Highlights of Justice

Favorite Question from last week's Ad Hoc Committee:

"Do you feel that the Notwithstanding Clause is a positive element of Canadian Democracy?"
- Diane Ablonczy

"I think I'll leave it to you people to sort that out."
- Marshall Rothstein

Some Other good questions:

"What role should foreign judgements have in our judicial system?"

"What are you going to do to make Supreme Court judgements more clear to Canadian Public?"

Oh Peter

Someone should explain to the newly minted Minister of Foreign Affairs that his job isn't just to be on the front page. Didn't they cover this stuff in the breifings?

This is what I'm sure will be the first of a number of appaling mistakes for the media darling/playboy. Maybe Stock wasn't a bad idea.

The Voice of Reason

Andrew Potter seems to be all over the place these days. He's got the Rebel Sell Blog and he's also been babysitting for Andrew Coyne and he's also a new columnist at Macleans.

He's also co-author of one of my recent favorite books. I've been reading his blog for a while and have become well aware of his capacity for contrarian insight.

Then I read his latest cloumn.

Then my head fell apart.

After I had put myself back together I got to thinking about it. If I might pull a couple of quotes:

The working assumption of the report is that Ottawa has a governance problem. The picture Gomery draws is a familiar sketch of the federal government as a "friendly dictatorship," with a centralized executive dominating a politicized civil service, scarcely overseen by an absentee parliament.

The problem, of course, is separatism. Gomery's firewalls approach assumes that there is such a thing as "normal politics," a sphere within which policy can be decided by politicians and then farmed out to the bureaucrats with minimal oversight. Not in Canada. Not when everything the federal government does -- from the appointment of the governor general to the decision to change the windows in a federal building in Ottawa -- is packed with dynamite. A national unity crisis can appear out of nowhere, which is why four decades' worth of prime ministers have felt the need to concentrate the real federal business within an ever-tightening circle.

Now this is something I had never considered. I've obviously thought a great deal about the rise of the Quebec Seperatist movement and the obvious ways that has affected the political landscape. I've also given a great deal of thought to the challenges our government faces when is comes to democracy and transparency and effectiveness. I've just never put the two side by side.

For a long time I hated Trudeau as a Prime Minister, I've gradually grown out of this emotional fog but I've found it hard to forgive the man for the manner in which he built the modern PMO. Later Prime Ministers entrenched what he did, but Trudeau was the primary architect of much of the centralisation of cabinet. I've always maintained that the last Prime Minister who oversaw a cabinet that functioned as it should was Pearson, but even Pearson had a habit of putting national unity front and center. The following passage appeared in more that one speech:

"There must be a determination to understand the real nature of Canada and the forces eroding that nature; to recognize the peril of serious internal divisions; to recognize also the competition and challenge of the changing world community and the competitive world marketplace; to realize the opportunities of national strength through unity and the fatal weakness of division and discord."

Perhaps more elegantly put, from the Throne Speech in 1967:

Our country was not founded in 1867. It is far more deeply rooted in time than that. But, one hundred years ago, our predecessors – men of many races, creeds and tongues – embarked upon a great exercise in statecraft of which we, today, are the trustees. They laid the foundations. They anchored them in a fundamental sense of unity that generations of conflict had taught was vital to the common weal. With this realization they erected a structure of government for the freedom, welfare and prosperity of all who might come in time to inhabit the land. They built according to a federal plan because they new that unity, with cultural and regional diversity could be harnessed to a positive and enriching role in no other way.

As the seperatist movement ascended to it's most radical positions of the 1970s and the FLQ crisis, Trudeau found himself in what was essentially an undeclared civil war. While the level of tension has abated and the methods have maintained a higher degree of moderation, Potter is right to say that this state of affairs has not changed in four decades. This perspective requires a linking of the issues that originally brought me into the political process (democratic reform, good government etc.) with the issue of national unity.

When the enemy at the gates announces something like this, I personally get a little worried (Although I had predicted the same during the election). Especially when Mr. Harper seems to be under the impression that "a national concensus" is utterly beyond the grasp of the federal government and the "little nations" of Canada's provinces should be allowed to develop independently.

For us Liberals, I think this means that the process of renewal must centre first and foremost around a renewed conception of the Canadian Confederation and for me this requires an appeal to history. The modern Liberal Party is so much enamoured with Mr. Trudeau that we have no sense of the visions of past men, great Canadians all: Pearson, King, Laurier, Cartier, Lafontaine, Baldwin, Howe. We too easily forget that Canada is a nation with rich history and long traditions. Our foundations run deep and we must understand them if we are maintain their strength.

Objections?

Something that I Missed

ANDREW TELEGDI is ASSOCIATE CRITIC: CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

Seriously, is this some kind of joke? Is this one of the things that needs to be finalised this weekend? Warren Kinsella isn't the the man's only critic.

Arguably the man has already got some experience in the job. He did a pretty good job embarrasing the government back when he was the Parl. Secretary to the Min. of Citizenship & Immigration. After resigning the post because he couldn't support the Liberal government policy he even managed to compare the Liberal government to Hitler. No Joke!

I think I might cry.

Let's Get Critical

Bill Graham announced the Liberal Shadow Cabinet today. The upcoming session is going to see some fun pairings. My personal favorite is going to be watching Dr. Irwin Cotler going up one side and down the other of the Honourable Stockwell Day on Public Safety issues. Good thing Mr. Day is a scholar of human rights and civil liberties.

Not that I like the idea of what the Conservatives are going to do to the country in the coming months but I'm planning to have a lot of fun while we're in opposition.

For the sake of indulging in some leadership discussion, let's see where the rumoured hopefuls will be doing their critiquing:

Scott Brison (Environment) - He's leading the charge on Kyoto? Ok so Brison in Environment isn't exactly an intuitive match and it might just be part of his "leadership makeover" (I wonder how the french lessons are going). That being said he'll be able to hit the Conservative on their own terms. As the Party decides to renew itself and its policy I expect the environment will keep him front and center. As an aside, Scott is in Vancouver tonight to try to woo some young Liberals. That will be interesting.

Maurizio Bevilacqua (Competitiveness and the New Economy) - No suprise here, this is his policy niche. He's an R&D policy fanatic and chaired the finance committee for a few years. He'll acquit himself very well but I don't know whether it's gonna help him woo any delegates.

Stephane Dion (Foreign Affairs) - Stephane is one of those brilliant minds that can handle near any portfolio. I imagine a number of people expected Ignatieff to become foreign Affairs critic but these are probably the same folks who think he'll win the leadership on the first ballot. Stephane Dion is going to embarrass Peter Mackay on a regular basis and it's gonna be fun to watch even if his most cutting jibes are delivered in French.

Ken Dryden (Health) - Ken's left-leaning liberal credentials are impeccable and with the current furor around the planned health reforms in Quebec, BC and Alberta having a Health critic who is the political equivalent of teflon is a good idea. This position will also give Ken a bit of a platform to define himself more broadly (assuming the leadership talk comes to something).

Michael Ignatieff (Associate: Human Resources & Skills) - It's good to see Michael cutting his teeth on a counter-intuitive portfolio. Even with all of the hype surrounding the rumours of his leadership intentions he's still a rookie MP without much of a political background and working with a guy like Geoff Regan might help the learning curve. Ignatieff's academic background doesn't directly apply but he's a remarkably widely read man and he's given this stuff some thought. It'll be fun to watch.

Belinda Stronach (Transport) - My first reaction is Seriously? This response arises entirely because other than the hype and the soap opera antics it's tough for me to determine whether she has any substance to her. I try to give her the benefit of the doubt but often come up short. She's got good staff and her background will come in handy I imagine. I'll be interested to see how well she does.

Joe Volpe (Treasury Board) - It's hard for me to think of anything really positive to say. At least he's not critiquing Solberg. He's gonna do a decent job I imagine and his job will essentially come down to pointing out Conservative hypocrisy and reminding Canadians of all the work the Liberals did to fight corruption. Can't think of somewhere better for him to be working.

Louise Arbour - Can We Be Serious?

Yesterday, CalgaryGrit posted a link to a Tyee story suggesting that Louise Arbour is being encouraged to run for the Liberal Party Leadership. This is my favorite part:

Former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, head of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, is seen to carry the iron-clad credibility the Liberals need in a post-Gomery world. Sources say a "Draft Arbour" campaign is in the exploratory stage and gaining momentum.

I can certainly understand the point. Louise Arbour is a woman who is at or at least near the pinnacle of Canadian Acheivement. On top of her current role at the UNHCR and the robes she left behind as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada she's been a law professor, Vice-President of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Chief Prosecutor of War Crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

She really would "carry the iron-clad credibility the Liberals need in a post-Gomery world." As to CalgaryGrit's contention that she has no political experience, I'd say that anyone who can (a) get anything done in the UN or (b) lead the charge on all the issues no government is interested in dealing with is more than able to navigate the political ins and outs of the Canadian reality.

Here's the thing, she's spent the last few decades ascending to the place she is now. She's currently pushing the US around on Guantanamo and is going to Russia to push Putin around on things like Chechnya and the Caucasus. She's got the support of the Secretary-General and her own agency and assuming Allan Rock's work on UN Reform goes anywhere she could be lined up to take on an even more significant role over the next ten years.

Would anyone of her stature and intellect, given the position she is in and the good she can acheive there sacrifice it all to have an outside chance at life in Stornoway and the unflattering side of Question Period? That is gonna be a tough sell and it's not much of a product. The party would be better off for her candidacy but I don't know that the world would be. I'd say we would all be best served if she were to continue her work and to continue it unblemished by partisan politics.

Pandora's Hospital

So a couple weeks ago I posted on the Conservative health care position. It was tough to unravel but here's the relevant portion of the article again:

Alberta can go ahead with all the health reforms it likes - so long as it stays within the rules of the Canada Health Act, says a spokesman for the incoming Conservative government...
...Stairs said Harper made his position clear during the election campaign and reaffirmed it Friday: "Mr. Harper has said changes should be made within the Canada Health Act."

Date of these comments? January 27th.

Since then (Jan 31st) The Alberta Cabinet voted on health reforms. A couple of quotes:

...the Alberta cabinet was presented with a nine-point health reform plan that would allow doctors to practise in both private and public systems - charging some patients directly and billing medicare for others...
..."I think the Ralph and Stephen honeymoon is going to end very quickly on this issue," Taft said in an interview. "If Stephen Harper is as good as his word and wants to prove that to Canadians, he committed to enforcing the Canada Health Act . And I hope he's got the backbone to stand up to them."

Ok so this isn't exactly unexpected, the Alberta government has been eyeing these changes for a long time, arguably they've been checked by Liberal threats under the CHA.

Fast Forward a couple weeks. This past Tuesday, Gordon Campbell's Liberal government came out with a throne speech for the legislative session with a new position on BC Health Care. Some highlights from the Speech:

Does it really matter to patients where or how they obtain their surgical treatment if it is paid for with public funds?

Why are we so afraid to look at mixed health care delivery models, when other states in Europe and around the world have used them to produce better results for patients at a lower cost to taxpayers?

Why are we so quick to condemn any consideration of other systems as a slippery slope to an American-style system that none of us wants?

And why shouldn’t we build our health care system on a foundation of sustainability? Are we really ensuring that the health care entitlements we enjoy as Canadians will be there for our children and future generations as our population ages?

At the same time, the man in line for the presidency of the Canadian Medical Association is a strong advocate of a two-tier health care system. He had this to say:

Dr. Day, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre in Vancouver, said yesterday he is not a one-issue candidate who sees private health care as some kind of cure-all. But he said that, as president, he would press to win a bigger role for the private sector to help fix a system he considers to be profoundly ill.

And now today, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, after spending a good chunk of time with the new Prime Minister yesterday, announces his own planned reforms. These include a guarantee of wait times as well as an increased role for a private system. “We’re putting the private sector to work for the public,” Charest told a news conference. He's calling this “a new era” for health care in Quebec.

So now that three seperate provinces have announced their intentions to reform the Health care system, you'd think the Federal government might have something to say. Especially since I imagine Mr. Harper got a heads up on the Quebec paper yesterday. Here's what newly minted health Minister Tony Clement had to say: "As federal Minister of Health, I believe that the Canada Health Act affords opportunity for innovation in health care delivery."

So there you have it folks, A Change is Gonna Come. It looks like Canadians who support the medicare monopoly would have been better off with Stockwell day than with Prime Minister Harper.

Fred Loiselle - Another Big Mistake

So it's been two weeks since Harper surprised Canadians with his two "contentious” cabinet appointments. Mr. Emerson did what has never been done before by crossing the floor before even being sworn in or showing up for the first day of work. I’ve avoided commenting on this scandal as I worked on his campaign and for me it is a complicated set of questions. Oddly enough, Mr. Martin has probably come closest to capturing my own feelings. I’d probably tone down the rhetoric just a bit.

Now that everyone in the country has an opinion on the Emerson fiasco and the Fortier decision has split the country down linguistic lines I had wondered if the whole thing would blow over.

Then Mr. Fortier appointed his Chief of staff: Fred Loiselle.

There were a couple sentences at the end of a Globe article on how Harper’s transition team had done a terrible job in screening candidates for Minister’s offices and now the PMO was having to direct the troops. Here’s the relevant bit from the article:

The veteran MP yesterday questioned the hiring of Fred Loiselle as chief of staff to Public Works Minister Michael Fortier.

Mr. Loiselle was involved in the 2000 Canadian Alliance leadership bid of Tom Long, in which some of his Quebec workers bought memberships in bulk and affixed the names of deceased party members. Mr. Loiselle, who headed the Quebec portion of the campaign, took responsibility for the difficulties and resigned, although he said he didn't know of the scheme.

"If I was looking to set a new tone, in terms of doing politics differently, I don't think I would have hired him," the MP said.

Critics said that the recent sponsorship scandal centred in Quebec should be cleaned up by someone above reproach.

So why would you hire a scandal-ridden operative to run the show?

Because he was your former campaign manager.(It's the only on-line article I could find)

Something no one has mentioned in the coverage of our un-elected senator cabmin is his aborted leadership attempt against Joe Clark in 1998. As an aside, this makes the “I didn’t want to run” defense a little harder to swallow. It sounds a lot more like “I didn’t think I’d win.”

What else has Mr. Loiselle been doing? Well he was a senior advisor to Belinda Stronach’s leadership bid, working with the likes of David Peterson and Bob Rae.

So the new chief of staff to the un-elected Minister of Public Works, the man who will control the gates of the largest government Ministry is a man who was forced to resign on account of a partisan corruption scandal and has a working relationship with one (Stronach) maybe two (Rae) Liberal leadership candidates.

Let's leave it as it was put best: "If I was looking to set a new tone, in terms of doing politics differently, I don't think I would have hired him," the MP said.

NEWS FLASH: Liberals Reborn from Ashes

Brilliant Rebuilding Part 1:

Yesterday we learned that rumoured leadership aspirant Jane Stewart was hired as acting leader Bill Graham's chief of staff. Like Paul Zed would say, this decision comes from the "department of good ideas". Not only is Jane Stewart a competent manager and former Minister with good political bona fides she was also chair of the liberal caucus for a number of years and is on speaking terms with literally everyone.

This woman is peacemaking incarnate when it comes to the Liberal party. As CP put it, “Stewart is seen as a party loyalist first and foremost.” I don't know that I've heard a single story about her that doesn't include a reference to her habit of giving people big hugs or her natural maternalism when it comes to squabbling Liberals. While I personally would have been happy to see her as a leadership candidate I know she and Bill will make a fantastic team when it comes to "being the glue that holds the party together while the constituent parts are all fighting one another".

Brilliant Rebuilding Part 2:

One of the hardest things for me to watch last election was news coverage of the Hamilton nomination meeting where Sheila Copps’ career as a liberal MP was unceremoniously ended by an ugly and public display of the worst abuses of internecine warfare. The fact that she and other “exiled” Liberals like Kinsella took to relentlessly pointing out the flaws of the Martin administration could be understood, given the abuses they suffered. To be honest though, I was surprised to read this article. In one move, two Liberal representatives will have put all sides at one table for a good party and will have kicked the process of “party renewal” into high gear.

I recognize that Sheila Copps is not universally respected but surely we can all agree that the 30+ years of dedicated service to the Party and the country deserves at worst our thanks and more likely our respect and admiration. Not only will this “evening of peacemakers” be good for the party and for healing the wounds of the past few years it has the added bonus of giving political reporters something to write about other than wild leadership speculation.

Brilliant Rebuilding Part 3:

Bill Graham has started to find his legs as Leader of the Opposition. With a new chief of staff and the support of a new caucus, Graham has started to put the focus of the chattering classes where it belongs, on the rocky start of the first Conservative government in over a decade. With Martin’s “astonishment” at Emerson’s defection, Fortier’s new Chief of staff, not to mention the apparent inability of Conservative Ministers to find competent candidates to fill key positions in their office, Graham has a good bit of opposing to do in the coming days. Yesterday and today are evidence of a good start.

Atlas Shrugged - Synopsis

So this is for all of those who risked your soul by reading Ayn Rand's dissertation on morality.

Scott Adam's Version.

Random Links

A couple of links to odd and or amusing stories over the last few days:

• Bureaucratic Synergy - The Canada Revenue Agency is looking for economies of scale and wants to collect every dollar on behalf of every level of government. Bring on the reduced efficiencies.
• In Germany major studio Warner Brothers is going to be selling their movies over Peer 2 Peer networks. Took you guys long enough.
  
• Skype has prototyped an internet cell phone.
• Killer virus to strike tomorrow.
• England faces a serious threat to it's autonomy from the EU. What will the future of the "pint of milk" be?

Highlights from the State of the Union

I'm not one who follows the byzantine workings of the American Political System with much intensity but I thought it might be worth commenting on President Bush's State of the Union Speech from last night.

...To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger...

I'm pretty sure that last sentence has appeared in every state of the union speech. One of these days a president is going to stand up and say "tonight the state of our union is trifling with a strong chance of precipitation"

...Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it...

I don't know that I've heard anyone call it misguided idealism, I've heard "corporate imperialism", "pillaging", "Trade liberalisation at gunpoint", "crusade", "religious fanaticism", "delusional foreign policy". By the way can someone define tyranny for me? I forget exactly which is worse a domestic military regime or an occupying military regime.

...Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror...

democracies seem to be legitimizing radicalism these days. there is no idea so persistent as the one that democracy will make bad people into good people. Sometimes the country screaming death to the infidels actually doesn't want many infidels around. as for as "democracies join the fight against terror" I remember a couple of names left of the "coalition of the willing". I guess Canada, France and Germany aren't democracies any more.

...When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)...

ironic? anyone? Alanis Morisette even?

...But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)...

well at least not Islamic evil. the evils of consumerism, drug culture, pop culture, apathy, the arms race, funding extremists, those aren't real evils.

...America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace...

interesting how this isn't "one of the nations who saved liberty..." I think I remember Winston Churchill having something to do with it and Charles de Gaulle but then I guess Bush doesn't realise he just put the US in the same catagory as Stalin's Russia. Sometimes I guess we need a good wartime peace to recharge the batteries.

...Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom...

Now that Paul Bremer opened all the borders and privatized all the infrastructure and gave the insurgents everything they need to justify their hatred of us and the new government, we're doing our best to let the locals deal with the aftermath. Unfortunately this also means that Naomi Klein is going write another best seller.

...The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)...

God forbid the decisions not be made by the people whose job security requires military expansion. We wouldn't want the people representing the dieing soldiers' families in on the deal, they might ruin a good thing.

...Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East...

oh yeah like elections in Palestine. Wait, maybe not that one. Wouldn't want to legitimise all these dark visions of hatred. Shoot! I don't know what to do now. maybe a vacation.

...The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.)...

or they might not. I guess that's how governments work in democracies.

...The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end...

I hate those clerical elites. I much prefer the corporate elites and the celebrity elites. what's the wealth gap in the US again? How much did Cheney make at Halliburton? How much have they made with Bush in the White House? I hate it when people sponsor terrorists, like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Oh wait that was us.

...They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. (Applause.)...

cause the war on drugs has been such a successful effort that should be the toolkit we use to protect our borders. Onward.

...So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America...

We've gotten some spectacular intel from our taps on George Soros, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. On a related note, I though congress could only impeach Democrats. Nobody told me the could do it to Republicans.

...American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march...

So much for Thomas Paine, George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, James Munroe. So much for "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

...Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest...

So does the deficit, not sure how we're gonna work that one out. I know, we'll spend more money on the war.

...Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse...

They keep applauding the wrong things. I don't think they're taking me seriously. I'm gonna call dad.

...In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)...

(Applause)

...So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived...

It's the least you could do since "Brownie" worked out so well in the initial aftermath.

--#--

How many more State of the Union addresses does this president have left? God help us all.

NOttawa wants You!

As has already been pointed out by Jason and Calgarygrit, Mark Watton, over at NOttawa (who also happens to be on the national exec of the Liberal party) wants to hear when you think the convention should happen and why you think that's the right time.

This has been a public service announcement.

By the way, I voted for March 2007 or later and you can find my reasons in the comments section.