Treaties a basis for mutual respect

Published Apr. 9, 2015, in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Waterloo Region Record

If you open up a newspaper or read almost any academic study about aboriginal peoples in Canada, it’s easy to get depressed. Study after study and report after report tells us the status quo isn’t working. Put simply, aboriginal participation within the constitutional framework of Canada has failed and is doomed to failure. And so commentators argue the only paths to reconciliation are either aboriginal assimilation into Canadian society or independence from the Canadian state.

To understand where this pessimism comes from, all one has to do is look at what is supposed to be the bedrock of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal relationships in this country: the treaty relationship. History has shown that Canada has simply been unable or unwilling to respect the aboriginal view of what these treaties are supposed to accomplish. For the Crown, historical and modern treaties are supposed to represent the full and final settlement of all outstanding issues with aboriginal peoples. Period. For aboriginal communities, however, treaties with the Crown are supposed to be akin to the beginning of a marriage where the spouses agree to live together, but also recognize they must constantly work on and redefine their marriage as time and circumstances change. It is this fundamental difference in worldviews that breeds conflict, mistrust, and the paths of assimilation and independence.

Yet this can’t and shouldn’t be the end of the story. There is a solution, but it requires Canadian citizens and leaders to remember and draw upon our frequently forgotten civic identity and political heritage

Read more. 

All eyes will be on Duffy this week

Published April 6, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

The Mike Duffy trial, which begins this week, is first of three political happenings that will determine the fate of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government this year. The second is the belated federal budget to be presented on April 21 by Finance Minister Joe Oliver, an improbable alchemist who will try to convince the country that it is possible to turn red ink into black.

The third is the election itself, which by law must be held no later than Oct. 19. The pre-campaign has already begun, thanks to the generosity of taxpayers who, without having to be asked, are graciously contributing $7.5 million to advertise the Tory budget before it has even been presented. That $7.5 million is just a drop in the bucket, of course, a pebble in the ocean, as the Conservatives will keep spending to sell their dual message: they are the only party that is serious about the terrorists in our midst; and they are the only ones who can rescue the economy from its miseries (some of which, or so it might be inferred, could be laid at the door of nine years of Tory economic management). Continue reading

Back to the Mike Duffy trial.  The suspended senator from Prince Edward Island (a former journalist and celebrity fundraiser for the Conservative party) faces a total of 31 charges, most of which will drop away as the trial proceeds. The big one is bribery. Duffy is accused of accepting $90,000 from Nigel Wright, then Harper’s chief of staff, so that he could reimburse the treasury for expenses he claimed on his residence in Ottawa. Duffy says the claim was legitimate, although he agreed under protest to repay the money; the government says the claim was fraudulent and that Duffy was guilty of accepting a bribe when he took the money and agreed to keep quiet about the whole affair.

However, Wright, who is expected to be the crown’s star witness, was not charged with offering a bribe (although he lost his job), and that non-charge could be the Achilles heel of the government’s case.

The first part of the trial will examine the Senate expense-accounting system. For years it operated more or less on an honour system; senators spent money in the course of their work and the Senate (aka the taxpayers) paid them back. Now, however, auditors have the final say. No expense claim is too picayune to escape their mind-numbing notice. Should senators who do not relish the cold Camembert that Air Canada serves its executive-class passengers be expected to eat it rather than expense a breakfast elsewhere? Who really cares?

There are real issues that may – and should – come to the fore in the 41 days set aside for the Duffy trial. One is the patronage-riddled system of naming senators. Duffy and his colleague Pamela Wallin, another former broadcast journalist, who was appointed the same day as “Old Duff,” were not chosen for what they could contribute to Parliament. They were appointed for what they could contribute to the Harper party. They were expected to go forth and attract crowds and raise money for the party.

They were very good at it. Harper loved them, until the auditors got on their trail. Then he disowned them. The Prime Minister’s office went into overdrive, generating thousands of emails in a cover-up designed to insulate the office and the Prime Minister from any responsibility for any aspect of the Senate scandal.

These issues – what the Prime Minister knew, when he knew it and what he did about it – are central to the trial. As it begins, watch Duffy. When this all began, he wanted to save his job and protect his reputation. He still wants to do that, but his focus has shifted. He is angry and bitter. His priority now is nothing less than to bring down Stephen Harper and his government.

The trial may start slowly, but it could turn nasty very quickly.

“Albertans Have Spoken!” or Maybe Not: The Curious Coverage of Danielle Smith

Earlier this week, Danielle Smith failed to win the PC nomination in her riding and the knives were out.  Some commentators and politicians mentioned how “Albertans have spoken” or how “Albertans” didn’t like her floor-crossing behaviour and punished her accordingly. Continue reading

There are a lot of angles to this story but one that hasn’t been corrected is this fallacy that Albertans passed judgement on Smith.  Albertans didn’t judge Smith.  It was the PC members of Highwood who did that. To say that Albertans didn’t like Smith’s decision and so Albertans punished her by supporting Carrie Fisher is a little disingenuous.

A better test of Albertan views about Smith would have been if she had won the PC nomination but lost her seat in the upcoming general election. Unfortunately, we won’t get a chance to see how that test would have played out.

 

Where Did All the Baby Bottles Go? Interest Groups, Media Coverage and Institutional Imperatives in Canada’s Regulation of Bisphenol A

Author: Simon Kiss

Published in Canadian Journal of Political Science

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Abstract: As part of an $816 million initiative to manage risks represented by possibly hazardous substances, Canada was the first country in the world to determine that the common chemical bisphenol A (BPA) should be classed as “toxic” and accordingly banned polycarbonate baby bottles. The process set up to conduct this risk assessment differed from the previous Canadian experience in that it was more formal, systematic and more pluralistic with much greater participation from interest groups. This case study examines the forces that impacted the regulatory process of BPA and argues that long-term, institutional and legislative forces interacted with short-term interest group politics and public opinion. It argues that the federal government issued a decision that went beyond what was scientifically validated but that reflects a widespread social perception of risk posed by chemicals that was embedded in the legislation governing the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), public opinion and the media coverage of the issue. It uses existing literature on the nature of risk perception to assess critically the values underlying the CMP and those expressed in the regulation of BPA.

 

Canada needs a leader with a bold vision

Published Mar. 23, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

As Canada lurches unsteadily toward a general election, something important is missing. That “something” is a sense of national purpose – or vision – from any of the three major parties. How do the Conservatives, the New Democrats or the Liberals envisage the future of the country they aspire to lead for (let us say) the next decade or beyond?

We know, broadly, where they are coming from. But do they have a roadmap? How do they see the Canada of 2025 or 2040? Will we still be a moderately liberal society, committed to equality of treatment and opportunity for all citizens? Will we still welcome immigrants? Will we still embrace the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or will we let the charter be reduced to a relic of a bygone era)? Will we still respect the supremacy of Parliament and the Supreme Court? And looking beyond Canada’s borders, will we be content to play a modest, if useful, role in a world dominated by bigger powers and their agendas? Continue reading

Of course, all three parties are dedicated (or say they are) to the service of the “middle class,” however they define it. But accommodating the middle class does not a vision make. It’s as though the leaders of the parties are so busy struggling with minutiae of the present (what should Muslim women wear on their heads; should rural dwellers be encouraged to keep guns by their beds; is income-splitting a good or bad idea) that they lose sight of the bigger picture. They become preoccupied with politics on the margins, slicing and dicing the electorate into interest groups where they hope to gain electoral advantage.

Elections should be an opportunity, for bold thinking, for big ideas. You can say what you will about John Diefenbaker, but he was not afraid to proclaim his vision (he even called it a vision) for Canada, based on northern development. So many Canadians embraced his vision that his Progressive Conservatives won the largest majority in Canadian history in 1958. A decade later, Pierre Trudeau led the Liberals back to a majority with his vision of a Just Society.

Judging from the polls, Canadians are confused. They have elected Stephen Harper three times, but they still don’t love him or trust him very much; his poll numbers reflect that. The people like Thomas Mulcair, as long as he is leading the opposition. They would like to like Justin Trudeau, and they told pollsters that for two years; now they are not so sure.

As of early last week, the online poll aggregator ThreeHundredEight.com had the Liberals and Conservatives in a statistical dead heat. Later in the week, however, a new poll by EKOS Research showed an apparent four-point shift from the Tories to the Liberals, putting the Trudeau party ahead of the Harper party by 32 per cent to 30, with the NDP holding at 21.

Frank Graves, the head of EKOS, suggested the movement, which he found significant, could partly be blowback over Bill C-51, the controversial anti-terrorism bill. “The more likely explanation, however, is that the security and culture narrative is beginning to lose strength as the threat of a stagnant and eroding economy takes root in voters’ minds,” Graves reported.

The federal budget is due in the next month. But if the economy is struggling – and if the fear card is losing its potency – the Conservatives will be in trouble this spring.

Trouble for the government generally spells opportunity for the opposition. But for which opposition party? Talk of an NDP-Liberal coalition is very much in the wind. It may be the moment for a bold idea – say, a joint announcement by Mulcair and Trudeau that if (as seems likely) no party wins a majority of the 338 seats, their two parties have agreed to join forces to replace the Conservatives.

A risky idea and maybe dangerous, but its very boldness would make for an exciting election.

Where did all the baby bottles go? The regulation of bisphenol A in Canada

The other day I was rock climbing and someone dropped their glass water bottle, sending thousands of tiny, sharp shards of glass all over the floor, where dozens of people, some young children, were walking around in bare feet. Six years ago, this never would have happened because most rock climbers would have been using hard, reliable, plastic water bottles that were hardened with a chemical called bisphenol A (BPA). Thanks to an ongoing campaign by environmentalists and some scientists, BPA has become a modern day equivalent of DDT. Because of public pressure, retailers of products made with BPA, including baby bottles and outdoor bottles, withdrew their products and replaced them with a wide variety of bottles made from different products, including glass bottles, which, as noted above, have a tendency to break. In essence, people were convinced to act on one risk (the risk supposedly posed by exposure to BPA) and unwittingly opened themselves up to other risks (broken glass). But in all the discussion about the supposed risk presented by BPA, the issue was never framed this way. Sadly, discussions about threats to welfare (risks) usually are not.

This is one conclusion that emerged from my paper published online recently in the Canadian Journal of Political Science that examines the politics and science of Canada’s regulation of BPA. Canada was the first country in the world to regulate it, announcing in April 2008 that it was “toxic” according to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The paper argues that this decision was not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, it produces documentary evidence that scientific experts in Health Canada felt that “at this stage, any risk from BPA is hypothetical”. Their own risk assessment described the evidence for the existence of some threat to human welfare as “limited” (see p. 71). Instead, the decision was a product of a widespread suspicion of chemicals that is the product of both cognitive and cultural forces. Continue reading

In addition, it was the product of very strong lobbying by Environmental Defence and other environmental groups and a great deal of questionable reporting by the Globe and Mail’s Martin Mittelstaedt which emphasized what flimsy evidence there is that suggests there is some threat to health, ignoring the much more robust evidence that indicates the opposite. But what Mittelstaedt and ED ignored, and what Health Canada knew but downplayed, was that all of the evidence that had been produced up to that point (and to this day) was based on flimsy methodologies or showed effects manifesting themselves at levels of exposure far higher than what Canadians are exposed to.

This is an important case for several reasons. First, the fear and suspicion of chemicals is widespread. The Sudbury father who recently sought a vaccine exemption for his daughter is on the record saying: “I don’t believe chemicals should be dumped into our system.” In research I’m doing on the politics of municipal water fluoridation, one of the common charges opponents make is that it is not fluoride that is added to the water, but rather hydrofluorosilicic acid. This compound dissolves into fluoride, but fluoridation opponents don’t know this or don’t care. By focussing on a term that caters to chemophobia, anti-fluoridation opponents can actually overturn fluoridation, an important public health initiative that can effectively and equitably improve dental health for a wide segment of the Canadian population. By acting on flimsy evidence, the federal government legitimates excessive fears of chemicals.

Second, journalists play a key role in amplifying risks. Thanks to Google Trends data, I was able to correlate the frequency of news stories about BPA in Canada with internet search interest about the same topic over several years. You can see the results here.

Correlating newspaper coverage with public interest in BPA.

Correlating newspaper coverage with public interest in BPA.

In nearly every week where there was a spike in newspaper interest in BPA, there was a corresponding spike in public interest in BPA. I’m pretty confident in saying that newspaper coverage (particularly Martin Mittelstaedt’s) coverage sent a lot of worried and curious Canadians to the internet to find out more, making the issue more salient in public opinion. A good example of Mittelstaedt’s reporting can be seen here where he describes BPA as “inherently toxic”. While this certainly sounds frightening, the fact is that BPA was only ever found “inherently toxic” to aquatic organisms, not for humans. Moreover — and my paper spells this out — this criteria was not enough to trigger a full screening assessment alone; at the early stage in the regulatory process, this finding was irrelevant. But Mittelstaedt and others made no mention of this because they didn’t want that fact to get in the way of a good scare story.

And lastly, this case shows the need for a better discourse about risks in politics and public policy. One thing that needs to be better understood is that invoking the existence of some threat to welfare (a risk) is only ever a partial equation. Other elements of that equation include what the quality of the evidence is that establishes existence of that risk. In the case of BPA, it was very poor. Yet another part of that equation asks whether public welfare is actually improved by doing anything about it and if so, what that should be. In this case, some environmental groups like Environmental Defence, Martin Mittelstaedt and Health Canada have valiantly protected us from risks based on some pretty flimsy evidence. And in doing so, they’ve helped take hard, reliable, unbreakable plastic bottles off the market place. And now, rock climbers, outdoor activists and parents are using glass baby bottles protected from a hypothetical risk, and now exposed to the risks posed by broken glass.

Clearly this is not the most tragic case of misperception of risks. But in other domains – such as how we try to deal with supposed threats from terrorists or try to minimize the risks from pesticides – failing to appreciate how dealing with one risk can expose us to others could make us all much worse off.

Forget Robert Munsch, kindergartners need skills training

Published Mar. 21, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Recently, the government of Ontario announced that it would be asking employers and industry groups to participate in a process designed to transform how universities are funded and operated in Ontario.

In many ways, this announcement is unsurprising in that it is simply the latest development in a long-term trend toward pushing universities to become places that focus more strongly on training students to meet the needs of the Canadian economy.

Universities, according to this vision, need to become sophisticated versions of community colleges, providing students with high-end skills and training to meet the current and future demands of the marketplace.

Predictably, this recent announcement has generated considerable opposition and disgust among my academic colleagues. I, on the other hand, applaud the government for taking this bold and visionary stance in provincial education policy.

Read more…

Terror bill creates havoc in Harperland

Published Mar. 16, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

“Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war” – William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 3

With the House of Commons in recess this week for yet another mid-session breather, it is a perfect moment for everyone to step back, take a deep breath, and bring some calm to the debate over Bill C-51. To leash the dogs of war, as it were.

This could have been a civil debate. If the government felt it needed to top up police powers to deal with terrorism, it could have introduced a modest measure to that end, explaining to Parliament why additional powers were needed, what precisely those powers would be, whether they would be temporary or permanent, and what controls would be put in place to ensure the police did not abuse their new powers. And the Conservatives could have agreed to accept reasonable amendments from the opposition.

Continue reading

Parliament, I think, would have passed such a bill fairly quickly, assuming it represented an honest attempt to strike a balance between public safety and the protection of individual rights. The problem with the Harper government – or, perhaps more accurately, one of its problems – is that it cannot resist excess.

A measure that was introduced in response to the murders of two soldiers by lone-wolf assassins in unrelated incidents in Ottawa and Quebec, somehow escalated into a holy war against the jihadis of international Islam, then, courtesy of the personal intervention of the prime minister, branched into an attack on the dress code of Muslim women.

Why should the prime minister waste time worrying about what Muslim women choose to wear? The niqab or hajib have about as much (or little) to do with good governance and public safety as the ridiculous-looking Stetsons that Harper wears at the Calgary Stampede. In a free society, even prime ministers are permitted to make their own sartorial decisions.

It took Stephen Blaney, minister of the Orwellian-sounding department of public safety, to crank the fear factor up a nasty notch. It’s not just women with scarves on their heads that Canadians need to fear. There are “jihadist terrorists,” he assured a parliamentary committee, who have declared war on Canada “simply because these terrorists hate our society and they hate our values.”

How do we prevent them? Well, we start by making the “promotion of terrorism” a criminal offence. This, it seems, may mean limiting freedom of speech in Canada. “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chamber; it began with words,” Blaney explained, sort of.

From jihadis to head scarves to our hateful values to the Holocaust – if it weren’t so serious, it might be funny, more Gilbert and Sullivan than George Orwell. But it’s serious because the Conservatives seem actually to believe this nonsense.

They believe it deeply enough to ram through Bill C-51, cutting off debate at every stage, as they rush to give the security forces powers they probably don’t need to deal with a threat that looms large in Conservative imaginations, and rejecting all opposition attempts to improve the bill with amendments to provide oversight of the police powers.

In the process, they are prepared to risk stoking anti-immigrant sentiment, thereby alienating some of the minority communities that they – Jason Kenney, in particular – worked so hard to woo in the 2011 election.

If the Conservatives seem to be panicking, it is because they see the headlight of the next election racing down the track at them. I think the Tories miscalculated. They thought playing the “fear card” would have brought them to a sweet spot in the polls by now, a spot where they would enjoy a tidy lead over the Liberals and NDP. Instead they are deadlocked with the Liberals with the New Democrats not too far behind.

Right now, a Liberal-NDP coalition or cooperative government is as good a bet as another Conservative government. Bill C-51 is simply creating havoc in Harperland. It’s time to step back.

 

What is Community-Engaged Research? A Conversation with Dr. Leah Levac

Over the last decade or so, community-based participatory research has become a more prominent feature in the discipline. This fact is especially true in the area of Indigenous studies, where research partnerships with Indigenous communities have become almost the norm. Although I certainly appreciate and respect the idea of community-based research, I’ve also tended not to use it mainly because I’m uncertain about the tradeoffs involved. Luckily, I am visiting professor with the department of political science at the University of Guelph this term and just down the hall from my office is Dr. Leah Levac, assistant professor of political science at UofG. Her research, which has been supported by the Trudeau Foundation, the CIHR, and more recently, SSHRC, looks at how government and civil society actors engage “marginalized publics in public policy development and community decision-making”. In particular, she uses community-engaged research methodologies and approaches to study the participation of women and youth in Canada. The following is a conversation I had with her regarding her work and in particular, how she uses community-based research to work with marginalized populations and individuals in the pursuit of common research goals.

Continue reading

Alcantara: What is community-based research?

Levac: Community-based research is one of several methodological orientations to research that have, at their core, a commitment to social justice and equity, and to working directly with people in communities to address research questions that are important and relevant to their lives. Participatory action research, feminist participatory action research, community-based participatory research, and action research are other names used by community and academic researchers who uphold similar commitments to working with communities to bring about social change. Community-based research is committed to the principles of community relevance, equitable participation, and action and change (Ochocka & Janzen, 2014). Emerging from different contexts and histories, forms of community-based research have developed and been practiced in both the Global North and the Global South. In all cases, community-based research pursues the co-production and dissemination of knowledge, through both its process and its outcomes.

Alcantara: How do you use these methodologies in your work?

Levac: Over the last several years, I have been working with various community partners and academic colleagues to develop and use a feminist intersectional approach to community engaged scholarship (Levac, Stienstra, McCuaig, & Beals, forthcoming; Levac & Denis, 2014). The idea is that we use the principles of community-based research combined with a commitment to feminist intersectionality; a self-reflexive theoretical and methodological orientation to research that recognizes gender as a dimension of inequality, and understands that power exists and operates through the interactions between individual or group identities (e.g., gender, ability, age), systems (e.g., sexism, heterosexism, colonialism), institutions (e.g., governments, schools, family), and social structures (e.g. social class, economic structures, societies). We draw on the work of Collins, Dhamoon, Hankivsky, and others to inform our work. Practically, we apply this methodological orientation by engaging with (primarily) women in communities, along with academic colleagues across disciplines, to develop partnerships that lead to asking and answering research questions that are pressing for our community partners. Based on this commitment to developing shared research goals, we use one or several methods (e.g., community workshops, interviews, focus groups, surveys, photovoice) depending on the question(s) being asked. For example, I collected data through community workshops and focus groups, and then analyzed the data with members of the community, as part of the process for creating a Community Vitality Index in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador. In another case, I used key informant interviews and community focus groups to identify the key challenges facing women in Labrador West. The result, Keeping All Women in Mind, is part of a national community engaged research project focused on the impacts of economic restructuring on women in northern Canada.

Alcantara: Why have you decided to make this methodology central to your work? What advantages does it bring to your research and to your partners?

Levac: My commitment to community engaged scholarship emerged in part from my personal and professional experiences. I returned to school to pursue graduate studies after working with community organizations and community members – young people in particular – where I witnessed disconnects between researchers’ goals and community’s experiences, and where I learned more about the lack of equitable public participation in policy development. As I continue along this path, I am motivated by the ways in which this methodological orientation invites the voices of historically marginalized community members into important public conversations. I also appreciate that the approach brings ecological validity. Through our work, we see important instances of leadership emerging, especially in places and ways that the conventional leadership literature largely fails to recognize. Finally, the theoretical grounding of our work points explicitly to social justice and equity goals, which I feel obligated to pursue from my position.

Alcantara: One of the concerns I have long had about this methodology is the potential loss of autonomy for the researcher. Is that a real danger in your experience?

Levac: I think about this in two different ways. On one hand, I do not think it is a danger that is unique to community engaged scholarship. As I understand it, the core concern with autonomy in community engaged scholarship is about how the relationships themselves might influence the findings. However, the lack of relationships can also influence findings (e.g., if there is a lack of appropriate contextual understanding), as can funding arrangements, and so on. What is important then, is to foreground the relationships, along with other important principles such as self-reflexivity and positionality, so that the rigor of the scholarship can be evaluated. Another way to think about this is to consider that within a community engaged scholarship program, there can be multiple research questions under pursuit; some of which are explicitly posed by, and of interest to, the community, and others that are posed by the academic researcher(s). As long as all of these questions are clearly articulated and acceptable to all partners, then independent and collective research pursuits can co-exist. Having said this, I do find that I have had to become less fixated on my own research agenda per se, and more open to projects that are presented to me.

Alcantara: How do you approach divided communities? Here I’m thinking about situations such as working with Indigenous women on issues relating to gender and violence, identity, or matrimonial property rights. How do you navigate these types of situations, where some community members might welcome you while others might oppose you?

Levac: These are obviously difficult situations, and I certainly do not claim to have all of the answers, particularly in Indigenous communities, where I have not spent extensive time. Having said that, there are a couple of important things to keep in mind. First, the ethical protocols and principles of community engaged scholarship demand attention to the question of how communities are constituted. So, for example, an interest-based community and a geographic community are not necessarily coincidental. As a result, a community engaged scholarship project would be interested in how the community defines itself, and therefore might end up working only with people who identify themselves as victims of gendered violence, for example. Second, because relationships are central to all stages of community-based research projects, these methodologies can actually lend themselves to these difficult kinds of contexts. By this, I mean that similar to reconciliation processes, there is an opportunity for community engaged scholarship to play a role in opening dialogues for understanding across social, political, and cultural barriers. This is one of the reasons that community engaged scholarship is widely recognized as being so time intensive.

Alcantara: What kinds of literature and advice would you offer to scholars who want to use this type of methodology in their work for the first time?

Levac: My first and biggest piece of advice is to get involved in the community. All of my research – including and since I completed my PhD – has come about through existing relationships with community organizations and/or other researchers involved in community engaged projects. There are a number of books and authors that can provide a useful grounding, including Reason & Bradbury’s (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research, Minkler & Wallerstein’s Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, and Israel et al.’s Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. There are also several great peer-reviewed journals – including Action Research and Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement. Finally, there are many organizations and communities of practice that pursue and support various facets of community engaged scholarship. Guelph hosts the Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship. Other great organizations and centres include Community Based Research Canada, Community Campus Partnerships for Health, and the Highlander Research and Education Centre. Finally, beyond connecting with communities and community organizations, and reading more about the methods and theories of community engaged scholarship, it is really helpful to reach out to scholars using these approaches, who have, in my experience, been more than willing to offer support and suggestions. Feel free to contact me directly at LLevac@uoguelph.ca.

 

Mr. PM, please think twice about five debates

Published Mar. 2, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury.

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper

24 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

My very dear Prime Minister:

I am writing to you again as a steadfast admirer of your inspired leadership, your splendid cabinet and your exceptional caucus. Sir, be assured Canada has never been so well served.

Permit me to begin by apologizing for intruding on your solitude this week. With Parliament in recess, you are freed from the aggravations of recent weeks. You don’t have to deal this week with that troublesome Eve Adams person who wouldn’t go away even after you threw her under the bus; with Thomas Mulcair and his motley band of jihadi sympathizers who refuse to recognize that the way to protect democracy is to give more unsupervised power to security agencies; or with all those do-gooders who think you should care enough about 1,200 missing aboriginal women to order a public inquiry into their disappearances. Continue reading

Don’t they realize you are too busy for such distractions? You are our prime minister. You have a government to run, a deficit to slay, and an election to win.

It is in this last connection, the election, that I am writing today. I fear you may have a quisling or two in your party. I came to this conclusion when I read a leaked story on the front page of the Toronto Star that quoted Conservative “insiders” and “strategists” – “speaking on condition of anonymity” (of course) – as saying that your party is considering a plan to hold no fewer than five leader debates in this year’s election campaign. Not the usual two (one English and one French) but five (one for each region of the country).

Five!

According to your anonymous insiders and strategists, five debates would give you five chances to trip up Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, opportunities to demonstrate to voters in every region just how ill-prepared he is for your high office. Canadians would see young Trudeau for what he is: a callow twerp who thinks he can be prime minister just because his daddy was.

Don’t do it, Prime Minister, I beg you. Please consider my three reasons. First, debates are inherently risky because they put all leaders on a level playing field; the advantage of incumbency, which you enjoy in the Commons, is lost in a TV debate. Voters might actually see your opponents as potential, even credible, candidates for prime minister.

Second, beware Mulcair. With respect, Prime Minister, you are not the world’s most spellbinding debater. You are pretty good at slagging your critics in Question Period, but in TV debates, the goal is to persuade audiences, not to abuse the other chaps. Meanness and nastiness don’t win over voters. Sincerity does. As a debater, you can’t hold a candle to Mulcair. He’s one of the best Parliament has seen in decades, in both official languages. I don’t know anyone who would want to go against him five times.

Third, don’t underestimate Justin Trudeau. Now that his honeymoon fling with the pollsters is over, people are inclined to under-rate him. Yes, he lacks your experience. Yes, he makes stupid mistakes. But he has done a good job of putting the Liberals back on a firm financial footing. He has attracted a cadre of strong candidates. And he projects a quality that not all leaders can claim. That’s likeability. When voters meet him or hear him, they like him. This is particularly true among young people, but he attracts older ones as well.

When he debates on television, audiences may not remember much of what he actually says, but they will come away with an impression – like or dislike. Chances are the impression will be more positive than negative. It was like that with Ronald Reagan in the United States; his likeability was his greatest (some might say, only) asset. And he was a pretty successful politician.

So please be careful, Prime Minister. You are too important to lose.

Your faithful lickspittle,

etc., etc.

Anti-terrorism bill shows bad judgment

Published on Feb. 23, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record

Back in the olden days, as the storybooks might say, societies venerated their elders. They respected their experience and wisdom. They looked to those who had been there and done that to give guidance to their community or nation on the issues of the here and now.

That’s not so much the case these days. We live in a time – not solely in Ottawa, although it is pronounced there – when history does not register on the Richter scale of the present, where the lessons of the past are routinely ignored.  Columnist Allan Fotheringham once described Stephen Harper’s Ottawa as a capital run by ”kids in short pants” – young ideologues who have no appreciation of anything that went on before they got off the bus from wherever and assumed  positions of influence in the offices of the prime minister and his cabinet. Continue reading

Because they have no sense of the past, they do not understand the present. Everything is political. They do not see the difference between principle and partisan strategy or between carefully considered policies and short-term tactics.

This brings us, albeit circuitously, to Bill C-51, the Harper government’s anti-terrorism bill, a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. Although the kids in short pants may not be aware, or care, we have been there before – in 1970 at the time of the FLQ and the War Measures Act and in 2001 following 9/11.

What we learned, or should have learned, from those experiences is that our security services, principally CSIS and the RCMP, have ample existing powers under the Criminal Code and other statutes to deal with domestic terrorism and security. They don’t need more weapons. What they need is more resources – money and manpower – to be able to do their job in dangerous times.

A second point. This being a democracy, any increase in police powers, if deemed necessary to calm a nervous public, must be balanced by an increase in legislative or judicial oversight to make very sure the new powers are not abused.

A remarkable thing happened last week. Four former prime ministers, all of them experienced in national security matters, wrote an open letter to the Globe and Mail, to address the oversight issue. Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and John Turner (three Liberals and one Conservative) wrote the letter, which was co-signed by 18 other elders (including retired judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, ministers of justice and public safety and solicitors general).

Essentially, their message was to slow down; don’t hand out new powers to infiltrate and disrupt what may only seem to be suspicious activities unless and until a “strong and robust accountability regime” is in place to make sure security agencies exercise their powers lawfully. Citing the Maher Arar case, they wrote,  “Experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security.”

One of the co-signers of the letter was Roy Romanow, the former premier and attorney general of Saskatchewan, who – with former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent – had written an open letter a few days earlier on the same subject. They went further than the four prime ministers.

They called on Harper to withdraw Bill C-51 –  “If it is not withdrawn, Parliament should vote it down. Possibly, then, a more limited and focused statute would be worth debating.” And this: “The exercise of security powers must be made subject to review by an open, publicly observed review process.”  

This is scary stuff, handing the police powers they have never had in peacetime without any transparency, without an effective means of ensuring they do not overstep.

The prime minister has shown no inclination to amend the bill. The chances of him withdrawing it are approximately nil. He has too much riding on it, including his re-election.

The experience of elders, those who have actually been there, counts for nothing in Harper’s Ottawa. He is riding a runaway train to election day.

Uber decision may be out of region’s hands

Published Jan. 28, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Uber, the popular “ride-sharing” smartphone application, wants to come to Waterloo Region.

The San Francisco-based company has created a business model that effectively shirks municipal taxi regulations and connects passengers and drivers through mobile devices.

The proposed arrival of Uber shouldn’t come as a surprise. The company now operates in more than 200 cities in 45 countries. Setting up shop in Waterloo may only be a matter of time.

Read more. 

Why Makayla Sault was allowed to die

Published Jan. 27, 2015, in the Toronto Star

Like many Canadians, I was saddened to hear about the death of Makayla Sault, the 11-year-old girl who died after choosing traditional aboriginal medicine over chemotherapy to treat her leukemia. Unlike the majority of commentators in the media, however, I was not outraged by her death or by the refusal of the courts to choose provincial legislation over Aboriginal rights. Instead, this outcome was simply the logical product of how Canada has chosen to balance and protect different and competing individual and group rights.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives all of us a set of individual rights by virtue of being citizens of Canada. At the same time, some Canadian citizens enjoy additional rights that accrue to them on the basis of their membership in one or more demographic or cultural groups. For instance, French-speaking Canadians have the right to communicate with the federal government in French whereas I, as a Filipino-Canadian, do not have the right to use Tagalog, a Filipino dialect, to do the same.

Continue reading

Francophone rights are not the only group rights protected by our constitutional and legal order. Others include gender, religion and Aboriginal rights, all of which seek to protect historically vulnerable groups in ways unique to each case.

Aboriginal rights have particularly complex origins, rooted as they are in the many historical and modern treaties signed with the Crown, but also in a number of pre- and post-Confederation constitutional documents like the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Constitution Act of 1982. As a result, Aboriginal rights empower their holders with a unique legal and moral basis to protect their traditional and evolving cultures, customs and internal constitutional orders in a myriad of ways. In Canadian law, we refer to this basis as Aboriginal self-government or self-determination.

So, in the case of Makayla Sault and other similar situations, legislation like the Child and Family Service Act can rightly and justly be ignored by Indigenous community leaders and members. The special group rights that Indigenous groups have through Canada’s Constitution and through their treaties with us means that they have the right to make unilateral decisions affecting their communities and members within the confines of their traditional and evolving customs and practices.

In many ways, then, the death of Makayla Sault is not as outrageous and illogical as most mainstream commentators portray. Instead, it very accurately reflects a legal and political reality that is consistent with Canada’s approach to human rights. Our country recognizes that all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, have individual and group rights, and that different groups, by virtue of their inherent differences, also have different or asymmetrical sets of rights.

Some Canadians may chafe at this analysis and see it as being the root of the “Aboriginal problem” in this country. All of us, however, need to realize and accept this logic if we hope to build a respectful and just relationship with Indigenous peoples. This is especially true if we believe that the multicultural and multinational character of Canada is worth protecting.

Letter from a lickspittle

Published Dec. 15, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper
24 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario.

My very dear Prime Minister:

Permit me, on behalf of a grateful nation, to extend our thanks for your enlightened stewardship and our best wishes for an exceptionally happy Christmas. Your loyal subjects join you in eager anticipation of your re-election next October to a fourth term as PM. Your place in Canadian history is secure; soon you will join the pantheon of world greats.

But you know all this. Let me get to the point. There’s a pile of presents under your Christmas tree, gifts from supporters and favour-seekers. But be careful, Prime Minister, there is one “gift” you do not want to open. It will cause you great distress. It is a new book entitled “Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover” by Michael Harris.

Continue reading

It is a nasty piece of work, Sir. Very nasty. It alleges that since you took command of the state in 2006, you have endeavored, with considerable success, to make the Conservative party and indeed the entire government accountable to just one person – to you, Mr. Harper. The indictment is lengthy. You insist on controlling everything yet refuse to accept blame when things go wrong. You do not trust science, statistics or any information that does not coincide with your own beliefs or partisan intentions. You have no faith in public servants and diplomats to give you objective advice. You withhold information. You treat Parliament with contempt.

You have changed the country. As Michael Harris writes: “Until that moment (when you became prime minister), Canada had been a secular and progressive nation that believed in transfer payments to better distribute the country’s wealth, the Westminster model of governance, a national medicare program, a peacekeeping role for the armed forces, an arm’s-length public service, the separation of church and state, and solid support for the United Nations. Stephen Harper believed in none of these things.”

Please, Prime Minister, do not assume “Party of One” is some sort of partisan rant, a piece of opposition propaganda in election year. It is much more than that. It is a deeply researched and meticulously documented account of your years in office. I have known Harris for years and I worked with him at the Globe and Mail. He is a superb investigative reporter, one of the best. He specializes in finding slithery things hidden under rocks.

His first book, “Justice Denied,” reported the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall, a Mi’kmaq Indian in Nova Scotia, who spent 11 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. His second, “Unholy Orders,” ripped the lid off the cover-up of sexual and physical abuse of boys at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland.

He brings the same intensity to his scrutiny of your reign. It’s all there: the robocall scandal and election-spending abuses; the destruction of Linda Keen, the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; the F-35 folly; your vendetta against Helena Guergis, who was one of your MPs and ministers until you threw her under the bus; your wars against Statistics Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General and even the Chief Justice of Canada; your government’s hypocritical treatment of veterans; and your errors in judgment in trusting high office to people who should be in jail instead. And, of course, there was your signature folly: Mike Duffy and the Senate-expense scandal; Harris probes your complicity in exhaustive detail.

As I advised at the outset, please, Prime Minister, do not read this book. It will make you angry. It will make you want to get even. You may even want to sue the author for being beastly to you.  I wouldn’t do that, Sir. If the case ends up before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and her colleagues may remember how you tried to beat her up after the court blocked your appointment of the ineligible Marc Nadon. Judges have long memories.

Your faithful lickspittle,
etc., etc.