Category Archives: democracy and good government

A Vote For Mediocrity

democracy and good government, , , ,

Yesterday, after watching question period from the visitors’ gallery of the House of Commons (which, by the way, was a profoundly offensive experience in ways I’ll attempt to elaborate on later), the Green Party’s Finance Critic Peter Graham and I headed down to the Railroad Committee Room to watch Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, deliver the budget on closed circuit TV while we simultaneously read copies that were made available. Meanwhile, deputy leader Adriane Carr (who had managed to get into the budget lockup, even though unlike at the provincial level the government does not explicitly provide entrance to the Green Party) was down the hall, in and around the foyer of the House outlining the Green Party’s reaction to the budget.

One of the first things Peter and I noticed was that this thing everyone is calling a budget—well—isn’t one. It’s a 400-page narrative (technically called a “budget plan”) that describes, using far more words than numbers, where our money is being spent. The result is that some details continue to be missing, though we do get a general sense of the direction: new spending in the wrong areas, no new spending in the right ones, and the wrong kinds of tax cuts and shelters that don’t benefit middle- or lower-income Canadians, nor do they offer the kind of economic security that’s needed right now.

Then word started to float in that Dion had announced the Liberals will support this government’s budget. They called this budget “watered down,” saying it was “a mile wide and an inch deep.” And now they’ll vote in favour of it.

In other words, they have officially taken the position that they will support mediocrity. This has many key Liberals understandably upset, including Warren Kinsella who called the Liberal response pathetic, and one of my favourite Liberal bloggers A BCer in Toronto (aka Jeff) who asked the same question I did several posts ago: “If not now, when?” (Actually, Jeff’s so upset that if you read his post to the end you’ll realize we may not be able to call him a “Liberal” blogger for much longer.)

I don’t blame Liberal supporters for being frustrated. Our country is in desperate need of strong economic leadership; we cannot afford an official opposition that accepts anything less in a time of emerging uncertainty and, conversely, great opportunity.

And here’s the thing. According to both the Globe and a Liberal MP, my by-election opponent Bob Rae is the key person who provided the “leadership” within the Liberal caucus that resulted in them voting in favour of something that, by their own admission, is nowhere near adequate. Meanwhile, economists and observers are very concerned that this budget brings us dangerously close to a deficit in the face of a looming economic slowdown, while others (including the Green Party) rightly point out that there’s almost no vision here for how we can take advantage of the economic opportunities presented by new green-collar jobs and green innovation, nor is there any vision to build stronger, more affordable, world-class cities.

Up until now I’ve been going pretty easy on Bob (he’s a well respected individual who I’ve believed would make a competent MP), but I’m not sure I can anymore. We cannot afford a Member of Parliament who’s willing to accept mediocrity. Especially when there’s the potential to amount to so much more. Especially when there’s reason to believe they did so for personal, rather than principled, reasons. Canada deserves better. Toronto Centre needs better.

Bob, This Isn’t About You

conservative party, democracy and good government, green party, liberal party, , ,

Jane Taber reports in today’s Globe and Mail that Bob Rae is urging Dion not to force an election until after Rae is done with our March 17th by-election.

Listen, I get that Bob wants to get to Parliament as soon as possible. And I understand, as previously discussed, that having our by-election cancelled to make way for a general election would be a huge administrative pain, and also an extremely tiring and exhausting experience. My legs and my knuckles are sore too, and my family isn’t getting nearly the attention it deserves either.

But this is bigger than us. Stephen Harper is a dangerous prime minister, and his government is causing more and more damage by the day. There is no reason to believe that the House can continue to have confidence in this government. Meanwhile, our economy and our environment are in desperate need of new leadership. This isn’t about convenience, it’s about integrity and doing what’s right. We need to take a principled stand: if not now, then when?

Confidence

conservative party, democracy and good government, , , , , , , , , ,

I suspect that in the eyes of the general public, our leaders are suffering from a “boy who cried wolf” syndrome when it comes to threats of an imminent election. While those of us who are directly involved in party politics have been in perpetual election mode for the last two years, those trying to get on with their daily lives have been perpetually tuned out. (While canvassing tonight, one man told me, “I don’t vote for the bastards, it only encourages them.” Sure enough, he was not on our list of registered voters.) Constant hyper partisanship (which has always existed in some form, but, it seems to me, used to be less mean and destructive, and was at least confined to election campaigns) and an enhanced state of all that’s bad about “politics as usual” have left many people not only not knowing what’s going on in Ottawa, but not caring either.

And yet, we’re once again facing the possibility of a general election triggered by a vote of non-confidence in the government. And while that word—confidence—gets thrown around a lot, it has a real, weighty meaning that we should be cognizant of. While most political parties seem to decide whether or not to force an election based on if it is of political benefit to them, it’s much too important for that kind of cynicism. The real, important, honest question is: should the House have confidence in the government of Stephen Harper?

I should start be declaring that I have a strong personal interest in there not being a general election right now. We’ve already invested in and planned for a by-election. If the government falls before March 17th, then we have to file a return for an election that never happened and then re-register (100 more signatures, another $1000 deposit, a new bank account, etc) for the general election. It would also mean that what is already possibly the longest election campaign in the history of our country would be made even longer, disrupting the personal and professional lives of myself and all of my campaign volunteers.

But this is obviously bigger and more important than me. So while Harper plays games (one of his confidence motions appears to be at odds with a little thing called the constitution) and the other parties posture (the NDP just sent out a testosterone-charged email that amounts to Jack Layton challenging Stephen Harper to a fist fight) or try to make a decision based on what will get them the most votes (an unfortunately frequent preoccupation of Liberal bloggers), we should seriously consider if we can have any confidence in this government.

Let us therefore review this government’s two years in office. They were first elected primarily on issues of accountability and transparency. On both counts, their record is abysmal. For example, The Toronto Sun’s Greg Weston has illustrated how the Conservative “Accountability Act” could actually prevent another sponsorship scandal from being discovered. Speaking of which, Judge Gomery recently complained that Stephen Harper has “abandoned any commitment he once had to transparent government in favour of centralizing power in his own hands” and has “ignored [the Gomery Report’s] key recommendations.” Last week, scientists who work for Environment Canada were “muzzled,” told not to speak the truth to the media lest John Baird be greeted with any “surprises” when he reads his morning paper. A news report explains that this action was taken because “Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government,” and that in the government’s determination, that represents “a problem that needs to be remedied.” The list of unbelievable attacks on good government goes on and on (and on).

Going down a list of other issues produces similar conclusions. On the environment, this government has embarrassed us on the international stage, turning opportunities for diplomacy and leadership into wanton displays of childish partisanship and sabotage. They played a key role in preventing as much progress as possible from taking place in Bali and, domestically, have moved us backwards by creating ineffective “policy chaos,” which has also begun to damage our economy. On the topic of the economy, we have a Minister of Finance who appears to not understand basic finance, who tabled a budget that increased our vulnerability to the unfolding economic downturn, and pushed the wrong tax cuts (GST rather than income) at the worst time. When it comes to foreign policy, this government has demonstrated it is either intentionally misleading or incompetent. With regards to social justice, this government tried to rollback human rights by outlawing equal marriage and abandoning the goal of women’s equality.

Today Canada sits on the cusp of great opportunity, created by great challenges. We can take an international leadership position on combating climate change. We can diversify and strengthen our economy. We can resuscitate an independent foreign policy that makes us proud of our role in the world. We can rebuild our cities’ crumbling infrastructure and create the world-class communities we know are possible.

But can we do that with Stephen Harper as prime minister? Do I have confidence in this government? Should Parliament? Should Canadians? Absolutely not.

Democracy is not a game. It is both a gift and a responsibility. And it’s time to exercise it.