Peter MacKay In Farewell Profile

Happy trails to you, Peter.


H/t Greg Perry

For Those Of You Who Missed Sunday Services Today ....

You can derive some inspiration from the always risible but earnest Pat Robertson, about whom I like to periodically post for the benefit of everyone's spiritual renewal. BYW, this moment is brought to you by The Mound of Sound, who obviously sensed my recent spiritual dryness when he alerted me to this.

Watch as Pastor Pat suggests a solution to an elderly acolyte's financial problems, a solution which, curiously, does not involve ending her tithing to the church:

A Precarious Existence

The Toronto Star last week concluded an excellent series on the plight of the precariously employed. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it for the insights and possible solutions offered into what is becoming far too common an employment situation for far too many: irregular hours, absence of security, absence of benefits and perpetual temporary worker classification. The impact of such conditions goes far beyond economic insecurity and includes being forced to put one's life on hold, delaying marriage, having children or, as we used to call it, settling down.

As usual, Star letter-writers offer their perspicacious perspectives on the issue.

Here they are:

Making bad jobs better, Editorial May 25

Congratulations to the Star and reporters Sara Mojtehedzadeh and Laurie Monsebraaten for the series highlighting the plight of the “precariously employed.” For too long have these employees been taken advantage of while they and their families have borne too much of the pain of today’s economic climate.

Businesses are in the business of maximizing profits and while some see the benefits of a stable and happy workforce, too many don’t. Since businesses are unwilling to act, it is clear that the solutions put forth by the Precarity Penalty report can only be attained through government intervention and stronger unions.

Right-wing conservatives have undermined unions such that fewer workers enjoy the security of decent working conditions, fair remuneration, benefits and a pension that will see an individual through his or her golden years in comfort and with dignity.

Conservatives have also convinced those without union support that since they don’t have the benefits secured through collective bargaining, unionized workers shouldn’t have them either, rather than expecting those benefits be extended to all workers. People need to remember that many of the standards that are in place today are thanks to unions and collective bargaining in the past.

As well, over the past 40 years, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that taxes are bad rather than seeing the huge benefit those tax dollars bring to all of our society.
We need bold governments (federal and provincial) that recognize a new and different world from the last generation’s but who are willing to serve the interests of the people in establishing and providing basic standards of living: decent wages and working conditions, affordable housing, medicare, pharmacare, education, affordable daycare, reasonable pensions, and safe communities.

Norah Downey, Midland

I have a solution for “precarious work.” It is to the employers’ advantage to have workers on a temporary or part-time basis, therefore there should be a substantially higher minimum wage than for full time work. This would make up for the loss of benefits and security.

Perhaps a 30 to 50 per cent higher minimum for precarious work would eliminate the unfair advantage to employers.

I have not experienced precarious employment myself, but have friends that have suffered from an employer’s deliberate firing and rehiring and short notice scheduling.

Jim Pike, Brampton

It is highly unlikely that conditions in employment will improve very soon if the issue of poverty can remain unresolved after so much has been written and studied over the years.

Nevertheless, one suggestion that might help to address both issues would be a guaranteed annual income. Employers would have to improve working conditions to entice people to do their jobs to earn profits for their companies.

While much thought and study would be needed to bring this to pass, I believe that capable politicians with the will could implement such an idea.

John Cousins, Bowmanville

How can you build a strong workforce on unpaid internships and volunteers? You can’t.

Your story reported on the stress caused by “precarious employment” and the obscene number of employees who will never know what job security is. Two pages later was a story about the Pan Am Games looking for more “volunteers.” This time the heavily funded games, with a reputation for the “excess of its highly paid executives,” was searching for highly trained medical professionals to work for free.

How did we go from slave labour, to the necessity of unions, to debt-ridden desperate students lined up to volunteer beside desperate parents, and desperate retired seniors?

Our leaders, both in government and the private sector, have failed to meet their duty to society. And yes, I was not paid to write this letter.

Jeff Green, Toronto

He Won't Be Missed

H/t Michael de Adder

Anyone who regularly reads this blog will know that I (along with guest posters The Salamander and The Mound of Sound) regard Peter MacKay as just one of far too many blights on the political landscape, perhaps distinguished only by his less-than-pedestrian intellect and very public absence of integrity. The most egregious example of the latter occurred during a very public soul-selling transaction (most such deals, I assume, go on behind closed political doors). After promising David Orchard during what turned out to be the final leadership convention of the federal Progressive Conservatives that he would never merge the party with Alliance/Reform if he backed him for the leadership, a scant few weeks later MacKay showed the stuff of which he is made and did just that.

And with no apparent shame.

Undoubtedly, as occurs when a politician leaves the stage, a certain hagiography will develop around the departing MacKay. Happily, Andrew Coyne has no intention of joining in such an disingenuous charade. The title of his National Post piece says it all:

Peter MacKay was a politician of many titles, but little achievement

Harper made him his first foreign affairs minister, an appointment that caused great puzzlement in Ottawa, though not nearly as much as in other capitals, where the notion that the foreign minister should be something other than a placeholder for the prime minister still holds.

After 18 unmemorable months at Foreign Affairs, he replaced Gordon O’Connor at National Defence, where he oversaw a string of procurement bungles culminating in the F-35, whose costs the government understated by a factor of five, staving off Parliament’s demands for the real figures just long enough to win re-election.

Yet McKay's incompetence seemed to propel him to even greater heights of imeptitude within the Harper cabinet:

Then it was off to Justice, where he was responsible for shepherding a number of bills through Parliament that seemed almost designed to be found unconstitutional, even as Justice department lawyers were losing case after case at the Supreme Court.

Other than that, he is best remembered for his commandeering a military helicopter as personal transportation back from a fishing lodge, plus his broken romance with Belinda Stronach, after which he posed in a photo-op with with a borrowed dog as he 'licked' his romantic wounds.

Oh yes, according to Coyne, he also likes to play rugby.

What does MacKay's 'peter principle' rise ultimately tell us? Here is Coyne's uncompromising take:

His career at the top of Canadian politics tells us more about the state of Canadian politics than anything else. That such a palpable cipher could have remained in high office for nearly a decade is a testament to many things: the thinness of the Tory front bench, the decline of cabinet, the prime minister’s cynicism, the media’s readiness to go along with the joke. The one thing it does not signify is his importance. He had all of the titles, but little influence, and less achievement.

For me a cathartic article and post and a very welcome but overdue political departure.

Omar Khadr: A Powerful Refutation Of The Harper Narrative

If you saw last night's documentary on Omar Khadr, like me, perhaps you came away feeling some awe at the remarkable resilience of the human spirit. Unless you believe Khadr is a master actor manipulating all of us, you could not have seen the film without a resulting deep respect for his maturity, intelligence, and remarkable insights that one could only hope to see in a much older person; I daresay many of us (me included) cannot claim such insightful equanimity. That those qualities could have emerged out of the crucible of his horrendous years in Guantanamo almost defies understanding.

Toward the end of the interview, Khadr reflects on a question he is often asked: if he could change the past, would he? His answer was that except for the firefight (in which he may or may not have killed Christopher Speers), he is not so sure he would change things, as it was through his years of imprisonment that he learned about himself and became the person he is today,

All of which stands as a powerful refutation of the Harper narrative of the former child soldier as an irredeemable terrorist who poses an ongoing threat to the Canadian public.

It occurs to me that Omar Khadr serves as a kind of personal Rorschach test; to reject him out of hand is perhaps to mirror something cold and dark within one's own psyche; to admit the possibility of his redemption perhaps points to something powerful and positive that resides within.

The former child soldier also challenges us as a country. Do the values that have traditionally made Canada such an enviable country still reside here? Are tolerance, acceptance and compassion still some of the markers of our national character? Or have they been fatally subverted by a federal government all too content to demonize, divide, and stoke hatred and intolerance of "the other'?

My own description of the documentary has purposely been brief; watch it as time permits and form your own view of Omar Khadr:

This From Adbusters

Enjoy:

Omar Khadr: Out Of The Shadows

The above is the title of a documentary to be broadcast tonight at 9 p.m. on the CBC's main network. Here is a brief excerpt:


Given all of the taxpayer money it has spent challenging Khadr's repatriation, his bail, and his access to the media, I am certain that the enemy of critical thinking, the Harper regime, would prefer that we not watch it. It would much rather that people not understand the hollowness of its bifurcated worldview of good and evil so relentlessly presented since its ascension to power - a rule based upon fear, one that it continues to promote through its foreign adventurism against ISIS, its liberty-eroding Bill C-51, and its constant rhetoric about the danger all of us face from terrorists.

Pablum for simple minds, an ongoing insult to the rest of us.

Today's Star has an exclusive interview with Khadr; I would suggest all those with an open mind read it before watching tonight's documentary. Here are a couple of quotes from Khadr that say a great deal:

"I don't wish people to love me. I don't wish people to hate me. I just wish for people to give me a chance," he says.

"I believe that each person, each human being, is capable of doing great harms or great good," Khadr says. "People who did these bad things (torture) are not any different than any one of us.

"Even for people who tortured. There are a lot of people who came back and regretted what they did, so as along as a person is alive there is still hope for him that he's going to change."

A plea for a chance to rebuild his life. An understanding that redemption is possible even for those who have partaken in heinous acts.

Who among us has the right to deny Omar Khadr his chance?