On Keeping Perspective

With the cacophony of voices calling for Canada to continue to "Bomb, Baby, Bomb." and Canadian miscreants retaliating against Muslims by setting fires to mosques, it is crucial for voices of reason to be heard above the din of destructive rhetoric and behaviour that is emerging in the wake of the Paris massacre. Now is not the time for the default absolutist thinking so favoured by the fearful and the vengeful, who somehow believe that you cannot deplore and combat terrorism without uncritically endorsing military action that seems not to quell the threat of ISIS, but only embolden and strengthen it.

One such voice of reason is Trevor Amon of Victoria, B.C. In today's Toronto Star, he writes the following:

Paris has suffered a terrible tragedy. More than 100 people were killed, and many more were injured. How various countries should respond to this tragedy is the question to be answered going forward.

There are four of five permanent members in the UN Security Council involved militarily in Syria, and all four have long been nuclear weapon states. Any one of these five nations could make the choice of wiping Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Yemen off of the map within the next 24 hours, but none is willing to do so. None of these four nations is apparently willing to commit to making the much smaller choice of putting significant troops on the ground either.

And of course, China is doing absolutely nothing about this terrorist situation, and you do not seem to hear very much criticism from any source about China’s inaction and apathy.
Ah, but what should Canada do? Is Canada a nuclear power? No. Does Canada have one of the top 10, or even top 20 militaries in the world? No. Canada has spent over $500 million in the last 12 months on a bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, but are we any safer from ISIS in Canada as a result? No.

Stephen Harper found the money for a bombing campaign, but he cut money from the RCMP in an attempt to balance his budget when millions of dollars more were and are needed for the Mounties to keep Canadians safe at home.

Furthermore, the sole terrorist at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa left us with a video that explained his motivation for his actions: He was angry that Canada was military involved in the Middle East. How does our continued military involvement in the Middle East keep other radicals at home less likely to attack targets on Canadian soil?

What is our national interest here? What are our obligations to our allies? What are we trying to achieve? When will we know that we have achieved our goals?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be under pressure from many corners to do this or that in the coming days based on what has just happened in Paris. We need to take a step back here.

The Paris attacks were not of the magnitude of the Nazis marching into Poland in 1939, or the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour in 1941, or even Al Qaeda hijacking four planes with devastating consequences on 9/11. Lots of nasty things are going on in Syria and Iraq, but there are also lots of nasty things going on in Nigeria that don’t seem all that 24/7 newsworthy, and therefore it seems that we just don’t care all that much about what is going on there.

Maybe Canada should do something in the light of the recent Paris attacks. Maybe Canada should not. Whatever Canada does or does not do there should be a reason, and the reason should be arrived at through reasoned discussion and not simply by way of emotion, ideology or perceived obligation.

Collective Amnesia

In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, it seems that the world is about to embark on even greater military intervention in the Middle East, intervention that will undoubtedly be aided and abetted by a fog of amnesia about recent history.

While I do not consider myself particularly well-versed in international politics, especially as it pertains to the Middle East, it hardly takes a Ph.D to know that every time an outside force enters the region, disaster ensues. Consider, for example, the Soviet Union's failed incursion into Afghanistan in the 1980's, which essentially gave birth to Al Queda thanks to the U.S. arming of the mujahideen. That the Soviets found the country uncontainable in no way deterred U.S. adventurism there, which only made the world's situation much more precarious.

But U.S. aggression in Afghanistan was merely prologue to even greater disaster in Iraq. Indeed, writer Oliver Willis suggests that George Bush's inept decisions led directly to the creation of ISIS:

1. The decision to invade Iraq, which had been contained by the no-fly zone created by the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations and unable to threaten its neighbors or the West, created a power vacuum in the Middle East which had been filled by Saddam Hussein until the invasion in March o 2003.

2. The Bush administration believed it could install Ahmed Chalabi – part of the public relations campaign to sell the Iraq War to America – as leader of the new government, but he had been outside of the country so long they never accepted him. He was viewed as a “western stooge.”

3. Almost all of the leaders of ISIS have connections to the former Iraqi government, mostly coming from the military of the Saddam Hussein regime.

4. Paul Bremer, who was the appointed head of Iraq by the Bush administration, passed the de-Baathification law which sent Iraqi army members into the populace, eventually becoming insurgents and terrorists:

The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.

5. ISIS leaders’ training as part of Hussein’s regime gave them the knowledge they’ve needed to be deadly:

Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.

Some might admit that "mistakes were made," but no one seems to want to take any lessons from those mistakes.

There are now calls for long-term and intensive military build-ups in the fight against ISIS:

Some also speak of a much more aggressive military option. Experts say it would require 150,000 U.S. troops, could last decades and cost trillions.

An enthusiastic Thomas Donelly of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute is calling for such an implementation in Syria and Iraq:

It would take “more years of heavy combat than we’ve seen before” and “decades,” to properly re-integrate alienated Sunni populations that have sometimes backed Islamic State. The initial stage would cost more than $1 trillion over several years, he estimates, and 150,000 troops.

“Anything less than military engagement is likely to be useless,” Donnelly said. “It’s a war.”

Justin Trudeau has mounted the world stage as an emblem of soft power. We can only hope that he manages to keep his head as so many others in the 'civilized' world are losing theirs as they frantically beat the war drums, the reverberations of which are likely to grow louder and louder over the next weeks and months.

An Encouraging Sign Amidst The Terror

While the right seems hell-bent on exploiting the Paris massacre, it is heartening to see that some of the people most affected, the French, are demonstrating that they won't be so easily manipulated

French mourners in the city of Lille, which is north of Paris, sent anti-immigrant bigots scurrying away after they tried to intrude on a vigil for victims of Friday night’s terrorist attacks, the Independent reports.

The vigil began at 3 p.m. local time but was quickly interrupted by about 15 members of far-right group, the French National Front. The group angered grief-stricken vigil attendees by shouting, “Expel Islamists,” throwing firecrackers and unfurling an Islamophobic banner.

But the bigots were quickly forced to leave when the crowd of hundreds turned on them and forced them to retreat. Security forces intervened before tensions escalated further, according to the British publication.

Where Is Justice To Be Found?

For Adam Nobody, the answer appears to be 'nowhere.' Last week retired judge Lee Ferrier ruled at a police disciplinary tribunal that Toronto police Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani should lose five days' pay for his brutalization of Nobody, characterizing it as fleeting and physically minor. a strange way indeed to regard Nobody's broken nose and broken cheekbone.



The judge felt that Andalib-Goortani has already "suffered enough."

It is an assessment at odds with Toronto Star readers, a few of whose missives of outrage I reproduce below:

Police officer Babak Andalib-Goortani has essentially had his allowance docked as a punishment for his behaviour during the G20 protests in Toronto. The judge who heard his appeal apparently felt that the man wasn’t really bad, just naughty, “barely over the line of wrongfulness.” After all, he wasn’t the only police officer to wade into crowds after hiding or removing his name badge, and he’s suffered a marriage breakup, mental stress due to his criminal prosecution, and the loss of his home.

None of these hard times, it seems to me, came about because of what he did. They happened because he was caught, and that only if we discount all the other people in the world who suffered the same troubles without the excuse of legal proceedings in their lives.

If all we want from our justice system is punishment for criminals, which is what legal proceedings did determine the man is, then it’s arguable that he has already paid a price. If we want an offender to take responsibility, feel remorse, and genuinely try to address whatever in him lead to his mistake, with the goal of being welcomed back into a supportive community, neither Andalib-Goortani nor the rest of us are served by this judgment.

He has been judged to be a victim of an attempt to hold our police to civilized standards of behaviour. This does no favours to the man himself, our police, or the rest of us.

Jim Maloy, Barrie

Well, I guess it’s official: we live in a police state.

That a police officer, convicted of brutally beating an innocent, passive fellow citizen, should keep his job is utterly unbelievable – that is, assuming that we do live in a “free and democratic society,” as our constitution proclaims.

What’s happened in this case is called police impunity: the right of police officers to do anything they wish, no matter how criminal, with little or no consequence. The text of Judge Ferrier’s ruling could have been read out in Moscow or Beijing without anyone thinking it abnormal.

Because it’s poppy-time, I cannot help asking: Is this the kind of society that our brave soldiers, sailors, and aviators fought and died for?

Steven Spencer, Pickering

Like prosecutor Brendan Van Niejenhuism I was stunned that convicted Andalib-Goortani was simply docked five days pay for his assault with a weapon.

The retired judge assigned to the Police Tribunal, Lee Ferrier, simply confirmed by his irrational and unfair decision that justice is certainly not for all, but that there is one law for the police, and another for the average citizen.

It’s telling that in the 47-paragraph decision, not one line addressed the impact on the victim of the assault or the impact on public confidence in policing, but was devoted entirely to how Andalib-Goortani is a victim because of his assault on Adam Nobody. Too bad he lost his house and marriage because of his criminal actions, he should have lost his badge and his job too, if not sent to jail.
Until the police complaint system is overhauled, and pro-police biased judges are removed from the process, justice is just a catchphrase for unfair, and worthy of nothing but ridicule.

Gerry Young, Toronto

Cowardly And Indefensible

As cowardly, indefensible and savage as the terrorist attacks on Paris were, equally so is the response of the right-wing, eager to score points by exploiting that massacre for its own twisted political purposes.

If you haven't already done so, be sure to read Montreal Simon's post on the matter. As well, check out the video carried on Addicting Info, and if that doesn't sicken you sufficiently, take a look at Mother Jones, which carries some of the most outrageous tweets by some of the most unhinged minds in U.S. political culture today.

Beyond that, I have nothing to say.

On The Importance Of Political Renewal

I'd like to share with you a comment made on a previous post dealing with the self-delusion the Conservative Party seems to be engaged in as they lurch toward 'renewal.'

AniO wrote:

The rehabilitation of the Conservative party is vital to our future, however. Sooner or hopefully later, the current government will become old, tired, arrogant and corrupt - the inevitable ravages of power, it would seem. At that point it is vital that we have an ethical and solid alternative to vote for. After the hostile takeover of the PCs, we didn't have and look what happened. How do we get them to thoroughly clean house and reform (pun intended) themselves, and return to their roots of a once-ethical, credible political party with the interests of Canada and Canadians at heart. Our longer-term future may depend on it.

Here was my response:

You make an excellent point here, AniO. A healthy democracy demands a healthy and functional opposition, a party to hold the government to account and serve as a government-in-waiting. Here in Ontario, for example, the Liberal government has been in power for far too long, and has become what you describe: arrogant and old. The most obvious sign of this is the fact that it is selling off 60% of Hydro, which means that they are surrendering 60% of an annual $750 billion in profits, all for a few billion dollars.

When I voted for them in the last provincial election, I knew it was time that they spent some time on the bench, but unfortunately, the PCP under Hudak was never a consideration by virtue of his manifest incompetence, and I could not support the NDP's Andrea Horwath because she triggered an unnecessary election in her venal quest for power.

Renewal is something that must come from within, something that follows a careful and motivated soul-searching, the capacity for which I believe the Conservatives currently lack. While they are no doubt paying close attention to the many notes of grace coming from the new Trudeau government, to emulate the style without the substance will merely continue the blind path the party has been on for so long.

They will have to do much better than that to once again be considered a government-in-waiting.

Some Surprising Findings

Whether it is due to what has been called The Francis Effect or the increasingly severe weather that so many parts of the world are experiencing, a recent study finds that more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate the threat posed by climate change. Additionally and rather surprisingly, even those who are disengaged from the issue or completely skeptical support the development of alternative, clean technologies:




Meanwhile, here at home, a majority of Canadians

favour imposing new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas to reduce greenhouse gases and overwhelmingly endorse the growth of the renewable energy sector in Canada(93%), according to a new poll.

The support for a tax is strongest in BC (62%), females (60%) and young Canadians in the 18-29 age group(68%), and weakest among Ontarians(53%) and the 30 to 39 age group, the Nanos Research poll commissioned by University of Ottawa Positive Energy found.

It is long past due that we make a real commitment to mitigate the worst effects of climate change before it is too late for all of us.

A Sordid Story

While it is yet too early to tell how the new Trudeau government will handle the environmental and climate change file, early indications are promising. Minster Catherine McKenna has said that with regard to future pipeline proposals,

assessments will be “based on science” and ensure Canadians can participate in the hearings. During the campaign, the Liberals slammed the review procedures – put in place during Conservative rule – as inadequate and pledged that pipeline assessments would include upstream impacts of crude extraction.

Lord knows that the oil interests cannot be trusted to police themselves, as the sad and corrupt tale of Nigeria, Shell Oil, and the late Ken Saro-Wiwa amply demonstrate.

Saro-Wiwa, a passionate Nigerian environmental and human-rights activist, has been dead for 20 years, executed on trumped-up charges, the apparent victim of collusion between a corrupt military and Big Oil.

It was Shell that Mr. Saro-Wiwa was campaigning relentlessly against in 1995 when Nigeria’s military government arrested him. And it is Shell that continues to operate about 50 oil fields and 5,000 kilometres of pipelines in the Niger Delta today.

Although he died for his cause, that cause is yet unfulfilled:

The lands of his Ogoni people, in southeastern Nigeria, continue to be contaminated by oil, and thousands of people are still reported to be exposed to the pollution, despite repeated promises of a cleanup.

A report released this month by Amnesty International concludes that the giant oil multinational Shell has failed to clean up the pollution from its southern Nigerian pipelines and wells. Shell is the biggest international oil producer in the Niger Delta, which is the biggest oil-producing region in Africa – and one of the most polluted places on the planet.

And while Shell Oil has made its mea culpa over what transpired in the land of the Ogoni, the fact is it has done little to reverse the harm and environmental despoliation it has caused:

[A] 38-page Amnesty International report says it is Shell itself that is breaking its promises in the region. Amnesty’s researchers visited four oil-spill sites that Shell said it had cleaned up years ago. They found soil and water still blackened and contaminated by oil, even though people were living and farming nearby. “Anyone who visits these spill sites can see and smell for themselves how the pollution has spread across the land,” said a statement by Mark Dummett, an Amnesty business and human rights researcher.

One contractor, hired by Shell to help clean up a spill site, told Amnesty: “This is just a cover-up. If you just dig down a few metres, you find oil.”

It is an egregious corporate failure that has not gone unnoticed by Amnesty International:

“It is heartbreakingly tragic to see how 20 years after the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa … we see very little has changed: the oil spills have not stopped, and Shell still has not cleaned up this huge environmental degradation,” said a statement by M.K. Ibrahim, the Amnesty director in Nigeria.

“In the 20 years since Saro-Wiwa was executed, thousands of villagers in the Niger Delta have still not been able to drink clean water, nor farm on their land, nor fish in their waters,” he said. “This oil pollution is wrecking lives.”

And government corruption, it would seem, continues, as reflected in the customs seizure of this:



The above, called the "battle bus," is a

full-sized steel bus, created by British-Nigerian artist Sokari Douglas Camp in 2006, [which] carries oil barrels on its roof and is emblazoned with one of Saro-Wiwa’s most stark and enduring phrases: “I accuse the oil companies of practising genocide against the Ogoni.”

Intended to inspire Nigerian youth to be vigilant and hold the government and oil companies to their promises of environmental remediation, the sculpture has instead

become a symbol of the ongoing censorship of communities in Nigeria and it has also made explicit the links between the violence and corruption and the influence the oil companies . . . have in the region.”

Back here in Canada our new government, unlike the old with its virtual blank-cheque mentality for all things resource-related, will indeed do well to keep in mind the true nature of the oil multinationals and legislate and regulate them accordingly.

Conservative Self-Delusion

These days I find I have little desire to think, let alone write, about the Harper regime. Despite the fact that we lived so long under its oppressive and toxic shadow, I prefer these days to think about future possibilities. However, the current 'introspection' the defeated party is undergoing merits some attention; it is a process that seems doomed to failure as revisionism about its sordid and dark record is rampant. Stoutly declaring that they got the 'big things' right, Conservative stalwarts seem doomed to a fruitless rebirth that will, at best, be cosmetic, at least until they are willing to confront some unpleasant truths, something I frankly doubt they are capable of.

In today's Star, Carol Gore offers them a framework for renewal that I doubt their hubris will allow them to entertain.

Since the Conservative were ousted on Oct. 19, former cabinet minister Jason Kenney has told anyone who will listen: “We got the big things right. We got the tone wrong.”

But the 47-year-old leadership aspirant is deluding himself if he thinks his party’s problems are only skin deep. The reason the Conservatives lost power is that Canadians no longer wanted a government obsessed with security, fiscal austerity and big oil. Harper’s relentless negativity only reinforced that.

Their 'sins were many; here are but a few of them:

Their Fiscal Record:

They spent the $13.8-billion surplus they inherited within two years, leaving Ottawa with no economic cushion when the 2008 recession hit.

On their watch, the national debt grew by $176.4 billion. Almost a quarter (24 per cent) of Canada’s accumulated debt was amassed since 2008.

Their Job-Creation Record:

Year after year, they brought down budgets that promised to increase employment and prosperity. When they took power in 2006, the unemployment rate stood at 6.4 per cent. When they lost power, it was 7 per cent.

Add to that the fact that many of the jobs are precarious and part-time, forcing more people into poverty.

Their Record On Political Accountability:

They shut off access to government documents, silenced public officials, denigrated or drove out parliamentary watchdogs, rolled dozens of legislative changes into book-length omnibus bills and refused to let opposition MPs examine their expenditures.

Their Record ON Advancing Canadian Values On The World Stage:

Jason Kenney was front and centre on many of these issues. He was the minister who banned niqabs at citizenship ceremonies; who opened the floodgates to a massive influx of foreign temporary workers; who insisted Canada had a great “skills gap” (based on a misreading of Kijiji’s jobs vacancy data); who boasted about defunding charities that criticized Israel; and who blasted a United Nations official for revealing that nearly 900,000 Canadians used food banks every month.

Carol Goar lists additional examples of how the Conservatives squandered their power during their reign, but I think you get the picture. It is one, I suspect, that will be forever beyond the grasp of a party that seems to prefer sweet lies to bitter truths, thereby likely dooming them to wander the political wilderness well into the future.

Catherine McKenna In Paris

The international community is “really excited” to see Canada back at the table for climate change talks in Paris, Canada’s new environment and climate change minister said Tuesday.



May concrete and substantial action follow.

Redefining Government

Those of us who followed closely the dark years of the Harper regime are well-aware of its ethos: government is an impediment and an intrusive force, foisting itself upon people who would be far better off left alone. The tax-cut policies of the regime, along with the creation of TFSAs, the underfunding of programs, the gutting of environmental regulation and oversight, etc. were all ample testaments to that philosophy.

The thick carapace of my cynicism led me to fear that far too many of my fellow citizens had accepted the message of the primacy of the individual over the collective. While a humbling experience, I am so glad that I was so wrong, a fact amply attested to by the results of our recent election.

Hope and goodness are alive and well.

In a recent column, Toronto Star publisher John Cruickshank makes some very interesting observations about what led Justin Trudeau's Liberals to such a definitive victory, and the word 'good' figures prominently in his assessment. He observes that the word was used during the campaign by both Harper and Mulcair as being synonymous with 'skilled', as in 'good leadership.' Trudeau, however, used it differently:

...when he used “good” as in “good government,” Trudeau often wasn’t speaking merely of skilfulness or efficiency.

He meant morally good. Virtuous. Right.

It was a little shocking to hear. It echoed the language of an earlier generation before the relentless Conservative assault on the size, scope and nature of democratic government impoverished our speech and slackened our hopes.

The kind of fatalism implicit in the Harper message, that we are controlled by global forces and markets that compel us to be either lean and mean or 'die', was challenged by Trudeau:

Trudeau called out both this fatalism and the pessimism about voters that underlay the Conservatives’ personal attacks and their scaremongering against new Canadians.

His promise to run a modest budget deficit for three years to restore public works and put more Canadians to work was above all a pledge to think differently and more confidently. Challenging current ideology, he said we could alter our circumstances.

Second, he insisted that inequality of wealth and opportunity was a moral problem as well as a technical one. The promise to raise taxes on the rich and reduce those on the middle class gave testament to his seriousness.

Raising taxes and running deficits have been considered political third rails. Despite the risks, Trudeau grabbed on hard.

Canadians responded by strongly endorsing a philosophy that says government can once more be a force for good, a notion constantly challenged and undermined by the neoliberal agenda:

And it was this enthusiasm for “good government” that decided the election.

It was a vote for a return of moral passion and a sense of purpose when we address our economy, our environment, the newcomers to our nation and our Aboriginal Peoples.

This kind of political talk was once much more common in Canada. Perhaps it will again be possible after this very broad and deep victory to engage Canadians in pursuing what another Liberal prime minister called the Just Society.

The message to all Canadians is that they are not alone in their struggles, surely one that can bring some solace to many. Let us now hope that message will find full expression in policies implemented with vigour and deep conviction.

The Joy And Pride Continue

Although there will undoubtedly be some serious disappointments in the months and years ahead, the joy and the pride that Canadians feel over the election of the Trudeau government is very strong indeed. Treat yourself on this fine Sunday morning by checking out the full array of letters from Star writers as they share their hopes for the future. Following are but three of them.

Canada reborn! My heart swells with joy and pride as Canada demonstrates democracy in action and Prime Minister Trudeau and his ministers are sworn in before the public openly and on national television. Is there another nation in the world where citizens have voted freely and elected such superbly qualified men and women who are immediately shown to all the citizens?

We are so blessed with freedom and the opportunity to have a Prime Minister who recognizes true Canadian values and will restore our status at the United Nations and throughout the world.

After the years, terrifying to me, of the Harper regime diminishing openness, eliminating discussion in Parliament, imposing cruel laws in areas of justice, immigration and engaging in undeclared war, the sun is streaming in and we are returning to the Canada that I have loved for more than 80 years.

As one born in Canada, I am thrilled to see the bright future for my wonderful country.

Shirley Bush, Toronto

For the Prime Minister-designate of our great nation to be ushered into the swearing-in ceremony, borne aloft on the haunting timbre of Cree tradition, and for him to emerge as our new Prime Minister, is a potent acknowledgement of the myriad peoples who made, and continue to advance, our nation.

Mr. Trudeau represents a rebirth of ideals, renewal of Canada as inspiration for the rest of the world. Through this territory, global citizens can, indeed, envision a hoped-for country, in which disparate peoples and diverse views can be incorporated into nationhood.

Through Canadian influence, the international community can aspire to parity, can pursue equity, can insist on right. Canada has always been this nation. May we never forget this moment, never abandon this movement, always seek the better angels of our nature.

Caril Phang, Toronto

The swearing in of the new government was a celebration of great joy and pointed symbolism that heralded a new era of inclusivity and civility in Canada. How fitting that – flanked by cabinet ministers proudly wearing Liberal red – our new Prime Minister chose to wear a tie coloured Conservative blue.

What a thoughtful way to demonstrate his belief that he was elected to serve all Canadians, not just those who chose to support him at the ballot box. His “sunny ways” are such a profound and welcome relief – we are so ready for them.

Gillian Bartlett, Toronto

Setting the Record Straight

While the Globe and Mail continues on its blind path of extolling the fallen (a.k.a. the Harper regime), its readers seem adamant about setting the record straight. These two letters should give the powers that be some pause:

Brand: Conservative

Re Ambrose Buys Time Tories Must Use Wisely (Nov. 6): When most consumer-focused organizations lose a huge chunk of their market overnight, they research, retool, then redefine or reinvigorate their product to try to re-engage their customers and thus regain that lost market share.

Not so the Conservatives.

In her first (as usual, very short) press conference, interim leader Rona Ambrose offered not one “to do” that included any reflection – only that they would work hard to regain power. Most Conservatives who have been interviewed seem to think there is nothing wrong with the product itself – only the way they sold it.

Preserve us from those who seek power only for its own sake, not for the ability to help build a Canada that Canadians actually want.

Gavin Pitchford, Toronto

.........

Muzzled, unmuzzled

Konrad Yakabuski says the suggestion that government scientists “were muzzled or their science suppressed is an exaggeration” (The Grits Are Back In Charge, All’s Right In Ottawa – Nov. 5). He argues that scientists were allowed to keep publishing research in scientific journals.

Yes, but they were unable to issue press releases about those publications or to discuss them with the media, meaning the vast majority of Canadians were unaware of this research – and would have been unable to fully understand the heavily technical articles even if they had been aware of them.

If research results are at odds with what the government is doing, doesn’t the public have a right to know that?

It’s true that there were incidents of conflict between government policy and government scientists’ evidence before the Conservative government.

Perhaps the best strategy to avoid conflict would be for government policy-makers to listen to the evidence gathered by their own scientists.

Carolyn Brown, science writer/editor, Ottawa

A Shameful Legacy

Yesterday I attended a funeral service for the father of my good friend and former colleague, John. Although I never met John's father, a retired Presbyterian minister, his son's stirring eulogy was such that I left the service feeling that I somehow knew him in some way, such was his legacy.

Like his father, John is a man of great integrity, passion and commitment to his family and his country. Hearing him speak, of course, initially got me thinking about what others might say about me when my time comes; although I have not led a particularly accomplished life, I hope the one thing that will be remembered, if modesty permits, is that I tried to live my life with both personal and professional integrity.

Which got me to thinking about our last government. As I have mused at times in this blog, I still do not understand how the men and women who were part of Stephen Harper's regime can, even for a moment, delude themselves into thinking that their public lives were even remotely honourable ones. They allowed themselves and their principles to be dictated to by a martinet, almost no one protesting or asserting any objections whatsoever (Brent Rathgeber and Michael Chong notable exceptions). Surely this should be a source of deep shame, no matter how much they try to spin their defeat as a result of tone rather than policy.

They will not be missed.

When their time comes, each of the defeated and still-standing Conservative Members of Parliament will no doubt be remembered fondly by family and friends. Yet for others in living memory, they will be recalled for their manifest failure to do anything to better their country and their fellow-citizens. Our most recent election saw them being repudiated for a host of reasons as voters fled

[f]rom a hyper-partisan Conservative party that had grown cynical, sneering and closed under Stephen Harper. From practices that showed contempt for Parliament, the Supreme Court and science itself. From ugly, divisive, Muslim-baiting electoral tactics. And from deeply misguided policies that favoured the moneyed few, and that sold out civil liberties amid hyped fears of terror.

What Canadians rejected could fill dozens of blog pages, and they have already been well-chronicled in the blogosphere this past decade. But they still don't get it, as Owen observes this morning at Northern Reflections. They still insist that theirs was a failure of tone. But Andrew Coyne points out that the problem runs much deeper:

...in the main what characterized the Tories’ 10 years in power was timidity, mixed with inconsistency. They took few risks, invested almost no political capital, articulated no broad vision. Where they did act, it was as often as not by stealth: important measures would be found buried four hundred pages deep in an omnibus bill, or parsed from some throwaway remark by the prime minister at a conference in Switzerland.

Theirs was a failure, not only of vision, but of moral fiber, and no matter what kind of 'face' they try to put on a revived Conservative party, that persona, while the usual suspects still control the levers of power, will serve only to mask the underlying rot that corrupted the party under the leadership of Stephen Harper.

Until that rot is wiped away, merely adopting a new tone in emulation of the victorious Liberals will serve only to reinforce its incapacity to truly renew itself.

Another Good Sign

I had a pretty busy day today attending the funeral service for the father of a good friend and former colleague, so I didn't have time to write a blog post, but very briefly, there is more good news to share about the new government:

Alain Vezina, regional director of science for the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, confirmed Friday morning that scientists at the institute are allowed to openly speak to media.

Vezina held a meeting this morning to brief staff on the change.

He told National Observer that the announcement was communicated to him from the assistant deputy minister of science at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (known by its old acronym for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO).

"Basically what I told the staff is if you’re contacted directly by the media, let’s say you’re at a conference or a workshop, the media is there. You can talk directly. You don’t have to say, ‘I don’t have permission to speak.’

The DFO is the first government department to lift restrictions on its scientists and the manner in which they communicate with the media.

The Assistant Deputy Minister for Science at the DFO, Trevor Swerdfager, said the announcement applies to some 1550 people in the department’s science sector, including in 14 major institutes across Canada.

The change came after Swerdfager and his management team met to discuss how to respond to media requests. “This is very much in the spirit of and the intent of what we see with this government and here’s how we want to move forward.”

So far, so good. May the trend continue.

An Auspicious Start

Today, the first full day of the new Trudeau government, is a day that suggests what is to come. The long-from mandatory census, whose importance I discussed in a recent post, is returning in 2016, clearly an encouraging indicator that the ideology informing most of the decisions made by the previous regime is being replaced with data-driven policy considerations.

Navdeep Bains, the newly named Minister of Innovation, Science and Development, confirmed the news to reporters on Parliament Hill, declaring that the country needed access to high quality data.

The announcement rolls back one controversial decision by Conservatives, one that prompted critics to charge that government was turning its back on fact-based decision-making.

We all, I am sure, look forward to more signs of progressivity in the days, weeks and months to come.

UPDATED: A Special Day

Today is one of those days where all things seem possible, a day suffused with an optimism that many likely haven't felt for a long time, given the dark times endured under the previous regime. I spent the morning watching the swearing-in of the Trudeau government, and from start to finish the entire ceremony, which I doubt that I have ever watched before, was a reminder of all the things that are good and possible about Canada.

First came, not the usual surfeit of black limos, but rather the entire team walking the grounds of Rideau Hall upon their arrival:




Most striking about the above was the leisurely pace with which the Trudeau entourage walked, waving and greeting well-wishers, many of whom, to my delight, were young. Could this be the start of a youth engagement? The symbolism of the stroll can hardly be lost: an accessible government of and for the people, something that stands in sharp contrast to the aloof isolation of the Harper regime.

The other thing that struck me was the amazing depth and range of talent to be found within the new cabinet; clearly, as he has stated, Trudeau expects much from the people that he has said will be decision-makers. You can see the full list here.

In its diversity. the cabinet is a real representation of Canada today, with immigrants, aboriginals and the physically challenged all being given important portfolios.

At the moment, a real feeling of pride is being experienced across Canada, as evidenced by social media:

Charlotte Engerer and Jason Waterman were among the hundreds of “proud” Canadians pleased that the country elected Trudeau.

“Congratulations to our new Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau – so proud of my fellow Canadians to have made decisive choice for positive change,” Engerer said.

“Proud day to be a #canadian - best wishes today to our 23rd Prime Minister, @JustinTrudeau and our new cabinet & MPs! #cdnpoli #RealChange,” said Waterman, CTO of Chrome extension Momentum Dash.

Charlotte Engerer and Jason Waterman were among the hundreds of “proud” Canadians pleased that the country elected Trudeau.

“Congratulations to our new Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau – so proud of my fellow Canadians to have made decisive choice for positive change,” Engerer said.

“Proud day to be a #canadian - best wishes today to our 23rd Prime Minister, @JustinTrudeau and our new cabinet & MPs! #cdnpoli #RealChange,” said Waterman, CTO of Chrome extension Momentum Dash.

While such positive feelings will be of uncertain duration, I, for one, intend to enjoy them while they last.

UPDATE: Mark, in his comments below, offers some very interesting observations about today's cabinet choices:

Something else that struck me about these cabinet choices: it's like Trudeau wanted to send a signal; that this government will do things differently.

First off, with this much talent in his cabinet, it would be awful hard to run the government as a one-man show; they way Harper did.

Secondly, a number of the picks were interesting in their own right.

As much as I am glad that after a decade of a government that made yes-mean as Cabinet Minsters, we now have a Minister of Science that actually has a degree in science, and a Minister of Health that actually is a former doctor; these are things that we should have been able to expect all along, from any decent government.

Far more interesting is a few other picks I that caught my attention.

After a government that shamelessly used the military for photo-ops, yet treated the veterans, particularly disabled veterans, like crap, we now have a Minister of Veteran's Affairs that is himself a disabled person.

Then there is the pick of Minister of Defence. After a government that stirred up racism to justify foreign military adventurism, we now have a Minister of Defence who is a person of colour. Admittedly, the Conservatives never directed racism towards Sikhs the way the did towards Muslims, but many Conservative supporters have shown that they don't make that distinction.

Minister of Status of Women - a Cabinet role Harper filled only because he had to, in order to maintain that "moderate" image. We now have a veteran social activist.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Notice the change of the title for this role? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

While I would have liked to have someone with more direct experience with environmental issues, (e.g. Joyce Murray,) - and apologies to Mz. McKenna if I am insufficiently familiar with her curriculum vitae - I love the fact that Trudeau's pick for this role is a former human rights and social justice lawyer. Hopefully a sign of how Mr. Trudeau truly sees this issue.

A couple of other observations about this cabinet:

It's becoming clear that those looking to smear Trudeau with the "Harper-lite" label are going to have a tougher time getting that label to stick.

Among the long-time Liberal MPs, we have a few from the left-leaning wing of the party, most notably Bennett and Dion, and one former NDP Cabinet Minister.

Among the newcomers, at least a few sound like they could just as easily have run for the NDP; including a few experienced social justice warriors.

Lastly, when Trudeau announced that he was aiming for gender parity and ethnic diversity, there were predictable complaints from certain elements in the MSM, that appointments were not being made on the basis of merit. Yet, when I look at the experience these appointees have, I would challenge any of the complainers to name names, as to who the "Affirmative Action" cases were.

I do still have some reservations, regarding where Trudeau wants to lead the country. But looking at this cabinet, it does fill me with hope that we have done more than merely replace one monster with another. A couple of the big issues that this new government will have do deal with soon, (the TPP and climate change,) may once again fill me with cynicism; but for now, I'm starting to feel more hope than I've dared to feel in a long, long time.

Sometimes, All We Can Do Is Bear Witness

What is the truth about Don Dunphy? I don't know. But his story is surely worth sharing, given the terrible abuses of police authority that have been so much in the news these past several years. At the very least, a full and open investigation is warranted here:

Undoing The Damage

During this 'interregnum' period, I have felt less inclined to write my blog; with the incoming government yet to make its mark, and the outgoing one something I prefer to think about as little as possible, I don't have as much to say as usual. Nonetheless, things are undoubtely happening beneath the public radar, and it seems that one of the first orders of business facing Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet will be repairing some of the extensive damage done by the Harper regime.

In the following excerpt from Power Play, law professor Carrisima Mathen discusses some of those issues:



Over at The Star, Bruce Camion Smith writes about restoring the mandatory long-form census, which will surely be a triumph of knowledge over the ignorance and ideology so firmly embraced by the out-going regime:

...the Liberal platform outlined a commitment to “immediately restore” the mandatory long-form census “to give communities the information they need to best serve Canadians.

“Without accurate and reliable data, Canada’s communities cannot plan ahead,” vowed the Liberal platform, which also committed to make Statistics Canada “fully independent.’

According to a Liberal source, the new government intends to act on its long-form census pledge soon after taking office Wednesday.

The mandatory long-form census, replaced by a voluntary one included in the 2011 National household Survey, is crucial both for government and business planning:

The 61-question long-form census — sent to one in five households –— included questions on language, aboriginal heritage, ethnicity, education, employment and commuting habits and was meant to provide greater insight into the country and its citizens.

The responses to those questions — and the trends revealed from one census to the next — helped public officials plan infrastructure and urban services and give private businesses insight into their customers.

While the Trudeau government will undoubtedly face many challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead, quickly undoing some of the damage done by Harper and his acolytes will send a powerful message to all Canadians that there is indeed a new sheriff in town.

The New Trudeau Cabinet

While the eyes of many Canadians will be on the television screen Wednesday to witness Justin Trudeau's swearing in as our new Prime Minister, equally riveting will be the introduction of his cabinet the same day. Given the wide-range of talent his party saw elected, both new and veteran MP's will likely be harbouring high hopes of securing one of the coveted positions.

In the Sunday edition of the paper, The Star's Bob Hepburn indulged in some interesting speculation, reminding us of the factors to be considered:

These factors include the size of the cabinet, gender equality, ethnic diversity, regional distribution and a balance of new and veteran MPs, but leaning to young and new versus old and experienced.
Some critics have suggested Trudeau is putting gender and regional concerns ahead of talent as the top priority in selecting the ministers.

In reality, though, any cabinet, regardless of whether it is Liberal or Conservative, “is never a pure and simple meritocracy,” says a key Trudeau adviser. “Obviously there are expectations if you are elected, such as every province gets a cabinet minister, and you look at regional balance, gender, and diversity as well as competence.”

As well, yesterday's Question Period saw former Liberal cabinet minister and deputy prime minister, Anne McClellan, along with political analyst Scott Reid, considering the possibilities:



Given the historical and infamous infighting that has bedeviled the Liberal Party, much would seem to be riding on Trudeau making some very wise choices here.

Revisiting The Old Days

I am old enough to remember the days here in Ontario when getting alcohol of any kind from the Liquor Control Board (fondly known here as the LCBO) was a ritual conducted without joy. Far in the future lay today's attractive displays of myriad products from around the world, inviting consumers to try new libations through samples, etc. Back then, choosing from a printed list of products, one would fill out an order on a small piece of paper, tender that order to an anonymous clerk behind a barrier who would hand it off to another employee who then disappeared into a stockroom (no displays allowed!) and returned with your purchase in a discreet brown bag. The customer would promptly leave, perhaps feeling a certain unease at having been involved in a transaction that did not seem to be wholly sanctioned by society.

It was not an atmosphere that encouraged enthusiastic consumption.

My reminiscing was prompted by a documentary I watched the other night on CBC called Reefer Riches which was made when the chance of a Liberal victory and their promised legalization of marijuana seemed remote at best. As I wrote in a recent post, I have little doubt legalization will occur under Trudeau, and I do think it will serve a greater good, but only if it is handled properly, something the documentary made very clear to me.

Justin Trudeau has stated that legalizing pot will be a means of helping keep it out of the hands of kids and reducing the multi-billion-dollar black market. Since the war on drugs has been a proven and costly failure, this makes sense. Moreover, the steps taken by American states that have embraced legalization can serve as cautionary tales that can help ensure Canadian legislation strikes the right balance between access to and promotion of marijuana.

As you will see if you watch the documentary posted below, Colorado appears to be a pothead's paradise. With open displays of plants, tinctures and edibles, daily specials and a growing 'pot tourism,' the emphasis is clearly on the promotion of consumption. It is a model we would do well to avoid if our purpose truly is to control and not promote access. As one of the speakers in the film points out, Canada can learn a great deal from the mistakes that were made in jurisdictions that have legalized the drug. In my mind, our country would do very well to avoid the open commercialization you will see in the film, and instead adopt a very understated, discrete and perhaps slightly intimidating model similar to what once existed in Ontario: no displays, a product list, and access limited to government-run stores.

A bit regressive and Puritanical? Perhaps, but still a model that repudiates prohibition without extolling cannabis consumption.

UPDATED: The Devil Canada Has Made A Deal With

Although it generated some heated discussion during the election campaign, don't expect the $15 billion armoured vehicle deal the Harper government signed with human-rights-hater Saudi Arabia to be rescinded now that a new government is about to be sworn in. Because the country is seen as a stabilizing presence in the Middle East and a source of jobs in Canada, pragmatism will undoubtedly trump principle in a deal that no party exactly denounced as our votes were being courted.

Yet we should all be as familiar as possible with the devil Canada is trafficking with.

Readers may recall the case of Raif Badawi, the 31-year-old Saudi blogger who ran afoul of authorities for his criticisms of the country's religious establishment:

Badawi was sentenced in 2013 to seven years in prison and 600 lashes. In 2014, he was resentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

While it may provide him with cold comfort, his efforts yielded him the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought yesterday. It is unlikely that he will be released to receive the award, and, indeed, should the lashings be carried out in full, he will die.

However, Mr. Badawi's plight may seem mild compared to what is facing young Ali al-Nimr, also a Saudi citizen who

was arrested at age 17 for participating in anti-government protests. The government has said he attacked police officers and rioted, but the only known evidence is a confession apparently extracted under torture that left him a bloody mess.

Now he is facing beheading and crucifixion:

His appeals following his court sentence for this grisly execution have been exhausted, so guards may lead Nimr to a public square and hack off his head with a sword as onlookers jeer. Then, following Saudi protocol for crucifixion, they would hang his body as a warning to others.

International outrage at his sentence appears to have had no impact on the Saudi government. Last month, a

group of United Nations human rights experts ... urged the Government of Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted for a crime reportedly committed as a child. He may be executed at any time.

“Saudi Arabia may so far this year have executed at least 134 people, which already represents 44 more than the total for the whole of last year,” they noted. “Such a surge in executions in the country makes Saudi Arabia a sad exception in a world where States are increasingly moving away from the death penalty.”

The lash and decapitation seem to be expressions of a worldview that can only be described as medieval and barbaric. In the country considered to be our ally, there are at least 16 'crimes' that warrant the death penalty, including murder, adultery, gay consensual sex, apostasy, consumption of intoxicants and sorcery and witchcraft.

To embrace and sell armaments to such a benighted nation says, perhaps, more than we would like to consider about our own country and principles, doesn't it?

UPDATE: In his response to this post, The Mound of Sound has pointed out some things that go much deeper than mere beheadings and crucifixions in Saudi Arabia. Take a look at what he has to say here and here. The implications are profoundly disturbing.

Rick's Rant: About Those Conservative Newspaper Endorsements

Redoubtable Rick is relentless in his excoriation of both The Globe and Mail and The National Post for their corporate-driven endorsements of the Harper regime during our recent election:

He Is Either Supremely Arrogant Or Extremely Delusional

"He" would be the outgoing but hardly lamented Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Alexander, who allowed his transfixation with power to corrupt and ruin him. The damage may indeed be permanent.

As you will see in the following video report, his inability to purge himself of the Conservative Kool-Aid means he accepts no responsibility for the party's recent fall from power but blames everything on outside perfidious forces such as the Liberals debasing and poisoning the campaign culture and liberal media distorting the truth. This is hardly an encouraging augury of his potential for rehabilitation:

Potential And Reality

I remember when I first started teaching, everything seemed so clear, so obvious: students, for example, were no longer writing very well because they weren't taught grammar; a rigourous and systematic approach would fix that. I soon learned, however, that such a prescription was unspeakably naive. Like everything else, it did not exist in a vacuum, but rather was tied to so many other factors over which I had little or no control, such as family environment, motivation to read voluminously, etc., etc.

In some ways, and I really hope I am wrong, I wonder if Justin Trudeau's winning approach to electoral victory may partly mirror the naiveté I had so many years ago. After years of exposure to Stephen Harper's toxicity, expectations are very high among Canadians for a new political culture, and Trudeau's potential to disappoint is great. If he succeeds, his impact on the health of our democracy could be quite substantial.

Lawrence Martin writes that there is much to change:

If Canadians thought the operation run by Stephen Harper was ugly before, look at what we’re hearing now. Not from Mr. Harper’s opponents, but Conservatives themselves.

“They had almost a Stalinistic way of looking at things,” Philippe Gervais, a former Tory campaign co-director, told iPolitics . “You were either on-side, or you were dead.”

Here’s Geoff Norquay, the long-time Harper defender on TV panels. In the next edition of Policy magazine, he writes what the political operation was really like under Harper favourite Jenni Byrne: “They ran a closed circle, they humiliated staff, they berated candidates, they pushed every reasonable argument far beyond its logical limit, they shut out others with a different view.”

One of Trudeau's strongest suits is his style:

Style doesn’t make the man, but as Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy illustrated, it can change the morale, bring a new spirit to a country. Mr. Trudeau is no Reagan and he is no Kennedy but he has some of their charismatic attributes. If he doesn’t settle for half-measures, he could bring a new spirit.

That infusion of our waning spirits was clearly evident in the increasingly large crowds Trudeau attracted as the campaign wore on, and in the enthusiasm with which many greeted his majority government.

In more substantive matters, a test for the incoming prime minister will be how he handles dissent:

The wise leader doesn’t demand agreement from everyone in his party. If the news media gets all excited about an MP going offside on some issue, he should take it in stride, as in, “So what? That’s what a democracy is all about. The freedom to speak your mind.”

Lawrence Martin has several suggestions for Trudeau as his time in office draws near, but I'll end with one that I think all of us would agree upon:

To restore civility to our politics, Mr. Trudeau should ban personal attack ads. To restore sanity to Question Period, the Speaker needs to be empowered so that questions are answered.

Now wouldn't that be something to truly behold?

It Seems All The Rats Haven't Deserted The Ship

I was catching up on my reading today, enjoying a brief break from blogging, when I came upon this; it seemed too good not to share:


H/t Globe and Mail

The Virtues Of Civility

Probably one of the most obviously distressing aspects of the last ten years has been the precipitous drop in political civility, earmarked by fractious and factious exchanges in the House of Commons. No longer a chamber for informed debate, under the Harper reign it became a vehicle by which the government denigrated all opponents and thumbed its nose at the concept of transparency and accountability, thereby alienating the general population and discouraging people from any form of participation in the democratic process.

We live now with high hopes that will all change.

There is an encouraging story told by Susan Delacourt suggesting that our hopes have a chance of being realized:

I asked Trudeau: what was the big difference in his two lives on the Hill — as the son of a prime minister in the 1970s and 1980s and as a backbench MP in 2010?

Trudeau said he had two answers to that question: one he was accustomed to answering publicly, one he kept to himself.

First, the oft-repeated answer: he was surprised to realize how much he liked constituency work, helping people in his Montreal riding of Papineau. He had never seen that aspect of MPs’ work through his father, who had staff to handle issues in the riding.

As for the other answer, Trudeau looked around to see who might overhear him. Careful to keep his voice down, he said he was stunned to see how some MPs treated their staff, and the air of entitlement around them. He was truly surprised to learn that many staffers had to endure temper tantrums from their bosses. “Who do they think they are?” he said, glancing in the direction of an MP or two dining nearby.

Apparently, Justin learned a valuable lesson from his father when he was a child:

Trudeau then told me about how when he and his brothers were young, the only times they got in serious trouble with Pierre was when they showed disrespect to their RCMP protection officers. Overhearing the boys call one of the officers “Baldy,” Trudeau gathered them together and furiously scolded them, telling them that these men had families and lives they were putting on the line to watch over them.

This is not a prime minister who is going to rule with fear, it seems.

Basic decency and empathy are qualities I think most of us try to practise in our daily lives. To see them applied in the public arena would, without question, mark a radical and highly desirable shift in our political culture.

Meanwhile, Beyond Our Borders

The world of U.S. politics is proving to be consistent in its insanity. Watch the following video in which Republican hopeful Ben Carson says, at about the 3:20 mark, what he would use the Department of Education for:



Can a holographic resurrection of Joseph McCarthy be far behind?

On The Post-Election Employment Prospects Of The Harper Fallen

In Power Play's Don Martin's considered opinion, they are decidedly dim:

On The Restoration Of Canada's Soul And Other Matters

There is a series of excellent letters in today's Star that I hope you will take time to read. I am reproducing the first two dealing with what the ejection of Harper means for Canada; the third, about the long-form census, is followed by a link to an As It Happens interview with Munir Sheik, the former chief statistician for Statistics Canada who quit over a matter of integrity and principle. Sheik talks about why a return to the mandatory long-form census is crucial if we are to have data that can be relied upon.

The dismissal of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government provides welcome and palpable relief for those Canadians they tried to browbeat, bully and frighten into submission. This election, more than any other in the past 40 years was about soul of our nation. Canadians came down squarely on the side of decency, fairness and inclusivity as the moral foundations of political leadership.

Mr. Harper now understands that federal democratic governments are not in power to abuse it. They are not there to frighten, intimidate and shut up our nation’s researchers and scientists; they are not there to value the lives of first nation women less than others; nor to marginalize and badmouth all refugees while ostracizing the physicians, nurses and others who care for them.

They are there to govern with respect and inclusion for all in this country. Bullying those Canadians whose opinions differ from theirs became the nasty, bulldozing hallmark of the Conservatives under the stamp of Harper. Thankfully, it is now this belligerence and oppositional defiant government behaviour that Canadians rejected.

I suspect the same feeling of release and relief is being felt by many across Canada today. Mr. Trudeau was bang on in his post election conversation with Canadians. Sunnier days!

Dr. Paul Caulford, Toronto

It’s not a new Canada as the Star’s Tuesday headline suggests. It’s still the same old Canada: relatively progressive and open-minded. But back to the future? Not quite.

Almost a decade of Harper’s rule failed to destroy this nation. His attempts to turn us into a country of fear, hate and discrimination didn’t work, as Monday’s results demonstrated. Despite its imperfections, the first-past-the-post system served us well.

And yet again the NDP’s move to the right cost them dearly and, as happened here in Ontario last year, they paid the price. When Canadians want change they vote for it, as they did last spring in Alberta and nationally on Monday.

Although I don’t expect a full-fledged just society to emerge under Trudeau the Younger, he does have a golden opportunity to restore Canada’s tattered reputation on the global stage, while jump-starting our economy through a welcome dose of Keynesian stimulus spending.

Where Canada goes now is up to the Liberals. They can start by following through on the promises that won them the election.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

On the same day as Prime Minister Trudeau is sworn in, he should instruct StatsCan to restore the mandatory long-form census, if possible in time for the 2016 census. This simple action would be widely popular, would help the economy, and won’t need legislation.

No single action taken by the Canadian government led by Mr. Harper has been so thoroughly discredited and condemned as making the long-form census voluntary. Manufacturers and marketers, property developers and professors, cities and school boards have repeatedly pointed to the serious economic and social damage caused by not having this data available. If Mr. Trudeau wants to signal that he is serious about creating real change, perhaps the best way to start is by making it clear that this parliament will use data, and not ideology, to make decisions, policies, and laws.

Howard Goodman, Toronto

Click here for Munir Sheik's thought on the census.

On Progressive Legislation

While I am sure that the legalization of marijuana will not be a legislative priority of the incoming government, I have little doubt that Justin Trudeau will honour his pledge to enact it. It is something I have given a fair bit of thought to, and although initially I was quite ambivalent about the prospect, I now embrace the argument that, however counter intuitive it may seem, it is far better to legally control cannabis, thereby reducing both the power of the criminal element that currently supplies the recreational market, and the prevalence of its distribution to young people.



As well, the fact is legalization will also mean a new source of tax revenue, something not to be lightly dismissed. Additionally, police forces will no longer be wasting their resources and taxpayers' money on the failed 'war on drugs'. It is something I think they will welcome:

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has been pushing since 2013 for officers to have the ability to ticket people found with 30 grams of marijuana or less.

Mario Hamel, the association's vice-president and the chief of the Gatineau police, said legalizing marijuana could free up officers to address other issues.

Also instructional is the Colorado experience:

... this summer, state officials reported that marijuana tax revenues were up nearly 100 percent, according to ABC7 Denver. Revenue jumped from $25 million in the first five months of 2014 to $44 million in the same period this year.

Colorado began directing some marijuana revenue toward school and research programs in May, including providing grants to public school districts and charter schools, an education official told The Huffington Post. Almost $24 million was allocated to the Building Excellent Schools Today program, said Kevin Huber.

The possible mechanics of distribution, economic benefits and the potential for international growth are discussed in this Power and Politics clip:



As also implied in the above, there will clearly be other benefits to the economy: the additional employment of people to grow and distribute the products, as well as the ancillary industries arising around cannabis:

Leigh Coulter, president and co-owner of GGS Structures, which builds greenhouses for marijuana operations and other agricultural products, anticipates major growth for her small business after last night’s election. “This is an extension and a chance to let the world know Canada will be a leader,” she said. “We will develop the technologies to ensure that this is a crop of great revenue potential.”

Mr. Alves anticipates a number of other small-business sectors benefiting from a more marijuana-friendly Canada as well.

“You just have to look south of the border to see the types of businesses that have sprung up – everything from marijuana-focused marketing and promotions to technology platforms and delivery systems,” he said. “There’s also a real opportunity for some of the businesses that currently exist in an unregulated market to really become a mainstream businesses; they can develop and scale as opposed to remaining in the shadows of a grey market.”

Not to be forgotten either is the upscale market for recreational marijuana:

The newly launched website Tetra offers an array of handmade objects, smoking accoutrements designed to be kept in plain sight – especially when company comes over. Designers and artists including Ben Medanksy, Matthias Kaiser and Leah Ball are creating luxurious pipes out of marble and buffed sandstone, and ashtrays that would make The Dude topple over in awe.

Add to that the increasingly artisanal cast of cannabis strains, and you have a recipe for real growth.

No public policy should be decided solely on the basis of economic parameters; however, I am convinced that the legalization of marijuana will be progressive legislation ultimately welcomed and endorsed by a progressive nation.

As always, I welcome all comments, and I am certainly happy to entertain challenges to the position that I have advanced here.

UPDATED: A New Day

Following Montreal Simon's lead in taking down his masthead urging all of us to resist the outgoing dictator, I have removed the 'Official Member of Harper's Enemies List' from mine. I haven't thought about an appropriate replacement yet, but for now, enjoy this song that I am sure occurred to many on the night of Harper's defeat:



UPDATE: Meanwhile, over at The Star, Judith Timson asks, Is Canada ready for Justin Trudeau's 'sunny ways'?

The Fragile Flower

The majority of Canadians are currently basking in the promise the new government holds, the promise of openness, transparency, accountability and progressivity, all notably absent from the enshrouded regime of the outgoing dictator. But while we all deserve to feel deep relief from the collective burden the country has borne for the last decade, I think it is also important to understand that this feeling of liberation will likely be quite ephemeral. The real work of democratic restoration has just begun.

Writing shortly before our election, John Izzo offers this view:

Unless the electorate is involved AFTER the election, the status quo will remain intact. Of course we Canadians should be familiar with this problem. When Harper first ran for Prime Minister he talked about creating a more open and accountable government, reforming the Senate, free votes for members of Parliament and so on.

Of course he broke almost all of those promises, created a fortress mentality and a tight run ship where no one stepped out of line and scientists were muzzled.

Izzo suggests we facilitated the process by which Harper so egregiously and quickly violated his commitments:

When Gorden Campbell, former premier of British Columbia, was running for that office the first time I heard him speak to a small group of entrepreneurs in Vancouver. He asked us a rhetorical question: "Why do politicians make promises and then break them?" Going on, he said, "Because you let us. After the election you go dormant and politicians get to do what they want to do or what those who are most interested in maintaining the status quo want them to do."

Izzo cites a powerful American example to illustrate his point. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens want tighter gun control laws, nothing ever changes

... because special interests like the NRA know that who gets elected is not nearly as important as who stays involved all the time holding politicians accountable. Special interests spend as much or more time, money and effort on lobbying and influencing leaders between elections.

There solution entails the hard work of real citizenship:

Getting engaged every four to five years for six to eight weeks is not what it means to be a citizen ....if we want our leaders to do our will on the big issues we face, a far greater majority of us have to stay engaged post-election.

How can we do this? Here are three commitments we can make. First, keep writing and calling our representatives in the days and weeks following the election. Let them know what YOU want and what you WILL hold them accountable to. Second, keep blogging, face-booking, meeting with friends and like minded people, to keep engaged in the process. Third, make it clear to whoever wins, that we know what they promised and we will be watching.

After almost ten years of oppression, we all deserve a respite. But if we want to maximize the chances of a healthy democracy and a responsive government, let's make sure that our hiatus isn't too long. The flower is too fragile to neglect.

On Faith Restored

This will be a brief post, as there are likely far more interesting things to read from the professional pundits, but I would like to offer a few reflections on the implications of last night's election results.

The past ten years have seen some very dark times for Canadians. Probably one of the darkest for me was when Stephen Harper achieved a majority government in 2011, a feat that granted him tremendous power to attempt to remake Canada in his own corrupt image. I remember the despair I felt that sent me into a three-week depression. Even though a minority of the electorate had given him this power, my faith in my fellow Canadians was badly shaken. Last night, it was restored.

I have lived long enough to know, and recent history has certainly reminded us of, the inherent dangers of majority government. Yet I choose to see the Liberal victory not necessarily as an unqualified endorsement of Justin Trudeau and his colleagues, but as a sound, deep and decisive repudiation of the terrible things the Conservatives represent. In this, I know I am not offering an original insight, but the magnitude of that rejection is what has restored my faith in my fellow citizens.

When I attended Word on the Street recently, I asked Bob Rae whether he thought we had been too debased during the Harper to recover to the point where a healthy democracy was again possible. He dismissed that as a likelihood, and last night proved his point, one that I did not really share. Given the emphasis on chequebook issues, the elevation of the individual over the collective, and the pronounced cultivation of division that took place under the Harper yoke, to say that I was dubious would be an understatement. I'm glad I was wrong.

We don't yet know the percentage of Canadians who voted, but my guess is it was higher than 2011. My hope is that greater numbers of young people also became engaged during this long campaign, and that that engagement marks the beginning of a new generation participating in what is still a grand experiment in nation-building.

I also hope that the massive trust Canadians have placed in the Liberals will not be abused, but rather acknowledged, respected and nurtured. If we have leaned nothing else during this past decade, let us remember that the democracy we have so long taken for granted is indeed a fragile construct that can be greatly compromised by men and women of ill-will. Let us all hope they have been replaced by people of integrity and vision.

We shall see. May the healing begin.

UPDATE: The Star is reporting the following:

More than 68 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in Monday’s federal election – the highest turnout at the polls since 1993.

That’s a jump of more than 7 per cent from the 2011 election.

Preliminary Elections Canada figures state that 68.49 per cent of eligible voters – or 17,546,697 people - went to the polls on Monday for the Liberal Party’s majority win.

Just 61.1 per cent of registered voters cast ballots in 2011.

That is wonderful news!