Political landscape changing course

Published May. 11, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Who do you suppose is the happiest politician in Canada today?

Would it be Rachel Notley who achieved something Albertans thought they would never see in a million years: the election of a (majority!) New Democratic Party government? True blue Alberta painted NDP orange? Pinch yourself!

Or would it be Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal premier of Ontario, who probably could not believe her astonishingly good fortune as her principal opponents, the Progressive Conservatives, opted for the Tea Party route, choosing a new leader to carry them out of the political mainstream. Never have the Liberals had so much room in which to pitch their big red tent.

The happiest politician would not, alas, be Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who sees his road to reelection strewn with new landmines, some of his own devising.

Continue reading

Let’s start with Alberta. The pollsters got it right. They detected the surge to the NDP and the collapse of the Tories. The tricky thing, when the electorate starts to move, as it did last Tuesday, is to anticipate how far its momentum will take it. It went a long way, giving the NDP 50 new seats and dumping the PCs, after 44 years in office, into third place.

With the right-wing Wildrose party as her official opposition and the Tories reduced to irrelevance, Notley has four years in which to establish the NDP’s command of the centre-left. She’s already started, reaching out to the oil industry and to erstwhile Tory supporters.

The election-night contrast between Notley and her PC predecessor, Jim Prentice, was striking. She was gracious in victory, conciliatory and not triumphal; her speech touched all the right bases. Prentice was a study in bad grace. He not only announced his resignation as party leader, as would be expected, but he also resigned his seat in the legislature to which he had been reelected just minutes before, leaving the province facing a byelection. So much for dignity or commitment to service.

In Ontario, the PCs rejected their deputy leader, Christine Elliott, a mainstream Tory (and widow of former federal finance minister Jim Flaherty) in favour of an obscure federal backbencher, Patrick Brown, a social conservative MP from Barrie who might have been more at home at Queen’s Park in 1955 than 2015.

He is too conservative even for the taste of the Harper Conservatives.  He is anti-abortion, against gay marriage, and opposed to sex education in the schools, which is the hot issue in provincial politics these days. Central casting could not have come up with a more perfect opponent for Kathleen Wynne.

Brown won by selling far more party memberships than Elliott. Whether he can sell the public on his extreme conservatism is a different proposition. “He is fundamentally a radical Tea Party individual who is far outside the mainstream,” says Liberal cabinet minister Steven Del Duca.

As for Stephen Harper, the past few weeks have not been kind. His government’s long-awaited balanced budget landed with something of a splat, generating little goodwill for the federal Conservatives.

He is on the wrong side of history in the case of Omar Khadr, the former child soldier, now free on bail in Edmonton pending appeal. The government’s determination to get him back behind bars smacks more of persecution than pursuit of justice.

The Mike Duffy trial is going better for the suspended senator than for the prime minister. It now appears that Harper may have violated the Constitution when he appointed Duffy to a senate seat in Prince Edward Island, where he was not legally resident.

Testimony has revealed that the PM’s agents were up to their elbows in efforts (ultimately successful) to rewrite an early auditor’s report on Duffy’s expenses. And now the PMO is trying to suppress another auditor’s report – the suspicion being that the government’s case against Duffy would be weakened if the court were informed that other senators have similar expenses issues.

The trial is adjourned, but only until June 1.

 

Aboriginal Title One Year after Tsilhqot’in

Published by Christopher Alcantara and Michael Morden in the May 2015 issue of Policy Options.

When the Supreme Court rendered its Tsilhqot’in decision in June 2014, the federal government’s terse response almost seemed delivered through gritted teeth, while many Canadians experienced a familiar sense of uncertainty and quiet apprehension. But most indigenous leaders and commentators reacted with public celebrations and optimism, seeing the decision as a victory for their communities.

Our view, almost a year later, is that all Canadians and indigenous peoples should celebrate the decision.

Read more…

LISPOP Observes the 2015 Alberta Election

Few provincial elections garner as much attention as the current campaign in Alberta, about to reach its conclusion when voters hit the polls tomorrow. Furthermore, Alberta elections tend to be a foregone conclusion, with the incumbent Progressive Conservatives assumed to return to power. This was true since 1971, and before then, the Social Credit solidly held on to power for a generation. If polls are to be believed, and there does appear to be a consensus, on Tuesday voters in Alberta are likely to make history. This is certainly an election night to watch, and one that we here at LISPOP have been observing.

Here are three contributions.

1) Most recently, Geoff Stevens compares Alberta Premier Jim Prentice’s possible misjudgment in calling an early election to the similar fate that visited former Ontario premier David Peterson in 1990.

2) Simon Kiss challenges the long-held assumption that Alberta is Canada’s safe repository of right-wing ideology.

3) Christopher Alcantara commented on former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith’s ultimate political descent.

 

Polls show Alberta ready for change

Published May 4, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury.

The desire for change is the most powerful force in politics. We are seeing that in Alberta where voters will go to the polls on Tuesday in a provincial election that appears destined to end the Progressive Conservatives’ 44-year stranglehold on power. All the pollsters agree: the New Democrats will take over in Alberta, their only reservation being whether the NDP will emerge with a majority or minority government.

Change? In Alberta? An orange government in the bluest of Canadian provinces? NDP Premier Rachel Notley? Wow!

But wait. Is it possible that the pollsters – all of them – are wrong? Continue reading

In theory, yes, and given the polling fraternity’s abysmal record in the last Alberta election in 2012, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. But it seems highly unlikely that they are all wrong this time. By last week, the various polls were all showing the NDP well ahead, with about 38 per cent of the popular vote, which given the fragmented vote on the right, might be just enough to eke out a bare majority.  The one thing the pollsters did not agree on was whether rookie Premier Jim Prentice’s Tories were in second place or in third, behind Wildrose.

As of Friday, the poll consolidator ThreeHundredEight.com put the NDP comfortably ahead with 41.8 per cent of the vote to 26.0 for Wildrose, 24.7 for the PCs and just 4.7 for the Liberals. By then, the desperate Conservatives had mounted a “fear” campaign to warn the people of the dreadful consequences of electing the socialist hordes. The campaign apparently fell flat. A new poll, by Forum Research on Saturday, showed the NDP at 42, Wildrose at 24 and Conservatives 21. Numbers like those would yield a majority NDP government with about 50 members in the 87-seat Alberta Legislature.

What happened to turn Alberta from Tory blue to NDP orange? There were several factors. To start with, Prentice was so overconfident that he called the election a year before it was required; he might have consulted David Peterson, the former Liberal premier of Ontario, who did the same thing in 1990, thereby paving the way for the election of Bob Rae and the NDP. Peterson could have told Prentice that voters don’t like being taken for granted or being pressured into unnecessary elections.

The collapse of world oil prices and its impact on Alberta’s economy, both in terms of job losses and lost government revenue, was a huge factor; it caused Albertans to question some of their political assumptions and allegiances. Prentice’s budget, with its tax increases (on individuals but not on corporations), austerity measures and a record deficit, made matters worse – and the premier dug his hole deeper when he suggested Albertans look in the mirror to see who is responsible for the province’s financial woes.

He came to epitomize cynical old-style politics when he tried to destroy the official opposition by using policy concessions to buy off the Wildrose leader and eight of her caucus members. He was outperformed by Rachel Notley in the leaders’ debate. She and her New Democrats came to represent change, while Prentice and his party stood for the status quo or worse.

Forty-four years is quite a record. Let’s think back to 1971 and what was going on away back then. The Vietnam war was raging. Charles Manson and three women followers were convicted of murdering Hollywood star Sharon Tate and seven others. The Toronto Telegram died and the Toronto Sun was born. It would be another two years before the Watergate scandal would burst on the world. The top song in the Canada was “Sweet City Woman” by The Stampeders. There were no cell phones yet, and personal computers were not generally available in 1971.

And in August, 1971, with political change in the air, a young Calgary lawyer named Peter Lougheed led a band of Tories to an upset election victory in Alberta. The rest is – or was – history.

Springtime in Alberta…

“Springtime in Alberta” is one of my favourite Ian Tyson songs and it’s proving to be somewhat prescient in light of the current election campaign.

Just like spring time in Alberta
Warm sunny days endless skies of blue
Then without a warning
Another winter storm comes raging through

Although the polls are show a remarkable lead for the Alberta NDP, something most people would have considered to be impossible just three weeks ago, many people also seem to think that another winter storm may yet blow through this campaign, just as it did in the dying days of the 2012 campaign. This time, though, it might not be the Wildrose losing its lead, but the NDP.

I won’t go out on a limb to make a prediction, but I do think that the lead in the public opinion polls should be taken more seriously than most people currently are and that a change in government is possible. The graph below shows the results of each public opinion survey published in the 2012 and 2015 elections. Obviously, the NDP has a big, big lead in current public opinion surveys and it’s getting bigger in the last day or two. Continue reading

These results do not count for undecided voters, and that will certainly be something to watch in the next 4 days.

ab_polls
As people point out, the Wildrose Party had a substantial lead in 2012, and that evaporated. This is true. But it is worth pointing out that polls can differ from final vote intention for two reasons. Not to put it too bluntly, but they can get public opinion wrong or public opinion can change between the publication of poll results and the casting of ballots.

The fear with most polls these days, and particularly in this campaign, is that because they are online surveys of voluntary panel participants or automated “robo-polls,” they can overestimate those who have the strongest motivation to stick around and participate. IN this case, it seems plausible to think that the polls could be overestimating opposition party support, given how long in the tooth the PC dynasty is and some of its more spectacular instances of “foot in mouth disease.” Are the 2015 polls overestimating support for the NDP and underestimating support for the PCs? Maybe. But it’s worth it to cast a close eye on the final data point on the 2012 graph. The field work for that poll was done the day before the election and the results were published that night. It showed more than a 10% point jump in support for the PCs and a corresponding drop for the Wildrose. And there were still another 12-24 hours until people interested in casting a ballot, did so. There are a lot of voters who tell survey researchers that they make up their mind on who to vote for the day of the election. To me it seems at least as plausible to suggest that the 2012 polls were actually accurately gauging public opinion over the course of the campaign but that many voters made a final switch at the last minute back to the PCs. Polls weren’t necessarily wrong; they were just measuring decided vote intention, which, it perhaps bears emphasizing, can change once undecideds make up their mind.

The other reason that some people are hesitant to believe that the NDP could win are because it is Alberta and, in the words of Premier Prentice, “Alberta is not an NDP province”. Essentially, this the belief that Albertans are fundamentally opposed to government intervention.

This argument is one of the more common ones but is it far too simple to accept and rule out an NDP victory on Tuesday. The graph below shows the difference between Alberta and Canadian public opinion on a more or less random set of questions from the Canada Election Study. For each item, I took the percentage of Canadians that selected the most liberal option and subtracted from it the percentage of Albertans that selected the same item. The y-axis shows the difference in percentage points between Canadians and Albertans selecting the most liberal option. Positive values suggest that more Albertans selected the most liberal option than Canadians; negative values suggest that more Canadians selected the most liberal option.

cdn_ab_gap

Two things stand out to me in this graph: First, on most of the items, the gap between Albertans and Canadians has been getting smaller. Perhaps this is a product of demographic change in Alberta, as people have flocked to the province to participate in the growing economy, perhaps not. Either way, the gaps between Albertans and Canadians don’t seem to be that large. Keep in mind there is an margin of error associated with each measurement of 2-3 percentage points. There is a slight tilt toward conservatism, but it’s not so dramatic that we should think an NDP win on Tuesday to be impossible. In fact, in 2008 and 2011 there were more Albertans expressing a willingness to increase personal income taxes, than in the rest of Canada. Moreover, the gap between people who strongly disagree that job creation should be solely left to the private sector has been dropping.

And if public opinion isn’t convincing enough, government actions also paint a more complex picture. The PC governments that have governed Alberta have been far more flexible than their caricature suggests. In the 1970s, the Lougheed government purchased an airline and directly subsidized the nascent oil sands industry. Despite a turn to the right under Premier Klein, the government of Alberta remains the only government in Canada with a Crown corporation dedicated to retail financial operations (i.e. it owns a bank). Currently, Alberta has the highest per capita expenditures on health care , but they have the lowest taxes.

But to me, this is not the mark of an ideologically conservative population, but quite a normal one, one that wants things good things without paying for them. Up until now, the Progressive Conservatives have had the fiscal resources to provide both those for Albertans. To me, that is the bigger reason for the PCs’ longevity: not any kind of deep, ideological commitment to right-wing governance in the population. And the combination of a tough recent budget that raised taxes and fees, an early election despite fixed-election legislation and frankly, a brutally, inept campaign mean that the polls should be taken seriously.

It is, in fact, springtime in Alberta.

Senate is the big loser in the Mike Duffy affair

Published Apr. 30, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

The trial of suspended senator Mike Duffy isn’t halfway through its proposed schedule, but Canadians have already heard enough to draw conclusions about the malaise in Canada’s second legislative chamber.

The essence of the former broadcaster’s defence against charges of bribery and fraud seems to be “everybody’s doing it,” and the rules and enforcement of them are weak and meaningless.

Moreover, when the established regulations are so vague, why should any level of common sense judgment or responsibility be expected from our governing officials?

Read more…

Full public disclosure: Publish water bills?

Published Apr. 30, 2015, in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Over the last several years, accountability and transparency issues have been at the forefront of discussions and news coverage of Canadian politics. The usual targets have been politicians such as former MP Bev Oda, former Alberta premier Alison Redford, and senators Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin. Other popular targets include the “sunshine list” of public-sector employees at all levels of government, such as professors, teachers and police officers, among others.

The usual narrative in these stories is how we need more accountability and transparency in our governments. In practice, this means the government should post more public information about these politicians and employees, such as salaries, benefits and expenses, and to include as much detail as possible about their office, travel and technology expenditures.

Read more…

 

Government budgets no longer “news”

Published on Apr. 27, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record

There was a time, within living memory, when budget secrecy was a big deal, a very big deal. A budget leak could cause a crisis for government and lead to the dismissal or resignation of the minister responsible.

In Britain in 1947, for example, the chancellor of the exchequer, Hugh Dalton, paused to say a few words to a journalist as he was walking into the Commons to deliver his budget speech. As it turned out, a procedural issue delayed the speech for a bit, and Dalton’s few words were on the newsstands before he had finished speaking. He had to resign.

In Canada, a budget leak has never brought down a federal finance minister, but it has come close a couple times – in 1983 when Marc Lalonde was Pierre Trudeau’s finance minister and in 1989 when Michael Wilson was finance minister in Brian Mulroney’s government. (Although the opposition howled, Lalonde and  Wilson kept their jobs; in the 1989 incident, the RCMP actually charged the reporter who broadcast the leak.)

Continue reading

There’s no such thing as a budget leak anymore. What we have is a cynical system of selective disclosure and message control. Governments release details of tax or spending changes, often well in advance of budget day. The aim is twofold: to whet the appetite of the media to ensure maximum publicity when the budget finally comes down; and to give the government an opportunity to beat a retreat if public’s reaction is negative.

Was anyone in Ontario really surprised when Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government finally confirmed in its budget last week that it would sell off a chunk of Hydro One and allow the sale of beer in supermarkets? That “news” had been in the papers and beaten to death on talk shows for weeks.

And how about the federal budget that also came down last week – the one that seems destined to be known as “Stephen Harper’s granddaughter’s budget?” The Conservatives had wrung every drop of partisan advantage out of that dreary document long, long before Finance Minister Joe Oliver donned his New Balance running shoes and headed to the chamber.

Yes, there will be a minuscule surplus. Yes, it will be achieved by dipping into reserves. Yes, there will be income-splitting that will benefit more affluent families. Ditto, the doubling of the contribution limit for tax free savings accounts. Yes, there will be enhanced child care benefit cheques in Canadians’ mailboxes in July. All this was known far in advance, as were the facts that it would take some creative bookkeeping and time-lapse accounting to produce the balanced budget. (Not that this discouraged the Toronto Star from declaring on its front page the next day: “Tory budget paves streets with gold.” Oh, do tell.)

The only real “news” – in the traditional journalistic meaning of the word – came from Finance Minister Oliver who either strayed from the Tory party message or suffered an inadvertent fit of candor when he was asked by the CBC’s Amanda Lang whether the doubling of the TFSA limit would not saddle future governments with a revenue shortfall in the billions. To which Oliver replied: “I heard that by 2080 we may have a problem. Well, why don’t we leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve that problem.”

When I heard that, I sort of expected a bolt of lightning from the Prime Minister’s Office to strike Oliver down. But it didn’t happen. He was exiled from Question Period for a couple of days while Harper did damage control, trying to explain that his government isn’t really trying to win re-election in 2015 by spending money it doesn’t have and by piling up debt to burden  future generations.

Expect to hear more about Stephen Harper’s hypothetical granddaughter as the election unfolds. The gaffe affords the opposition a small edge, a tiny opening, as they battle a Conservative government that has mastered the art or science of message control.

 

Rethink policies on extracurricular activities

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

Over the last several months, Ontario teachers have been negotiating new collective agreements with their school boards and in some cases, with the Ontario government.

As students inch closer to graduation day, some parents have started to worry about the possibility of teacher strikes or school lockouts, the former of which is occurring in Durham this week. Others are concerned about the possibility of “work to rule,” where teachers protest the pace of their negotiations by ceasing all extracurricular activities to focus solely on teaching the curriculum.

In most cases, work-to-rule is the first line of defence for teachers when collective bargaining hits a wall. This strategy is designed to put pressure on the school boards to negotiate in good faith without jeopardizing the ability of students to complete their studies.

When work-to-rule happens, however, many parents and students complain bitterly about how unfair it is that they must suffer as innocent bystanders in the dispute between teachers and school boards.

Read more…

Put your money on an early election

Published Apr. 20, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

This advice is not for the faint of heart, but if you have a spare loonie or two, you might plunk them down on a modest wager: that Stephen Harper will call a general election by early summer.

Oh, I know that’s not conventional wisdom in Ottawa these days. Everyone is proceeding on the assumption that the election will not happen until Oct. 19, the scheduled date. Although no one is talking openly about an early election, you can bet your bottom loonie that the Conservatives are thinking about it.

Here’s the scenario. Finance Minister Joe Oliver presents his maiden budget on Tuesday. The government doesn’t have much fiscal wiggle room, but the budget will offer some fuel for the Tory spin machine. There will be some infrastructure spending, which can be spun into a major investment in job creation. There will be some tax relief, including income-splitting, for mid- to upper-income families, whom the party will be targeting. Continue reading

And the budget will show a small surplus. The Tories will not advertise that they inherited a surplus from the previous Liberal regime, or that they turned the surplus into a record deficit, and only now, a decade in, are proposing to break even. But they can be expected to saturate the airwaves with advertising to the effect that, under Harper, Canada has become the envy of the world, if not the galaxy, for its steady economic management in the face of collapsing oil prices and for its brave war on terror at home and abroad.

As the scenario unfolds, nothing will happen right away on the election front. The Conservatives will be polling frantically to see if their post-budget propaganda has moved the electorate. They have been in a deep hole since ascendancy of Justin Trudeau to the Liberal leadership. The latest polls show them finally edging ahead of the Liberals and, although the trend may be in the Tories’ direction, their margin of one percentage point (32-31) in one composite of recent polls is decidedly precarious.

The date Tory strategists will be watching is May 5. That’s the day of the provincial election in Alberta, Harper’s home province and power base, which the Tories have ruled for 44 unbroken years. May 5 could end that run. Voters there are seriously angry. The new premier, Jim Prentice, is in deep trouble. His approval rating is an abysmal 22 per cent; his disapproval rating is 63 per cent. The latest polls put his Progressive Conservatives in third place, behind both Wildrose and the New Democrats.

It must be noted that the opinion polls were wildly wrong in the last Alberta election, but if they are not wrong on May 5, look for Harper to stuff his election genie back in the bottle until fall.

There’s another date to note. That’s May 2, the day Harper’s current mandate enters its fifth year. If the various portents – budget fallout, polls and Alberta – are favourable, the fifth anniversary of the election of his majority government might be an opportune time to call for a new mandate.

Although Harper is a polarizing figure, he has actually worn somewhat better with voters than two of his predecessors, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, who were deeply unpopular by the time they were eight or nine years into their prime ministries, as Harper is now. Yet he’s in a position today to win at least a minority government, thanks to the divided opposition.

The wild card in all this is the Mike Duffy trial, which continues until May 12, then takes a break and resumes from June 1 to 19. It has potential to do electoral damage to the Conservative brand. I’m not convinced it is a necessarily game changer, but with this trial you never know what the next testimony may produce.

So if you are tempted to bet on a June or early July election, okay. But keep it to a few loonies.

Harper screwed up on Duffy appointment

Published Apr. 13, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record

Senate residency rules become a public issue approximately once in a blue moon.

It happened back in 1979 when Joe Clark became prime minister with a minority Progressive Conservative government. Clark wanted to appoint his friend and trusted adviser Lowell Murray to the Senate. Problem was, Murray, although he had lived in Ottawa for years, was still technically a resident of Nova Scotia where he had a home in Cape Breton – and there were no Senate vacancies in Nova Scotia.

But there were in Ontario. So Clark approached Bill Davis, the Tory premier of Ontario, to ask if he could “borrow” an empty Ontario seat for Murray, who Davis also admired. No problem, Davis said. In short order, Murray acquired a condo in Ottawa, thereby satisfying the Confederation-era requirement that senators own $4,000 worth of “real property” in the province they represent. (Real estate prices may have risen in 148 years but the old quantum hasn’t.)

Continue reading

Anyway, Murray became known as the “Senator from Condominium”; he served with distinction in Upper House for 32 years before retiring at 75; while there, he held three cabinet portfolios in Brian Mulroney’s government.

That blue moon is shining on Ottawa again as the Mike Duffy trial unfolds. As we learned in week one, residency for Senate purposes is, to borrow Winston Churchill’s definition of Russia, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” A native of Prince Edward Island, Duffy owns “real property” there, a cottage worth a good deal more than $4,000. You might think that would qualify him to be a senator from PEI.

But wait! Senate rules provide that members may claim travel and living expenses in Ottawa if their “primary residence” is more than 100 kilometres from the national capital. So Duffy declared the PEI property to be his primary residence and claimed living expenses for the Ottawa home where he has lived for 30-odd years. He could have claimed Ottawa as his primary residence, but if he had done that, he might have disqualified himself from his PEI Senate seat because the rules also require that senators be residents of the province they represent.

When the Senate asked the Deloitte auditing firm to review the residency riddle, the auditors threw up their hands in confusion: “There is a lack of clarity in the terminology used for the different residences mentioned or discussed in the applicable regulations and guidelines. The following terms are used without being clearly defined: primary residence, secondary residence, NCR (national capital region) residence, provincial residence. In addition, the term registered residence is not defined.”

Mark Audcent, who was the law clerk of the Senate when Duffy was named, told the trial he was not aware of any definition of primary or secondary residence. He said there was no rule about the length of time a senator spent at his primary residence and no rule against seasonal structures being designated as primary residences. Audcent testified, in effect, that a senator’s residence was wherever he claimed it to be and wherever the prime minister agreed it was when he appointed the senator.

When Stephen Harper appointed Mike Duffy in late 2008, both men knew Duffy had lived in Ottawa for years and was only a summer resident of PEI. They didn’t think it mattered. Harper chose to make Duffy a senator from Prince Edward Island. (On the same day, he made Pamela Wallin a senator for Saskatchewan, where she had roots, although she actually lived in Toronto.)

Mark Holmes, the crown attorney prosecuting Duffy, told the court that Duffy was probably ineligible to sit (and to claim expenses) as a senator from PEI from the moment Harper named him. “He was constitutionally eligible to have been appointed from the province of Ontario, but that is not what happened,” Holmes said.

In other words, the prime minister screwed up. He should have followed the Joe Clark/Lowell Murray precedent and made Duffy a senator from Ontario.

 

Obama-Netanyahu spat just political game-playing

Published Apr. 11, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

In discussing the future of Middle East peace, it should be stipulated that whether it takes a year, a decade or a century, at some point a partition and “two state” solution of some kind is inevitable.

Unfortunately, the implementation of this is nowhere on the horizon, and in fact prospects have regressed in recent years as the optimistic memories of the Oslo Accord fade. That said, the ramifications of the Barack Obama-Benjamin Netanyahu spat for the future of Middle East peace seem neither as revealing nor as significant as the initial media outburst would suggest.

An important part of Netanyahu’s motivation in criticizing the Iranian nuclear deal was probably an attempt to stiffen the U.S. bargaining position, rather than simply scupper the negotiations, much as he might have wished to do that as well.

Read more…

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.