The Ottawa Convention Center

For those of you who have not yet visited the Ottawa Convention Center (OCC) you are in for a big treat.  We had our Kiwanis Club of Ottawa luncheon in the Trillium Ballroom on the top floor of the center.  The view of the Hill, the National Arts Center, the Fairmont Chateau Laurier and the Canal was spectacular.  Pat Kelly, the CEO of the OCC was the guest speaker and conducted tours followed lunch.

We have a tendency to dump on Ottawa.  We are the forgotten child in the federal and provincial governments. Most of our federal government buildings are Kremlin style architecture.  The NCC is not better when it allows an architectural monstrosity to be built on Lebreton Flats.  True, we do have some spectacular buildings such as the Museum of Civilization and the newly refurbished Museum of Nature but, by and large, the local architecture is uninspired.  Even the local private developers have had a lapse of creative initiative.  Show me one private office building that has any style or panache.

Now comes the OCC.  It is truly a signature building that was conceived, designed and largely built with local talent and materials.  Ninety five percent of the old convention center was reclaimed and much of it was used in the new building.  The building has innovative air handling systems that are extremely energy efficient and the decor has been designed so as to be unobtrusive so as not to conflict with exhibitors' colour demands.  The acoustics are phenomenal.  We were in the large hall, some 54,000 square feet, loaded with exhibitors and patrons (it was race weekend registration) and you could speak to the person next to you with ease.  The bay window with thousands of pieces of glass (none of them alike) gives the building its essential character.  The only fault that I found was that the building seems to be squeezed in between the Rideau Center and the Weston Hotel.  This building should have an imposing front space instead of adjacent cars on Colonel By Drive.  The other fault was the parking.  The parking is already at capacity between the Rideau Center and the Weston Hotel.  While existing parking did serve the old convention center, the OCC has almost double the space and therefore much more demand on parking.

Ottawa is now in the big leagues when it comes to convention facilities.  It can now compete for some of the largest meeting and convention centres worldwide.  It has already booked an impressive number of national and international meetings.  The added value to the economy of the city is also impressive.  However, there are two obstacles that could impede the success of the center.  One, is hotel rooms.  There are simply not enough hotel rooms to service very large conventions.  The other, is promotional budget.  The city has been known to be stingy with tourist development dollars.  Such stinginess could seriously hamper the OCC from mounting the kind of sales campaign that will insure its success.

 You will be proud and somewhat amazed at what this city can do when it puts its mind to it.  Thank Jim Durrell and Jackie Holtzman for having the foresight, the dream and the courage to demolish an existing facility and build a bold new one on time and on budget.  There is a Yiddish word for pride--except that it's more than pride.  The word is "kvell".  So, go and see the center. And kvell.

Lessons From Tahrir Square

This article from Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times says it all.  See:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?_r=1&hp

Pulling the Plug

My mother used to say that you needed luck in how you died.  Some died as if struck by lightening while others lingered on in agony.  One indisputable fact:  we all die.  How and when we die is sometimes left to our loved ones.  This post is about pulling the plug.

There is a case before the Ontario Supreme Court that deals with this issue.  A man has been on a ventilator for some time (months).  His doctors claim that he is in a vegetative state, had no brain function, and there is no hope of recovery. They want to pull the plug.  His family is sure that he is somewhat cognizant. They are resisting any action on the part of the doctors who want to turn off the machine.  The doctors have applied to their hospital's ethics committee.  The committee supports the doctors.  In short, this is one whole, costly mess.  Unspoken but not unnoticed is the cost of keeping this man alive.  We, collectively, bear that cost.

The moral of the story is that everyone should have a living will.  What's more, everyone should discuss these things with their family so that the intention of the involved person is known and clear.  Notwithstanding the low failure rate of bypass surgery I had this discussion with my family before I had my surgery done.  I wanted them to know, exactly, what I intended be done in case things did not work out well.

My wife and I had to make this decision when my wife's aunt  had a catastrophic stroke.  She was on the ventilator for several hours when the doctors told us that there was no brain function.  As I write this post I harken back to the agonizing decision my wife and I had to make.  My wife was the closest living relative and I was executor of her estate.  We felt that, by turning off the ventilator, we were, in fact, killing her.  There was no consolation from the doctor when he told us that she was, already, dead.  Breathing, albeit by and through a machine gave the appearance of life.  Turning off the machine put an end to that.  Not an easy decision.

There are conflicting religious points of view on this subject.  Ariel Sharon is still, to my recollection, on a ventilator several years after being pronounced legally dead with no brain function.  His family insists that turning off the machine is tantamount to murder.  Cooler heads prevail in many other religious sects.  Generally, when brain function is flat a person is considered to have died and the machine can be turned off.

The legal position regarding living wills is somewhat muddy.  There are jurisdictions where living wills have paramount authority.  In most hospitals a question is asked if the patient has a living will and if not a form is provided.  There are other jurisdictions where the living will is merely an expression of intent and a spouse or child or executor has the right to make the call.  Make sure you know what the law is in your jurisdiction.  Make sure that when you go in for even minor surgery, the place where your living will is kept is known to your spouse or child.  Also make sure that you reiterate what your intentions are.  Even if your procedure does not go well you will die lucky.

Bernie.

You Don't Have To Be Jewish

The latest furor regarding the recent meeting with President Netanyahu and President Obama is curious.  Notwithstanding the fact that the so called 1967 borders had been on the trading block going back to President Olmert, the mere mention of the 1967 borders sent Jews into a paroxysm of anti Obama hysteria.  Notwithstanding the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with a large number of Jewish advisors, has sent a Jewish ambassador to Ottawa, etcetera,  there is wholesale distrust of President Obama by mainstream Jews.  Why is that?

Can it be because President Obama is black?  Almost every mainstream Jewish person would recoil at the thought.  However, there has been a large amount of distrust and antagonism going back to the marches in Montgomery Alabama.  At that time, many Jews were in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement.  Some even died defending the right of blacks to vote and participate in society on an equal basis with others.  Then, it appears that the Civil Rights movement turned against even the most vociferous of Jewish supporters.  Jews were seen as exploiting blacks by being slum landlords and avaricious merchants.  Since then the truce between the black and Jewish communities has been a tenuous one.

Can it be because President Obama is an intellectual?  Obama, by all reports, will not follow knee jerk reactions to much of anything.  It took him months to decide to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.  He sought every opinion until he made up his mind.  Right or wrong, President Obama is a thinker.  His speech to AIPAC was telling.  There was no mention of two of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestanian conflict:  settlements and the right of return.  There was no mention of the fate of the Jerusalem.  He focused on the borders.  Why?

At the time of the 1967 war there was no unanimity among Israeli political and defence leaders as to whether Israel should occupy the west bank at all.  On the "if you break it, you buy it" principle these leaders stated simply that Israel could not simply occupy these territories over the long term.  If Israel annexed the territories it would be faced with a large Arab population that would soon overwhelm Israel.  Even David Ben-Gurion advocated a two state solution to the Arab Israeli problem.  Israel chose not to annex most of the west bank and the Sinai  but did annex (that is claim the spoils of war) over Jerusalem.  It gave the Sinai back to Egypt as the price for a bilateral peace accord.  It has, in principal, agreed to give much of the Golan to Syria if a peace deal can be achieved.  In each peace accord (including Jordan) some land adjustments have been made.

If borders are the place to start, what borders should be used as a starting point?  There is no other starting point than the pre 1967 borders.  If Israel clearly does not want the West Bank (except for the settlements) and Gaza, the only place to start is the 1967 borders.  Israel wants and should have defendable borders.  The 1967 borders were not realistic.  At one location the whole of Israel was 9 miles wide.  Israel has always said that they would give land for peace and they have done so in the past.  The only strategic land is the Golan and they are prepared to part with that.  So, what's the fuss?

I believe that the long term strategy of the US is to get a foothold in the region.  If Israel is to start negotiations from its pre 1967 borders, I believe that the US will put pressure on the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist.  And then the real fun will begin.

Bernie.

On the Fornicator

Once we had the Terminator.  Then we had the Governator.  Now we have the Fornicator.  Or so talk radio would characterize it.  Once we had a highly respected general director of the International Monetary Fund.  He was a known womanizer whose advances, while annoying, never approached being criminal.  They now appear to have crossed the line.  He was touted as the next President of France. Not so much now.

The topic of this post is whether the personal lives of public people should be a factor in their public lives.  In the US, the answer is clearly yes.  Gary Hart and his escapades ended his quest for the Presidency.  Ted Kennedy’s quest for the Presidency ended at Chappaquiddick.   The political fate of Elliott Spitzer is yet to be determined. Europe is much more tolerant of the personal lives of their leaders many of whom have had quite open relationships out of marriage.  Should it matter?

Let the man who is without blame cast the last stone.  Religious evangelists in the United States are reported to have the largest consumption of sexually salacious material.  These are the same people who have televangelists whose out of marriage dalliances have cost them their church.  And then, again, the Catholic Church has nothing to be proud about when it comes to sexual malfeasance.  One of the highest incidences of HIV in New York is among Hassidic young men. And it’s not from dirty needles. One of the recent Presidential hopefuls cheats on his wife and fathers a child when his wife is ill with cancer.  A cad, certainly.  A jerk, absolutely.  But should that prevent him from becoming President.

There is often a large gap between what we say and what we do.  The expectations that surround public persona is often so unrealistic that a saint would be found wanting.  In fact a saint or soon to be a saint has been found wanting.  A recently beatified Pope is being called to task for his lack of leadership in the Church’s sex scandals.  Well, nobody’s perfect. 

In my view, personal information is relevant only to the extent that it affects the public role of the person in question.  I have been wondering for some time when the Reagan family knew, for sure, that the President was suffering from Alzheimer’s.  At some point such a tragically personal fact could have a profound effect on the nation.  How effective could the President be as Commander in Chief?  Sometimes it is a matter of perception.  Roosevelt was never seen to be standing because he believed that this illness could be perceived as weakness.  When a public official is caught, literally, with his pants down is he a jerk or a risk as a public figure.  Such officials could be blackmailed.  But when a public official is caught, again, literally, with his pants down in a public washroom making suggestive signals to other occupants is this a matter that should lead to his resignation from Congress.  Should the fact that he is (although he vehemently denies it) a homosexual disqualify him from public office.  It has not clearly disqualified Barney Frank.

In the case of the Terminator, I never did see his movies and never intend to do so.  So his dalliance, while regrettable and painful to his family, makes no difference to me.  Other than five minutes of news on every news channel the matter should die a terminator’s kind of death.  As to the IMF general manager, clearly if he has engaged in criminal behavior his political career and his public service career are clearly over.  Even if he is guilty of no more than forcing himself on women the social stigma of such behavior has cost many a company presidents his job.

But fear not, the media will make the decision.  Where everything is news, not much is new.  Elliott Spitzer is now a highly paid host on CNN.  I see this as first step in rehabilitation on the road to a political life in the future.  All seems to be forgiven.  What it proves that being a jerk has never stopped anyone from succeeding in political life. 

Bernie 

They're Rioting in Africa

The title to today's post comes from a song by Tom Lehrer.  I spend some of rainy Sunday watching Fareed Zakaria on CNN.  For those of you who have not see this program or read his articles in Newsweek Magazine, Zakaria is one of the most intelligent, balanced and well informed correspondents in the news business.  His comments on the African/Middle East social unrest have been spot on.  Add to this Tom Friedman in the Times and a picture of this region begins to emerge.  As for Egypt, the consensus is that, without the US's contacts in the Egyptian army, Mubarak would not have stepped down.  The US military involvement in Yemen will yield the same results.  In other areas such as Libya and Syria there will be similar results but over a longer period of time.  There is no pan-Islamic pressure although for most of the countries Islam will continue to play an important but subordinate role.  The population is not going to have one form of totalitarianism substituted for another.  Iran's ayatollahs are plain for all to see.  One interesting comment is that China is the power to watch.  China is a political dictatorship but has allowed enough wealth to trickle down so that there is a substantial middle class that has much to lose by creating social unrest.  None of the Arab dictators will allow a substantial middle class to emerge.  

Some of this unrest has already begun to be felt in Israel.  Thugs have stormed the borders in the name of political redress.  This is nothing more than the usual incitement that occurs when local governments want to shift blame from itself to Israel.  While domestic violence must be met with some reserve and local militia are sometimes unwilling to shoot their countrymen, Israel has no such problem.  Any incursions on its borders will be met with lethal force reserved for any unlawful invader.  This state of affairs is further evidence of just how nervous Israel's neighbors are. 

Some of the unrest may come to Israel itself.  While there are no issues of despotism, there are issues concerning the power that a few right winged religious parties have gained with the help of successive Likud governments.  This kind of unrest was recently described by a world class Israeli writer who feared that this kind of unrest was only too possible. 

How will this all play out? A body in motion tends to stay in motion.  The recent unrest in the region will have a lasting effect.  Whether that effect will be cataclysmic is questionable.  Will Egypt become a Jeffersonian democracy?  Hardly.  However, Egypt, over time, will see a substantial transfer of wealth from the very few to the many.  This may not effect the abjectly poor but it is likely to effect a growing middle class who will have a stake in the country that they want to protect.  China has done this brilliantly.  When I asked my interpreter about China's dismal civil rights record her reply was that so long as she got a university education, a job, a car and an apartment what did she care what the government did?  To her, civil rights was an abstract idea.  She had a stake in the country and was not about to give it up. 

In all of this Islam will play less and less of a role.  There is  constitutional government in Southeast Asia where there is the largest concentration of Muslims in the world.  With the killing of Osama bin Laden organized hatred of the West will become the province of a lunatic (but dangerous) fringe.  We all forget that terrorism has been with us for a long time.  Well before organized Islam reinvented it.  Islam will come more and more into the mainstream and, like most fundamentalist religions, will come under the pressure of the progressives. 

Which leaves us with Pakistan.  According to the pundits, Pakistan presents the world with the greatest danger.  Not only because it owns many nuclear bombs that could seriously harm the rest of the world.  But because Pakistan remains the seat of radical Islam.  The question is who will organize it.  The Taliban have restricted themselves to that part of the world and do not have a world view.  However the madrases are churning out children filled with hatred of American and Jews.  Therefore, Pakistan is the joker in the deck.  Without some focal point for radical Islam it will either die or become diluted by moderates.  Or one hopes

Bernie

On Bullying

At a recent Kiwanis Club luncheon we had our attention directed to bullying.  Our high school Kiwanis groups called Key Clubs ran the meeting.  I had some input into the meeting as Chair of the Program Committee and I felt that the topic of bullying was particularly relevant to young people.  I would have preferred if our young people were of middle school age since professionals tell me that virulent bullying starts at that age—say 10 to 13.  At an older age some reason enters into the discussion.  At a younger age the pain associated with not belonging sometime can’t be easily reasoned away.  At any age the result of bullying may be as extreme of suicide. A while ago ABC ran a segment where child female actors were set up in a park.  There was obvious and viscous bulling going on.  Not one the passersby stopped.  They were either afraid to stop or did not kno what to do if they interceded. 

It got me thinking. There is no age limit to bullying.  A recent CBC noon segment dealt with bullying on the job.  The scary part is that, while the bully could be easily identified, ordinary people became part of a “mob” that tried to convince the victim that he or she would be better off if he or she resigned the position.  Whether the collateral bullies did so out of trying to curry favour with the bully is not known.  Adult bullying is every bit as emotionally harmful as teen or pre teen bullying.  One victim was so emotionally destroyed that she could never return to work. 

In a recent post I noted how easy it is for ordinary people to justify hatred toward a certain group. How easy it was, for example, for ordinary citizens to vilify and dehumanize the Jews in Germany or the Japanese in Canada.  Ordinary people can, equally, single out an individual for harsh treatment.  Job bullying was almost always accompanied by mob support directed toward the victim.  In interviews those accomplices were chagrined to find out that they were as much a part of the problem as the lead bully.  In almost all cases the victim was, in some way, dehumanized.  By this action the bullying was justified by the bullies.

I have sometimes been uncomfortable when someone tells a joke that is clearly racist.  I admit to laughing at some of them.  However, there comes a time—or should come a time—when the perpetrator must be told that you won’t listen to or participate in what is clearly racist.  It’s hard.  While you may gain some self-esteem, you may lose a friend.  In the same way it is everyone’s responsibility to stand up to a bully.  The easiest part is not to become part of the mob that is aggravating the victim.  The hardest part is to stand up to the bully.  Yes, you may say that it’s not your problem.  However, it is your problem only because, for selfish reasons, the next victim may be you.

Here are some things to think about.  First, deal with the victim.  On the ABC segment, professionals advised that the first act of the interceder was to remove the victim from the bullies.  To make sure that he or she is all right and could get to a safe place without enduring any more harm.  It was unlikely that the interceder was going to make much of an impact on the bullies in the short term.  In case of bullying on the job, don’t become part of the mob.  Do help the victim.  If it is clear that bullying is going on get help for the victim by going to whatever dispute resolution system the job offers.  Sometimes it’s a union.  Sometimes it’s a lawyer.  The victim is, usually, not thinking clearly.  If it is job bullying, make sure that the victim keeps precise notes of the events of bullying and the perpetrators.  You can corroborate these occurrences and therefore support the victim.  In the case of the bullying of young people, the bullies should be exposed to the school, their respective parents and, sometimes, the police.  In many cases bullying involves cyber actions by texting, Facebook and other social media.  I have heard of one case where the parents of the victim threatened legal action against the parents of the perpetrator.  The bullying stopped. In any case don’t stand by and do nothing. 

Bernie.

The Block Quebecois

No, this is not a misspelling. In a recent interview with the CBC, a Bloc Quebecois winner—one of four in the newly elected House of Commons, commented on her parties fortunes.  It was, she said, that the electors were “tricked” by the NDP.  She graciously said that she would accept the decision of the electorate but that 24% of the voters in Quebec supported the BQ and therefore the BQ should be granted official party status by the House.  This was particularly true, she said, because the four compatriots represent the “nation of Quebec”. 

Get real.  When I last heard, Quebec was still part of Canada though it did not and has not signed on to the Canadian constitution.  In 1982 it was allowed to “opt out” and it did.  Canada, therefore, has an orphan province. 

It is inconceivable to me that Canada should have allowed the seating of a party in Parliament whose stated aims was to have Quebec secede from Canada.  It is also inconceivable to me that no one has challenged the validity of the party in the courts. 

Problem is, though, that Quebec as it now stands represents a treasure trove of seats all of which seem to be a bit up in the air.  Now they are NDP but I cannot see this as a future trend in Canadian politics.  Quebecers will side with either the party in power or the one that it perceives will be in power.  It is only in that way can it squeeze the country for an inordinate amount of federal support.  The NDP cannot achieve what the BQ did not achieve:  any real traction in Ottawa.  There will either be a reemergence of the BQ (not likely) or the seats will come up for grabs by whatever mainstream party promises them the most. 

I am a strong supporter of the right of Quebec to maintain its cultural identity.  I am even a supporter of a bilingual country as envisaged by Trudeau.  That is the way the country was formed and Quebec got most of its rights through legislation even though its military leader was defeated.  But that is completely within the context of Quebec being part of Canada. 

I believe that there should be one last try at including Quebec in Canada’s constitution.  In that Layton is correct.  If Quebec decides not to sign, then aid to the province in the form of federal-provincial equalization payments should stop.  Transfer payments for healthcare should stop.  The skewing of federal programs to favour Quebec should stop. 

I proposed this solution in 1983 when I was an advisor to the Deputy Minister of Finance.  Remember we had a Liberal government and a francophone Minister of Finance and Prime Minister.  Such a solution, I was told, would break the country up.  Quebec would unilaterally declare itself a country.  I thought that this was nonsense then and nonsense now.  Even at its most virulent, Quebec wanted to leave Canada but have Canada pay for most of its expenses.  It wanted Canada to defend it.  It wanted a common currency.  It wanted its defense to be guaranteed by Canada.  In return it would give Canadian free passage to eastern Canada. 

There is always a small group of people who want to opt out of some part of Canadian life.  There are Newfoundlanders who rue the day that Joey Smallwood signed up for Canada.  There are Westerners who would feel more comfortable as part of the United States.  The First Nations would rather that we all go home. Canada is a geographically large with an equally large number of regional interests.  We have, for almost 150 years, managed to negotiate these differences within the boundaries of one country.  We need a united country and, if we cannot have that, we need to define the terms by which Quebec would leave us.    

If I were Prime Minister I would ask that Parliament not seat the 4 BQ members.  But then again I’m not and I’m dreaming.

Bernie. 

On Charlotte Whitton

Now the matter has become resolved.  Mayor Jim Watson has decided that naming a library and resource center after Charlotte Whitton would cause divisiveness in the Ottawa community at large.  It just wasn’t worth it.  A commendable stance since it was Jim who put forward the suggestion in the first place.  However, both the nomination (which is still before the Federal government who has naming rights for historic figures) and its withdrawal is a cause for some reflection. 

It is true that Whitton was an iconic figure in Ottawa.  She had a sharp tongue that she used viscously.  She was the bane of real estate developers and saw herself as a one person defense against urban sprawl and high density.  She was a public penny pincher who neglected roads, infrastructure and other public works.  Those are the negatives.  On the positive side she single handedly oversaw the building of the Queensway.  This involved much controversy.  Her penury resulted in insufficient land being expropriated through the downtown core.  This has resulted in the gridlock that Ottawa experiences every rush hour.  Before long, she became somewhat of a caricature of herself.

However, that said, Charlotte Whitton deserves a place in Ottawa’s history.  But what place?  While it is true that she oversaw the development of the national capital region to what it was today, she did so largely without grace and with an abundance of ill will bordering on hatred.  No one was impartial when it came to Charlotte.  Mike Duffy reported that at one campaign meeting she referred to her opponent (her brother in law, Frank Ryan, no less) as stupid and not worthy of speaking to the electorate. 

No one can say that Whitton was anti Jewish.  Or, if there is a difference, anti-Semitic. Not overtly.  Her confrontations with Irving Greenberg of Minto were monumental.  But no worse that her confrontations with Bob Campeau.  I am certain that Whitton had many Jewish supporters.  I believe that she had few Jewish friends though much was made of her charitable associations with some of Ottawa’s Jewish gentry.

It is, then, in retrospect that Whitton is exposed as being opposed to the immigration of Jewish children during the Second World War.  This research came out of a book, One is Too Many, chronicling the anti-Semitic almost official policy of the government of Canada.  It is in that context that Whitton is said to have made her stance.  Many Jews in Ottawa did not know this fact until well after her death.  Should it have made a difference?

One the one had Jews world over have made an oath:  Never Again.  Jewish memories of atrocities are a long one.  And so it should be.  Particularly at this time of year when Jewish martyrs are remembered along with the anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel.  However, Jewish memories are selective.  Harry Truman was an avowed anti-Semite and yet his favour was curried to support the establishment of the state of Israel.  But I will wager a bet that there is no monument to the honour of Harry Truman in Yad Vashem, the world class memorial to Jews that died in the holocaust.  No library was named in his honour in Israel.

The real question is: should the average Ottawan who is not Jewish care about this.  Should such a person be sensitive to the feelings of Jews whose every brush with anti-Semitism is akin to a hockey major penalty.  Are we too sensitive?  The answer must be a resounding no.  If I know that my friend is sensitive to peanuts I do not offer him a peanut butter sandwich.   If Canada is anything,  Canadians are sensitive to the feelings of others.  This is why we try to accommodate others who come from different cultures.  This is why our fellow Ottawans should accommodate their Jewish co-citizens in supporting the withdrawal of Charlotte Whitton as a recipient of any public honour.  Her acts against Jewish children may have been long ago but we should, collectively, never forget.

Kudos to Mayor Jim Watson

Bernie.

The Morning After

What a difference a day makes.  Yesterday I was convinced that the NDP and the Liberals were going (eventually) to form the government of the day.  Wrong.  All the pundits have spoken and it appears that the “right wing liberals”  voted with the Conservatives fearing an NDP coaltion.  This left the “left wing liberals” for whom centrist policies were not left enough.  They voted NDP.  We all know the results.

So, what about the results?  For the next 4 years the Conservatives will govern with the “tyranny of the majority”.  While most governments have used this power responsibly there is no telling where or how far the current Conservatives will go.  The purchase of the jets, with or without engines, will go forward.  Corporate taxes will be reduced.  The arts, culture and charitable sector will suffer from the withdrawal of the flow through share mechanism. Income splitting among spouses and children will be curtained. Parliamentary committees will be rigged so that no embarrassing issues will rise to “bother” the government.  Ministers will be allowed to alter documents. Ministers will be shut up.  Debate will be stifled. All Jack Layton can do will be to holler on the sidelines. 

The NDP increases in Quebec are curious.  I can understand that the BQ failed to give Quebecers any real representation in Ottawa.  But the NDP?  In a Conservative dominated Parliament?  This appears to be a one-election wonder when Quebecers find out that their clout in Ottawa is no greater than what it was under the BQ.

Do not forget that the Conservatives came to power on the back of Canadian business, Jewish voters and radical Western reformers.  So, business will be rewarded with lower corporate taxes, the Jewish voters will be rewarded with nice words about Israel and the radical Western reformers will be rewarded by the abolition of the gun registry.  Expect Canada’s relationship with the US to be dismal.  The Canadian Prime Minister and the US President are as far apart, ideologically, as chalk and cheese. 

For those of us in Ottawa expect a much smaller government.  Since the Conservatives will not raise taxes they will have to make up lost revenue with less government.  And less government programs.  Less money for the arts and culture sector.  Less money for the less fortunate.  It is the kind of trickle down economics that the US saw under Reagan.  If you believe that taxes saved by corporations will find their way into the mainstream, think again.  US corporations are sitting on a pile of cash while 13 million Americans are still unemployed. 

The provinces have already obtained an 8% increase in federal healthcare transfer payments.  This was obtained by debate between the parties rather than by negotiation with each province.  It will be interesting to see if these increases will be made without some strings attached.  The Conservatives have gone on record favoring a two-tiered system of healthcare.  This would be a fundamental departure from basic tenants of the Canadian social safety net.

Also expect more of the same regarding any meaningful carbon taxes in Canada.  The Conservatives have always dragged their feet when it comes to any meaningfull legislation on carbon reductions.  There will be no incentive to reduce consumption and gas prices will continue to rise until Canadian families will no longer be able to afford to drive their kids to school. 

Be careful what you wish for, Canada. 

Bernie.

Osama Bin Laden DNRIP (Do Not Rest In Peace)

It’s good to get off the topic of Canada’s elections.  It’s particularly good when the topic is the death Osama Bin Laden or OBL as he has been won’t to be called.  I am generally not in favour of the death penalty but the death of OBL solves many problems that a capture would have brought.  If the US is fighting a war on terrorism it is indeed fitting that OBL should have been treated as an enemy combatant whose death in a firefight is one of the more fortunate outcomes of one battle. 

Now what?  Issues with OBL did not start with 9/11.  There were a number of lethal events that he took credit for that preceded 9/11.  The events of 9/11 turned out to be the most egregious in an inexorable war of ideologies that still has not been resolved.  To many Muslims, America is still the “great Satan” and Jews are synonymous with pigs.  This is the kind of hate that is still being taught at Madrasas in much of the Middle East.  The death of OBL will not change that.  Any change will take generations to unlearn that kind of catechism. 

Also, the death of OBL will not lessen the incidence of bombings and murder by radical Muslims.  Al Qaida has “gone viral” in the sense that it is no longer a “top down” organization headed by OBL.  Many cells are now fully embedded in host countries such as Britain, Germany, the US, Spain and Canada.  These are domestic radicalized Muslims that will continue their evil work whether OBL lives or dies. 

Many have asked moderate Muslims to denounce their more radical brethren.  At one time I have been impressed by the argument that they should not have to be responsible for their radical co-religionists.  No longer.  It is time for moderate Muslims to cast out their more radical co-religionists.  This is more than a lunatic fringe that one tolerates.  These are deadly, misguided lunatics that are bent on killing innocent people on the premise that all of Western society is evil.  At one time I was impressed by the argument that all Al Qaida wanted was for America to get out of their region so that the golden crescent of Islam could be re-established in the Middle East.  No longer.  Bombing underground trains in Spain and Britain and nightclubs in Bali does little to further the aims of the golden crescent.

One positive (for now) note is that in the recent unrest in Africa, Egypt and the Middle East there has been little heard from radical Islam.  While it is too early to tell, there is some evidence that Egypt will be reformed into a secular state.  The Islamic Brotherhood will certainly have a say but Egyptians will not be governed by Sharia law.  The same is true for Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.  Those who have fought so hard for some say in their government will be vigilant that the conditions in Iran will not be repeated. 

I am generally a law and order advocate.  Extreme curtails of personal freedoms have a way of getting out of hand.  However, law and order restraints are meant to deal with day-to-day crime where property and person may be in danger.  That is why war gives rise to such extreme remedies.  Soldiers are allowed to kill others without trial.  Cities are bombed and civilians die so that enemy leaders will sue for peace.  I truly believe that the West’s engagement with radical Islam is such a war. Only one battle has been won.  Winning the war is still a long way off.

Bernie.

What’s A Vote Worth?

Tomorrow we go to the polls.  The fourth time in seven years.  By all rights people should be vote-weary.  However, I see a new dynamism where voters are actually discussing issues and what each party’s take is on each of them.  I also see more young people engaged.  Whether that engagement will overcome the usual inertia that overcomes young people at election time is yet to be seen. 

From a larger perspective I believe that Canada is no longer satisfied with “more of the same”.  We have come through seven years of legislative gridlock not because there has been a minority government but there has been no will to govern.  Each party has been so engaged in partisan politics that they have, collectively, failed to govern.  Conservatives, an amalgamation of right wing reformers and Progressive Conservatives (whatever a “progressive” conservative means?) have not yet moved sufficiently to the center to get a majority of the seats in Parliament.  I am not sure that the message that Ignatieff has sent—the message that Harper has lost the confidence of the House for good and sufficient reason—has gone unheeded.  While the Conservatives have solid support from their reformer supporters in the West many undecided centrists do not trust Harper.  They fear that a Harper led majority government would result in the Canadian version of the Tea Party.

The Liberals have been the largest disappointment of the election.  The voters have largely voted with their feet in retreating from the Liberal party in droves.  Left of center Liberals have joined with the NDP and right of center Liberals are either holding their noses and voting Conservative or are not voting at all.  The problem is in the message and in the leader.  Ignatieff has not sold himself to the electorate as a person who should be entrusted with government.  The platform is a bunch of hashed over centrist policies that don’t improve on the NDP platform and don’t offer the voter a solid choice between Liberal and Conservative policies.

The Bloc has gone the way of all Quebec-centered parties.  Among younger voters, they would prefer to be at the table when it comes to government then eating table scraps.  The Liberals have been so emasculated by the Bloc that rebound support will not go to them.  They will not go the Conservatives.  The NDP will make a strong inroad in Quebec in part because of the likeability of the leader and a strong left wing reformist sentiment of the younger voters.

That leaves the NDP.  The general platform of the NDP embraces center left policies.  No reduction in corporate income taxes.  Cap and trade energy policies.  More tax help for families, the elderly and the disenfranchised.  However, there is no wind that does not blow some ill.  Recent remarks about “subsidizing” gas prices and reopening the never-ending Quebec constitutional question indicates that some of the loonies are not necessarily all on the dollar coin.  Most left of center parties government in the G8 have done so from a free market perspective.  Subsidizing gas prices leads directly in the wrong direction.  Gas prices should be allowed to rise to the point where consumer demand feels the pinch.  And demand drops.  Where there is a need of reform is in the tax structure for energy companies.  They have not been allowed to make egregious profits without contributing to tax revenue.  Any party short of the Conservatives should engage in this kind of tax reform. 

I still believe that an NDP-Liberal coalition will take some of the steam out of the interventionist bent of the NDP.  If the NDP comes in second and the Conservatives try to form a government, the Conservatives will fall on a vote of confidence and the NDP and Liberals will form a stable government much like the one that exists in Britain.  Canada could do worse. 

Bernie