Election 2015: A Wake Up Call

The topic of Syrian refugees has been at the forefront of the election after a Syrian boy whose family was trying to get to Canada drowned tragically trying to make the passage into Europe from Turkey. The images are shocking. A man lost his family, and has now become the centre of a political firestorm. Has Canada been doing enough to help Syrian refugees? Has Canada's role as a humanitarian nation changed? Many people will be asking these questions, especially when the response from the immigration minister has been so weak. The truth is that the Canadian government has taken Canada's immigration policy in a direction away from an emphasis on family reunification and refugee support to temporary workers and economic migrants. The Harper government has failed to support refugees, and they should be held accountable for that.

The shift away from compassion and toward business interests as paramount in our immigration policy has unfortunately left many behind. Also, the societal attitude toward refugees has become very negative. Far too many Canadians seem to think that refugees were not really in trouble in their home countries but just want to get free healthcare and go on welfare. And this attitude has been condoned and even shared by the government, and in particular the immigration minister Chris Alexander. He is the minister who presided over the gutting of healthcare for refugees, and who scolded the Ontario government for trying to make up the shortfall. He said "Simply arriving on our shores and claiming hardships isn't good enough. This isn't a self-selection bonanza, or a social program buffet."  Trudeau was right in saying that you can't manufacture compassion in an election campaign.

The fact is that this government does not care about helping refugees, and anything they say at this point is window dressing. They see refugees as freeloaders and potential terrorists plain and simple. They in fact have not promised to do anything differently in reaction to this tragedy than what they are doing right now, which means that in all likelihood very few refugees from Syria will make it to Canada before the end of the year.

Canada did not hesitate to join in bombing Libya, which along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have turned out to be among the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in modern history. What came with those decisions is a whole lot of displaced people and a huge vacuum to be filled in Iraq which although under a despotic dictator, was stable, and providing a wedge between the Sunni and Shiite power bases. It was in this gap that ISIS came into being. We took part in most of these missions. We cannot now turn our backs on the victims.

We need to look beyond xenophobia and racism, and it starts at the top, because when a country's government is welcoming and encouraging of accepting refugees and other migrants, they create the atmosphere necessary for integration.  We need to accept the new reality of the world, where we can no longer just accept that the walls put up to keep the poor and displaced from the Western world are acceptable anymore. These are people who deserve the right of free movement as any Westerner has. They have a right to raise their families in a peaceful country. We have an obligation to take them.

Election 2015: The R Word

So it looks like we are in recession in Canada. One can argue about the definition or recession, or talk about other indicators, or how things might already be turning around, but the fact is that this is reflecting the reality of many Canadians who are losing their jobs and otherwise struggling with the stagnant economy we have had for almost 10 years now. Calling it a recession finally is just confirming what people have been experiencing. With the downturn in oil prices which are not expected to rebound anytime soon, we have to wonder if this may turn into a longer trend that if not recessionary, could certainly be called stagnation. But we are in an election campaign, so even if some economists and the Conservative party say it's not a recession, people will see the headline and they will react.

The Conservatives want to stay the course, and they believe that spending is not the way to get out of a recession. But many Canadians who see our crumbling infrastructure and increasingly lacklustre public services may question where all the money the Conservatives have claimed to be spending on growth have actually gone. The truth is that Conservatives have promised billions but often the money never gets spent. For example, the Conservatives left 97 million dollars of money for social services unspent. Also, there was 1.1 billion dollars left unspent in the Veterans Affairs Department. Similarly Aboriginal Affairs left 1 billion unspent.  Also, the much touted infrastructure spending plan of the Conservatives has been spending very slowly, and  92 per cent of the $10-billion provincial-territorial stream of the New Building Canada Fund remains unspent. All of this money presumably went back into general revenue to balance the budget, which still isn't balanced. All of this unspent money while the Conservatives give 34 billion a year in oil subsidies. The Conservatives seem to promise a lot, and then  just let the money vanish later hoping that nobody will notice. And this lack of spending is hurting the economy.

Now whether or not this is a long downturn or things pick up, it is clear that Canada has put too much money into resource development while ignoring the things that actually grow the economy, like the prosperity of the citizens of this country. More and more Canadians are out of work, or working part time, precarious jobs. Young people especially are having a hard time in this economy that seems to put big business first, and employees dead last. And the gutting of Statistics Canada has made it difficult to trust the data we get about employment.

Using the R word might be arguable, but during an election it will draw the attention of Canadians to the economy, and people may look more closely at the record of the current government and find that it isn't as stellar as they claim it is. The opposition will be more than happy to help curious Canadians make those observations, and will throw in some mud slinging among themselves while they are at it.

But the bottom line is that the economic situation is not good, and investment is desperately needed. I think it would be unwise for any party not to take the situation seriously, and Canadians should also be thinking about what is the best way to lead the country into better growth. However, "Staying the course" is starting to look less and less appealing.

Election 2015: Who is Canadian?

Immigration and Citizenship may not be the hottest topic on the campaign, but these are subjects that illicit some very strong reactions from many Canadians. The myth of the Muslim terrorist who claims Canadian citizenship but really has loyalties elsewhere is alive and real.The myth of the "Canadian of Convenience" who really just wants to rip off the taxpayer while they live elsewhere until they want the benefits of the Canadian healthcare system. The people who believe these things are almost hysterical in their belief that the people coming to Canada, often from very difficult circumstances, are actually coming to take over the country or otherwise attack us somehow.

This sort of attitude is brought forward whenever a discussion of dual citizenship, expat voting, or immigration comes up. The case of Mohamed Fahmy is a prime example. This is a journalist and Canadian citizen (who was a dual national with Egypt) who was tried in Egypt on spurious charges, and the Canadian government, although calling for his release, has been doing very little to make it happen. The truth is that if Mr. Fahmy was Mr. Jones instead, he would already be back in Canada.

But many Canadians seem to have very strange ideas about what Mr. Fahmy was doing in Egypt (his job as a journalist), and think he is a terrorist, based on absolutely no evidence to show he was in any way corroborating with a terrorist organization. He was in fact acquitted of terrorism charges and then found guilty of "not register[ing] with the country's journalist syndicate...bring[ing] in equipment without the approval of security officials, broadcast[ing] "false news" on Al-Jazeera and us[ing] a hotel as a broadcasting point without permission." These do not sound like crimes worthy of three years in an Egyptian prison. Yet many Canadians simply do not believe this man is even Canadian, because he was living in Egypt doing his job and held two passports.

This is also part of the reason why many people support the new rules that create a two tiered citizenship for Canadians, which the government can arbitrarily decide to revoke citizenship and essentially abandon someone if they are found guilty of a terrorism offence, instead of actually taking responsibility for our citizens, even if they do terrible things. It also leaves room for horrible injustices to take place, as we have seen with some high profile cases in the past like Maher Arar, who under these current laws could well have had his citizenship revoked.

The people who support C-24 are the same people who have no qualms with the way that Omar Khadr was tried, imprisoned, and tortured for years with no assistance from the Canadian government. Too blinded by their own racism to realize that Muslim people are human beings, and that Muslim Canadians are Canadians too, and deserving of all the due process rights that affords. How someone became Canadians is irrelevant. Why they became Canadians is irrelevant. How much time someone spends in Canada is irrelevant. If you can hold a Canadian passport, you have the rights of a Canadian, and that means that the government has a responsibility to you  no matter what. There are no classes of Canadians, just Canadians.

Election 2015: Mocking Your Opponent

Prime Minister Harper has never been one to treat his opponents with much respect, but his party has been stooping particularly low in this election, continuing the sort of nasty atmosphere that was created in the House of Commons during his majority government, but which most Canadians never had the opportunity to see. He has set his sights on Justin Trudeau and is not letting up, but that could well be damaging to him as more people see his outright contempt for the third party leader, who is now gaining on him in the polls, and may take seats from him in Ontario in ridings where people might not be so thrilled with the idea of an NDP majority, but are tired of Harper.

Harper's record on respect is not good. He has always treated Parliament with contempt.  In fact, he was found in contempt of parliament back in 2011, for which he was sadly rewarded with a majority. But what he is doing now shows his disrespect not only for his opponents, but our democracy.  One example from earlier this year shows the PM mocking Tom Mulcair's legitimate question about Canadian action in Syria and giving a non answer. And this sort of response has been fairly normal since the Conservatives took power. Harper clearly has no respect for Question Period or for the Parliamentary process. He simply does not feel obliged to answer questions.

Harper's disrespect of opponents, particularly Trudeau, also seems to follow a trend. Trudeau makes use of a rather common analogy or statement, or puts out a sensible plan for the future, the Conservatives take a sound bite or some scrap and turn it into a media line that they then use to mock him on panel shows and at their rallies. It doesn't even matter to them if their own reason for mocking Trudeau is inherently flawed or just plain silly, or that their own record show that they are hypocrites on the issue.

Take for example the whole "from the heart outward" thing. Trudeau uses a rather common analogy in the English language, which is to describe the centre or most important aspect of an entity as the heart, and then suddenly the Conservatives pretend that this analogy doesn't make sense? Most speakers of the English language know that it does, yet the Conservatives put Michelle Rempel on TV talking about how silly a perfectly understandable analogy is? And the press ran with it, even though mocking him for this statement makes no sense whatsoever. 

Also to add to this is Harper's mocking of Trudeau's rather sensible plan to make a massively needed investment in infrastructure, while giving an expected date for when the economy would be out of deficit. I am not an economic expert, but it seems that most economists agree that Canada's infrastructure needs investment, in fact, it needs much more than what Trudeau is even proposing. Going into deficit to pay for infrastructure will pay for itself in time, and it will also get Canada out of the stagnant and persistent lack of growth which is keeping us from balancing the books. Of course no leader is above criticisms, but I think Mr. Mulcair's response was both more respectful and clearer than Harper's, who seems to ignore his own record of 8 years of deficits when mocking Trudeau's plan to run a deficit for a few years to invest in things we need.

And then there is the matter of not addressing a political opponent respectfully, and choosing instead to use their first name, or no name on the campaign trail. Both Harper and Mulcair have been guilty of this, but Muclair has not been so brazen about it as Harper. I think it is a mistake to treat any opponent, no matter how competitive or competent they are, with disrespect. If you are going to criticize someone, do it for something that they deserve to be criticized for. This sort of petty personality attack turns voters off, but I suppose that is what Harper is hoping to do because he wants to shrink the voter pool as much as possible to boost his chances.

But all of this sort of petty nonsense is really the worst part of modern politics. The sad part is that even though people decry this sort of thing and say that they want to hear about the issues and they want to hear the truth, when a politician speaks the truth about a matter when it isn't good news, people don't vote for them. Do people really want to hear the truth? Or do they just want their politicians to confirm their own political biases? 

America's Addiction to Guns

Two reporters were shot to death live on air yesterday in Virginia. The man who did it was angry about how he had been treated and believed he had been racially abused. This is yet another case of how mental illness, anger, and guns don't mix. But the gun lobby in the United States wants to keep sales up at any cost. After Sandy Hook, Americans wanted some control over who has access to guns, but sadly, nothing will be done to protect people.

We also need to think about how we can prevent people who seem like they might act out violently from doing so. Cases like Dylan Roof, whose roommate said he had been planning for months. Adam Lanza had also been planning for some time, and acting erratically beforehand. These are just two examples, but also in the case of James Holmes  and Elliot Rodger  it was clear that these were disturbed individuals who if investigated properly could possibly have gotten the psychiatric help they obviously needed, and nobody would have died. These are people who should never have had access to weapons, but they did, and they acted on their mental illness, anger, misogyny, racism and hate because they were able to.

As a Canadian, I have never quite understood the American fixation with gun rights. I frankly do not understand why a nearly 250 year old document should be the basis for gun laws in 2015. Americans believe that guns are their right, but that is a gross misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, and it seems that this perception is fuelled by those who make lots of money selling guns rather than any sort of sensible conclusion.

And then there is the matter of inequality in terms of gun rights. If every american is supposed to have the right to stand their ground and own a gun, why do these laws benefit white people more? Stand your ground allows for white fear to take precedence over black lives. Also, white people have much higher rates of gun ownership, so it makes you wonder what is this whole gun rights activism really about? Is it really about asserting white supremacy and perceived safety for white communities from outsiders?

In the mean time, people are dying because the gun lobby and gun activists want to make the streets filled with guns for all. They even want to put guns in classrooms, cause that will surely end well. In my mind this is sheer madness. It's been proven time and again that less guns mean less gun crime. But in the United States it seems it is almost impossible to have a rational conversation and take some action to save lives. Even the deaths of children in an elementary school was not enough to cut through the rhetoric.

The bottom line is that anything that hurts the profits of the gun industry is a big no-no. So more people will die needlessly, and dangerous people will still find it easy as can be to get an automatic weapon. Americans might recognize that they have a gun problem, but the solution is too unpalatable for them to accept.

Election 2015: The Economic Question

Things are not looking so hot for the economy lately, as the price of oil plunges and with it the Canadian dollar. It looks as if Canada is heading into a recession that may well be part of a growing global crisis. But this is an election campaign, so every jump up and down is going to be used as part of the strategy by the parties. The Conservatives have been clear about the economy. They think they are the best fiscal managers, and that they are the only ones capable of getting us through the rough times we are facing.

"I think we want to stay the Conservative course that has, in a troubled global economy, consistently made this country an island of stability."

Harper claims that the NDP and Liberals want to spend which would be bad for an economy in bad times, but the truth is that an economy in bad times fair best when government spends to cushion the blows. This is possible when you have money saved up from prudent fiscal management and smart investments in better years. But...we are still in deficit. It would be irresponsible to suggest that it is better to try and maintain a "balanced" budget when infrastructure is crumbling and people are out of work. But this is what he is claiming. Even my very limited knowledge of economics tells me that this is a tested and flawed approach. But then again, the Harper government didn't want to spend in 2008 either, and had to be forced to actually take some action through the threat of a coalition.

We weathered the last recession well because we had a buffer that was still in place from the Liberal government. Today we lack that buffer because the current government placed too much investment in oil, as opposed to creating a diversified economy that focuses on technology and innovation, sectors where Canada could excel. This means that Canada is likely going to feel this recession more than 2008, and if things look really bad in October, people may not be scared into staying the course, but more open to changing direction on the economy.

The Liberals and the NDP are of course hoping that voters choose change. The NDP want to take Canada down a different route, in which we are not afraid to invest in areas like infrastructure and childcare, but their plans on how to pay for it all seem vague. They want to get money by taxing corporations more, but that might not be enough to cover something like universal daycare. Of course, budgets are about priorities, and it will be interesting to see a fully costed platform from Mulcair. The Liberals are also a bit flaky when it comes to talking about where to get the money for the investments they want to make. Trudeau talks a lot about taxing the richest Canadians more, but will that be enough? Probably not.

What is clear is that is that this election is going to be won and lost on the economy and on trust. Harper hopes that even if people don't like him, they will vote for him because they trust that he can get us out of this downturn effectively. Mulcair and Trudeau are both after the voters who are tired of Harper and want to take a different approach to the economy. It remains to be seen which one of them will make the stronger case by October. Economically, it looks like this campaign is going to be fought during a time when quite a bit of bad news is afoot. Whoever presents the best solutions to Canadians is going to come out on top.

Election 2015: The NDP Have Come A Long Way, Baby

The NDP so far in this election are consistently leading in the polls; a feat that would have been unimaginable just 5 years ago, but here we are. The transformation of the party from a fringe, union backed, proudly socialist party to a more centre left, broad based and appealing alternative to the Conservatives happened seemingly overnight. As demonstrated by NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau who was not even in her riding in Quebec when she found out she'd won in the 2011 election, the pundits were not the only ones shocked by the sudden embrace the NDP were given in Quebec. But it was the result of a hard ground game, and tireless work, spearheaded by Tom Mulcair, at the time the deputy leader of the party and the first NDP MP from Quebec.

When Jack Layton would proudly declare at the beginning of an election that he was running for Prime Minister, people would think it a bit strange to say. Why would he say he was running for Prime Minister when his party only had a handful of seats in Parliament? The NDP was never considered a real serious contender to form government, and before 2011 the best result they'd ever had in Parliament was a mere 43 seats.

But there was an opening in Quebec in 2011, and they were able to seize it. Jack Layton's leadership was particularly appealing, and with the Bloc running a rather sub par and uninspired campaign, and the Liberals collapsing to near oblivion, Quebecers turned to the NDP. The so called "orange wave" signalled a dramatic shift in the political landscape of Canada. No longer would the NDP be just a fringe party, but the party that the brought Quebec back into the national conversation. Yet there was plenty of talk after 2011. People wondered, was this an anomaly? Would the NDP be able to hold on to Quebec seats if the Liberals were to regroup? Would there be a Bloc resurgence?  Not many seemed to believe that the level of support the NDP had would in remain, particularly after the loss of the motivating force that was Jack Layton.

At the time that Tom Mulcair became leader of the NDP, he began the long road to making the NDP a credible government in waiting. Part of this process was casting aside some of the more strongly socialist rhetoric, and taking the party to the centre; making the party reflect more closely his own views. Some would argue that this is a significant loss to the roots of the party, and makes them almost indistinguishable from the Liberals, but Canadians have always favoured the centre. Now the NDP will be fighting to grab those mushy middle voters that have traditionally voted Liberal, but they will not have the messy history of corruption of the other party, and may represent something entirely new to a public who are hungry for change.

The Alberta NDP win also seems to have stirred Canadians toward the NDP. If Albertans, the most Conservative of Canadians, can trust an NDP government, why not try it Federally? It seems that when people believe the NDP CAN win, they surge ahead. And there are no signs at this point of a dent in that lead.

If Jack Layton could see the plans which he had worked so hard for bear fruit to the extent they have since his passing, he would undoubtedly be proud. The NDP has come a long way, and Tom Mulcair has declared clearly that he wants to finish the work that Jack started in 2011. It increasingly looks like he may do just that.