For today's installment, I offer Gerard Kennedy's You Tube appeal for support of his candidacy. While I suspect you will need no help from me in isolating his 'sweet nothings,' allow me to 'prime the pump' (sorry, I can't listen to this stuff without falling into cliches myself) by identifying just one:
"Like many of you, I believe public service is a privilege."
It deteriorates from that 'high point'.
While much has already been written about the economic threats to Canada inherent in the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement currently being negotiated in secret by the Harper regime, a new development in those negotiations has come to light that will cost all of us dearly.
In a piece entitled Harper government caves in to Big Pharma, Michael McBane reports the following:
Ottawa is prepared to give the Europeans, and the pharmaceutical industry, at least part of what they asked for on drug patents – a move that could cost Canadians up to $1 billion a year.
As McBane points out, thanks to a deal brokered by Brian Mulroney in the 1980's, Canada already pays 15 to 20 per cent more than the international average for new brand name drugs; at the time, the justification was the promise by the pharmaceuticals to invest 10 per cent of R&D (Research and Development)-to-sales in Canada, a figure that has never been realized. In fact, it currently stands at only 5.6 per cent of R&D-to-sales.
Yet despite pharma's betrayal of its undertaking, Canada is once more preparing to give away more of the shop through CETA; reports indicate
Canada will extend monopoly drug patents from 20 to 21 years. This patent extension will come without any conditions. In other words, we get nothing in return for this major concession. No jobs, no research, no innovation, no benefits whatsoever – only higher drug bills.
Prime Minister Harper is found of promoting the message that Canada is open for business. What he doesn't tell us is that it is the business of plundering and pillaging, hardly the basis for a domestic economic revival.
As I am sure is the case with most passionate political observers, our increasingly dismal turnout at electoral polls is a source of great personal dismay. While our political 'leaders' are busy taking us down an increasingly dark path that promotes the corporate agenda at the expense of the people and the environment, more and more people seem to be opting out of the political process entirely, justifying their non-choices with feeble excuses that include "All politicians lie" and "I'm just not interested in politics."
Perhaps they should take a lesson from the people of Sierra Leone, who recognize that however faint, the hope for a better society can come only from democratic participation.
After enduring a devastating civil war that took place from 1991–2002 at a cost of over 50,000 lives and the recruitment of untold numbers of child soldiers, the country has gradually been resurrecting itself. A good part of that resurrection is attributable to its return to democracy; although the road ahead is still fraught with obstacles, it seems that the the people's faith and participation in that democracy is playing a crucial role.
The Star reports a large turnout in yesterday's election, where people lined up as early as 2 a.m. to ensure that they get the opportunity to vote, the choice being between an incumbent president who has expanded health care and paved roads or an opposition candidate to lead this war-scarred nation still recovering a decade later despite its mineral riches.
Despite the fact that they have so little, the people of Sierra Leone are compelling examples of the richness of a society that takes its politics seriously and holds its representatives to account.
“This country has entered some very choppy waters. If elected leader, I will provide a firm hand at the helm to bring the economy safely back to shore.”
“Canada has a greatness that has barely been tapped. I am confident that I have the vision and the plan to mine that greatness.”
"Recognizing the forgotten middle class and the vital role it plays in a healthy economy is probably one of the greatest strengths that I bring to this leadership race.”
What do you think? Am I ready for prime-time politics? Need a bit more work, perhaps? Well, in all candour, I simply made up the above-three cliched platitudes about two minutes ago as I sat down to the computer. Presumably, those who are vying for leadership of the Liberal Party, either on the federal level or the provincial level here in Ontario, have given some thought to their positions and pronouncements before declaring their candidacy, yet their utterances have thus far not risen above the banal triteness of my three spur-of-the-moment declarations above.
In this second of what I hope will be a series of posts on the platitudes that plague our politics, I would like to take a closer look at what the leading Liberal candidate, Justin Trudeau, has been saying:
In his most recent public appearance, young Justin offered the following as he addressed the party faithful in Ottawa last evening (I have taken the liberty of highlighting the egregiously cliched parts:
While offering no specific policy plans to members of the Carleton-Mississippi Mills Liberals, Trudeau talked about it being easy to divide people into various socio-economic classes and regions; that it is much harder to unite a people. He frequently balanced oft-used conservative terms like “hardworking families” with protecting social programs coveted by progressives, sometimes reaching poetic heights of first-person oration.
“It was always the case that if you worked hard, you could make a better life for yourself in Canada. You could progress and have a chance if you left your persecutions and class divisions back home. That shaped us,” he said. “If you worked hard you could succeed. But when winter happens - as it often happens in this country - when winter happens: this country is too big to not lean on each other.” (Okay, the metaphor about winter is kind of nice, but its cliched sentiment breaks no new ground.)
He then went on to talk about young people no longer expected to have a better life than their parents and the ever-increasing wealth gap.
As an appetizer, maybe these words serve a purpose. However, if they are in fact the main course, I must confess to a deep and abiding hunger for something more substantial.
POSTSCRIPT: As an exercise in platitude-parsing and political rhetoric analysis, be sure to check out the text of young Justin speech in which he announces his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
*This message paid for by the generous taxpayers of Canada ($9 million and rising)
That the corporate world is ruled by only one imperative, to maximize profits, is self-evident. That it almost always gets its way, no matter what the environmental and social costs, is another truth that our current right-wing political 'leaders' would have us believe is a fiction that exists only in the fevered imaginations of paranoid left-wingers. Fortunately, certain facts are undeniable, no matter how much political spin is administered.
A story appearing in today's Star is quite instructive in this reality. Entitled Ottawa faces $250-million suit over Quebec environmental stance, it discusses how Lone Star Resources Ltd is suing under NAFTA:
Lone Pine contends it deserves $250 million in compensation by Ottawa for the Quebec government’s expropriation of its drilling permit, which it says violates Canada’s obligations to treat foreign investors from other NAFTA countries fairly.
The problem stems from Quebec's moratorium on fracking, a controversial drilling technique for releasing oil and natural gas from underground shale rock formations as it studies its environmental impact,
which some say consumes unacceptable volumes of water and may be contaminating groundwater. Quebec also passed legislation in June banning drilling below the St. Lawrence River.
Indeed, the challenge is yet another reminder of the dangers posed by Stephen Harper's current dalliance with China and the recent signing of the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. Many claim that the pact, which the Prime Minister has refused to allow Parliament to scrutinize, will in fact open Canada up to the same kinds of challenges that have repeatedly occurred under the NAFTA agreement.
Mr, Harper's hollow reassurances notwithstanding, extreme caution before proceeding seems to be more than warranted.
Kim Campbell once famously said that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues." Given the paucity of substance emerging thus far from declared candidates in both the Ontario and federal Liberal leadership races, I suspect that same 'wisdom' applies to leadership aspirants.
In the time leading up to selection of the next round of political saviours, it is my intention to track those platitudes regularly in order to chronicle the sad state of political discourse in this country; regrettably, it is a discourse debased not only by the ever-ready opportunistic attacks by opposition parties, but also by our own refusal as citizens to face up to unpleasant realities.
To begin this series, may I recommend perusal of Thomas Walkom's column in today's Toronto Star? In it, Walkom explores the utterances of young Justin Trudeau, the likely soon-to-be anointed next messiah to lead the federal Liberals out of the political wilderness (please forgive the cliche - it just seems so apt here).
The gist of Walkom's criticism is the platitudinous nature of Trudeau's utterances thus far, and of course it is a criticism that too readily applies to all current leadership aspirants on both levels of government:
Youth unemployment? Trudeau spoke firmly against it and said something must be done. It’s only when the reporter checked his notes later that he realized the candidate had never quite said what.
Medicare? The existing system, said Trudeau, is not sustainable. A serious conversation is needed. Otherwise medicare will die from benign neglect.
The most specific he got was in talking of the need for [m]ore emphasis on prevention. More home care. But all without more federal money.
And so the dance of triteness goes on, I suspect with more than a small cadre of media members and the electorate willing to have 'sweet nothings' whispered in their ears.
