this time of economic instability, Canadians need to know that their political leaders are responsible and doing what is needed to ensure the best outcome for the country. Now is not the time for pettiness. At first, I thought proroguement was a bad idea. And from the standpoint of democracy, it is. However, it gives the chance for everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It also gives the Liberals the opportunity to change leaders. It's obvious the Canadian people could not stomach Mr. Dion leading the country, especially during these times. Whether the Liberals appoint an interim leader (such as the Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale) in advance of the leadership convention in May, or quickly choose from the leadership candidates, that needs to happen as soon as possible so that they can prepare for the resumption of the sitting of the House.
Proroguement of the House also gives the Conservative government the opportunity to put partisanship aside and come out with a budget that helps Canadians. That will be something the opposition coalition could support, and allow the Conservatives to continue to govern.
What Canada needs right now is political leadership (not partisanship) and stability. If the Conservatives can't provide it, then the opposition coalition should be given the opportunity.
Wings Over The World
Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative minority government was supposed to provide the Canadian public with an economic statement that would allay fears Canadians had about the economy. Instead, they made a blatant attack on public funding of the opposition parties that would effectively bankrupt them. They also intended to roll back pay equity and suspend the right to strike for public service employees.
In response, the opposition parties (Liberals, NDP'rs, and the Bloc) banded together and came to a coalition agreement to oppose the Conservative government. This caused the Conservatives to back off on their plans. In addition, the possibility of a non-confidence vote in the House prompted Prime Minister Harper to request of Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until January 26th. That means no debate in the House until then. As strange as it may seem, experts have said that all of these actions are perfectly legal within the Canadian Constitution.
Some people (including the Conservative government) have called the coalition of opposition parties an attempt at a coup d'etat over the democratically elected government. If that's true, then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government have become a dictatorship. Because the opposition parties individually could not mount an effective defence to the Conservatives, the parties banding together and forming a coalition has scared the Conservatives into thinking their government could fall. By closing Parliament until the end of January, they have effectively taken away the right of the Canadian voters' representatives from being heard in the House. This sounds too much like the actions of a leader of a small African country trying to tenuously hold onto power. The difference being there aren't any tanks around Parliament Hill or the Prime Minister's residence...yet!
The black humour in all of this is that Canadians have fought and died in foreign lands to combat coups and dictatorships. Canada has a long history of supporting democracy and ensuring the people of a country retain their right to choose those that would represent them in government. But the actions of the current Canadian government does not provide leadership by example.
In this time of economic instability, Canadians need to know that their political leaders are responsible and doing what is needed to ensure the best outcome for the country. Now is not the time for pettiness. At first, I thought proroguement was a bad idea. And from the standpoint of democracy, it is. However, it gives the chance for everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It also gives the Liberals the opportunity to change leaders. It's obvious the Canadian people could not stomach Mr. Dion leading the country, especially during these times. Whether the Liberals appoint an interim leader (such as the Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale) in advance of the leadership convention in May, or quickly choose from the leadership candidates, that needs to happen as soon as possible so that they can prepare for the resumption of the sitting of the House.
Proroguement of the House also gives the Conservative government the opportunity to put partisanship aside and come out with a budget that helps Canadians. That will be something the opposition coalition could support, and allow the Conservatives to continue to govern.
What Canada needs right now is political leadership (not partisanship) and stability. If the Conservatives can't provide it, then the opposition coalition should be given the opportunity.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
