Featured:
Friday, November 6, 2009 12:51 PM
The 'good war' comes home
On The Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart and UN Ambassador Susan Wright began by noting that details of the shooting at Fort Hood were still sketchy, before discussing the efforts President Barack Obama was making to deal with the post-traumatic stress of soldiers returning from war.
This morning, in their lead articles, both the New York Times and Washington Post take great care to stress that the motives of the alleged shooter were still unclear. In a companion piece, however, the Post began to fill out the details, explaining that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was concerned about being deployed abroad for the first time and that he wanted out of the military. It was unclear from the article, however, whether he was to be deployed to Iraq or to Afghanistan,.
This morning CBC reported that the Major “had indicated he didn't want to go to Iraq but was willing to serve in Afghanistan.” However, The New York Times is now reporting on its website that Maj. Hasan was “facing deployment to Afghanistan.”
The Independent reports on its front page this morning that “there is growing concern in London and in NATO governments about the time it is taking for the Obama administration to decide its strategy. ‘It's make your mind up time,’ one minister said. A Ministry of Defence source added: ‘Without a decision there is a concern that the British public will lose faith’.”
On its front page, The Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama’s advisers “are trying to satisfy sharply divergent demands: assuring Americans that any military buildup will be limited while convincing Pakistan and other wary allies that the U.S. presence is substantial and not about to end.” Yesterday’s attack, which the paper describes as “one of the Army's worst single-day losses of life since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” has made the President’s challenge all the more daunting.
Link to this post
Thursday, November 5, 2009 08:00 AM
Bloc guns for NDP
In Québec, the most interesting political battle these days is between the Bloc and the NDP.
In part, the skirmish is related to the Hochelaga by-election, scheduled for next week. It’s also a sign of how far the fortunes of Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals have fallen in the past several months, even before the Coderre crash-up. More generally, with the election of Tom Mulcair, the NDP has clearly stepped up its battle for the hearts and minds of left of centre Québécois.
The Bloc has always been an uneasy coalition of forces and Gilles Duceppe understands the threat, having watched Québec solidaire break off from the Parti Québécois. For Jack Layton, the prospect of replicating that split must be enticing, as it could fulfill the NDP’s longstanding dream of a Québec breakthrough.
On Tuesday, New Democrats put up 100 signs in the form of a giant cheque for $750,000 signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The cheque was made out to Daniel Paillé, the Bloc candidate in Hochelaga. The sign bears the Conservative logo, and is designed to remind voters that Mr. Paillé once accepted a contract from the Conservative government to analyze federal polling under the Liberals.
Today, in the wake of last night’s vote in the House of Commons, the Bloc will retaliate by erecting this sign, which tells voters that the Conservatives and New Democrats are allies in abolishing the gun registry.
The issue of the gun registry is likely to resonate within Québec, scene of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre nearly twenty years ago. Yesterday, hours before MPs (including all Bloquistes) voted in Ottawa, the National Assembly in Québec City passed a unanimous motion calling for the gun registry to be preserved as it is.
In The Globe and Mail this morning, coverage of last night’s vote “to kill the gun registry” emphasizes the urban-rural split in the House of Commons; in the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star, the Grits have “softened” their position on the gun registry and Michael Ignatieff’s commitment to reform it is front and centre.
Le Devoir’s coverage, on the other hand, emphasizes the threat to the gun registry. While the paper reports that both Liberals and New Democrats voted with the Conservatives, it notes that “the percentage was much higher in the NDP, which claims to be the most left-wing of the federal parties.” And Le Devoir includes Jack Layton’s rather lame response when asked about the vote: “Some of our MPs voted in favour,” he said, “in order to send the bill to committee.”
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 08:54 AM
Obama can’t
Yesterday’s elections in the United States should in no way be considered a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency. Nor, however, should they be dismissed as having no significance: The President himself campaigned vigorously in both Virginia and New Jersey. And today it can be said that Mr. Obama proved to have no coattails.
Turnout among young people, key to his victory last year, declined by about half; more happily for the President, turnout among Blacks — another key — declined less significantly. Turnout among voters over 65, on the other hand, rose significantly in Virginia and to a lesser degree in New Jersey, and these voters went more Republican than in the presidential election.
The major change was among Independent voters — another key element of Mr. Obama’s presidential victory — who voted strongly for the Republicans yesterday. This confirms recent polls showing that the President’s policies — particularly health care and the deficit — are more unpopular than he is. In particular, the state of the economy helped Republicans yesterday, as the blame-George-Bush-for-everything tactic begins to wear off.
Mr. Obama’s approval rating in the past quarter has declined more sharply than that of any president since Gallup began polling in the 1950s. Today, he’s in 11th place at this point in the mandate among the 12 elected presidents who’ve been polled, standing above only Bill Clinton. What should be of most immediate concern to Mr. Obama and his advisers is that Mr. Clinton was badly bruised in the first mid-term elections of his presidency.
Looking toward to 2012, on the other hand, the results of a special congressional race in a heavily Republican district in northern New York state should be encouraging news for the President. Mr. Obama backed the victorious Democratic candidate late in the day against a right-wing Conservative endorsed by high-profile Republicans including Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. And infighting between moderates and conservatives for control of the GOP was clearly not appreciated by voters.
In Canada, this positioning on the right was the recipe for Jean Chrétien’s three consecutive majority governments, and there’s no reason to believe things will turn out differently in the United States if Republicans don’t smarten up before the next presidential election.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 08:48 AM
Knee-capping Prince Charles
At the top of the front page of my morning read today, I see a photo of Prince Charles, albeit a small one, together with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Duchess of Cornwall. Turning to the front page of the Daily Telegraph, on the other hand, I find a big, honking solo photo of his son, Prince William, who will be visiting Australia and New Zealand next year on behalf of the Queen.
Inside the Telly, Royal watcher Andrew Pierce explains that Her Majesty is betting the future of the monarchy on the younger Prince. At great length, Mr. Pierce contrasts the popularity of Wills, as he’s known, with the dim ratings of his father. As if to prove the point, Pierce has Prince Charles’s visit to Canada set to begin next week.
Charles is the first Prince of Wales in history to reach the age of 60 without becoming monarch; for some time, there’s been speculation that he never will. Other than the Queen outliving him (her mother lived until the ripe age of 101), I’m dubious. Though Canadians would be thrilled by the prospect — judging from a new Harris-Decima poll — it would take legislation by the British Parliament and 15 other Commonwealth monarchies to change the order of succession and enthrone Prince William.
Having spent most of my career in the public service, I’m not one to believe in conspiracies when incompetence is an adequate explanation for a cock-up. Still, you have to wonder about the timing of yesterday’s announcement by Buckingham Palace.
Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:49 AM
We're stuck with Chuck
On the eve of the Royal visit, I’m afraid that the antis will just have to suck it up. For the dwindling number of monarchists among us, on the other hand, there’s some good news: it doesn’t really matter what Canadians think about the institution. All the talk (including all the ink being spilled) about nuking the monarchy is just that — talk.
According to the Constitution Act, 1867 (once known, by the way, as the British North America Act, 1867), “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.” In other words, the Queen (or the future King) is our Head of State. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently reminded the Governor-General.
Far from changing that provision when our Constitution was brought home from London, prime minister Pierre Trudeau was forced to agree to the premiers’ preferred amending formula in order to cut the deal. And, let’s be frank: that amending formula has cast the monarchy in stone. For the ages.
According to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it would take “resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province” to cut our ties to the monarchy. Forget about Senate obstruction: If we learned anything from the failure of the Meech Lake accord, it’s that it’s virtually impossible to get unanimous agreement of governments in this country even on the time of day. And the Charlottetown accord taught us that opening the constitution is a recipe for everyone to put forward his or her shopping list of reforms. Which is why no government — even Québec — wants to do it.
So get over it. The monarchy is here to stay. The majority of us, I suspect, will get on with our lives. As to those with strong feelings on either side of the issue, here’s my advice: Make the best of the situation. As I hope Prince Charles and his Royal Consort will do as they travel our magnificent country in the coming days.
Friday, October 30, 2009 08:32 AM
Mackenzie K. Harper
Perusing the front page of my morning read, I find a power dispute pitting Québec and New Brunswick against Newfoundland, with Nova Scotia in the middle. And a climate-change report that’s not going down well in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the big losers of what may be coming down the pipe.
In fact, scanning papers from across the country, it appears that the only thing that unites us today, regardless of the province in which we live, is a bloody mess at clinics as Canadians line up to be vaccinated against swine flu. And, even on this one, I note in Le Devoir that the Charest government had to rebuff a PQ attack yesterday by noting that “Quebec has received 22.18 per cent of the Canadian supply, which roughly corresponds to its 23 per cent share of the Canadian population.”
Can you imagine being in an election campaign now? I can’t. And that we are not is due to Stephen Harper having outmanoeuvred Michael Ignatieff. And later, notwithstanding widespread speculation that the Prime Minister would provoke an election, having had the sagacity to hold his fire.
In a country as difficult to govern as Canada, the proven formula for success is prudence and caution. Or, as F.R. Scott wrote poetically but rather mockingly of Mackenzie King:
“Do nothing by halves
Which can be done by quarters.”
Is it any wonder that Mr. Harper — notwithstanding pressures by the opposition and the media — is playing his climate change cards close to his chest? And does anyone think that Ottawa will get between Premier Danny Williams and Hydro-Québec? Indeed, on this one, I’m betting that Michael Ignatieff will give a big kiss-off to any Newfoundland MP who demands that the Liberals stand up for Newfoundland. As to Jack Layton, I’ll wager that he won’t be returning any phone calls from Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter, even if Nova Scotia power is next on the acquisition list.
A year ago, it was widely predicted that the election of Barack Obama would be the beginning of the end for Stephen Harper. Instead, while Mr. Obama has suffered the steepest drop of any president in Gallup poll history, Mr. Harper has been climbing in public opinion. Which suggests that the U.S. president, too, could have learned something from a fellow Harvard-man. And, by the reference to that august institution, I certainly don’t mean Michael Ignatieff.
Thursday, October 29, 2009 08:22 AM
Bennett's swine politics
In the United States, the supply of swine flu vaccine has fallen dramatically short of projections. And, as the New York Times reports, the shortage is posing a political test for President Barack Obama.
Here in the great white north, the opposition parties are also on the attack, which should come as no surprise. The big difference, of course, is that Canada's parliamentary system accords less deference to the executive. And the exchanges between government and opposition -- two sword-lengths across the floor of the Commons -- have always been more vigorous and far less polite, even in the years before the House degenerated into a place you wouldn't want to take your kids.
The opposition's role is to be tough on the government, and asking a politician to forswear partisanship is like asking a teenager to abstain from sex. Where the line is crossed is when an MP is making a serious problem facing the country worse.
In the case of swine flu, that line is being crossed by the Liberals' Caroline Bennett. The chief public health officer of Canada, a man she herself appointed to his position, has been clear that both versions of the vaccine are safe for pregnant women. And the government has been clear in taking Dr. David Butler-Jones's advice, as Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq responds politely when asked.
Caroline Bennett is a medical doctor, and she should know better than to contribute to the climate of fear in the country. An inveterate heckler herself, she claims now not to be playing politics, but it's been hard for some time not to see the look of contempt bordering on hatred that, no matter what the issue, invariably appears on her face when she rises in the Commons to ask a question of the mild-mannered Aglukkaq. And it's impossible to ignore this report of "a household flyer that attacks the government's handling of H1N1 among aboriginals with the slogan "No vaccines, just body bags ... mailed as a message from Liberal health critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett, [which] features a picture of body bags in a lab and a sick aboriginal child" -- for which Dr. Bennett apologized yesterday.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 08:25 AM
The audacity of Jack Layton
Making my way along Rue Ste. Catherine to the Gazette recently, I was reminded of Jack Layton’s Québec roots as I walked past the store that still bears the family name.
Like the quality of the audio equipment inside, those roots are very good, but they are not the best. Notwithstanding being the grandson of a Québec cabinet minister and the son of an MP from Québec, Jack Layton is and will always be an Anglophone who grew up on the privileged west island of Montréal and studied at McGill University.
That said, Mr. Layton’s Québec roots are by leaps and bounds better than any of his competitors at the federal level. His fluency in French — rare for a Québec Anglophone of his generation — was not acquired abroad, as is the case for Michael Ignatieff (and Bob Rae), as you can tell from Mr. Layton’s Québécois accent. A new CROP poll in La Presse this morning puts Mr. Layton ahead of both Stephen Harper and the sinking Mr. Ignatieff (down 8 points in the past month) as Quebeckers' choice for prime minister. (The CROP poll is not posted online, but you can find details here.)
In Tom Mulcair — a former provincial cabinet minister — Mr. Layton has a deputy who understands the province, particularly Montréal. We’ve already seen his handiwork in a private members bill that would give Québec francophones the right to work in their language in federally regulated entities — legislation that would not open up the Official Languages Act.
Today, an opposition day in the House of Commons, we’ll have an opportunity to see the Layton-Mulcair combo in action again. As a hint of what’s to come, here’s the text of the motion that the NDP will table for debate, as reported this morning in Le Devoir:
“The recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada includes, notably, that Québec has the right to ensure that immigrants settling in Quebec learn French first and foremost.”
The motion has been cleverly crafted: The recognition of the Québécois nation refers to the idea originally championed by Mr. Ignatieff and later adopted by the House of Commons before the last election at the behest of the Prime Minister. Referring to that motion responds to a criticism you hear in nationalist circles in Québec that Parliament has not put any meat on the bones of its recognition.
The second part of the motion borrows Justin Trudeau’s reaction to last week’s Supreme Court decision on Québec’s education system. That decision was widely panned in French-speaking Québec, including among federalists.
The NDP motion will be voted upon this evening, after an afternoon of 20 minute speeches followed by a 10-minute question and comment period. It will be interesting to see how the Conservatives and the Liberals — two parties imprisoned by their respective political bases on the language question — line up on it.
Notably, Mr. Trudeau’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision — which was not what one would have expected from the son of Pierre Trudeau — has not been reported in English. It will be most interesting to see whether, aside from shrewd political tactics, Mr. Layton — a PhD in political science — has the guts as well as the capability to re-shape the language debate in this country, which until now has been dominated by the acolytes of Pierre Trudeau.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 03:43 PM
Baird’s bluster
He’s loud. He doesn’t back down in the face of embarrassing questions. And, I’ll grant you, John Baird can be entertaining from time to time in Question Period — though not as often as it might appear from the enthusiasm of Conservative MP’s sitting behind him.
That said, strip away the bluster and the Minister of Transport’s answers today to questions about possible Conservative links to the scandal roiling Québec, and to the Navigator lobbying firm, are without logic.
Mr. Baird parried questions about the links of a Conservative senator to Benoit Labonte — a central figure in the Québec scandal — by referring to a Liberal staffer who once worked for Mr. Labonte. On Navigator, he mentioned the names of Warren Kinsella and Robin Sears as former and current employees of the firm. In other words, the answer to both questions was: “If anything untoward has been going on, they did it too.”
Mr. Baird’s answers, then, are devoid of logic. They are also ethically bankrupt. And, they are guaranteed to increase the cynicism of Canadians who — in regard to our system of government — would say a pox on both your houses.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 08:05 AM
Hillier’s bureaucrat bashing
In his memoirs and in interviews related to the book launch, Rick Hillier spends a lot of time criticizing the federal public service. Having served time in Ottawa, I can attest to the fact that seldom has there been such a juicy target.
That said, inter-departmental competition and debate in Ottawa was designed precisely to keep in check strong, articulate individuals such as General Hillier. Ministers, the thinking goes, need to be given all the options and all relevant information before being asked to make decisions.
As we watch President Barack Obama attempt to fashion Afghanistan policy in the face of intense pressure from U.S. Generals, that’s an objective worth keeping in mind.
We still don’t know for sure what role Mr. Hillier played in getting us into Kandahar, and how much of the decision was politically driven. We do know, however, that when he made his most famous comment about "detestable murderers and scumbags," most of the media and virtually the entire political class in Canada, saluted. Including NDP leader Jack Layton (you could look it up).
Here, as a reminder, is a report on General Hillier’s full comments back in 2005:
“‘These are detestable murderers and scumbags. I'll tell you that right up front,’ said Hillier. …
‘It doesn't matter whether we are in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world. They want to break our society. I actually believe that,’ he said.
If Canada is attacked, he says, it will be only because it is a free country.
‘They detest our freedoms. They detest our society. They detest our liberties’,” he said."
As we follow the discussion in Washington and on U.S. op-ed pages, it’s unfortunate that General Hillier’s assertions were not debated more vigorously in Canada at the time — both within government as well as in Parliament.
Spector Vision Contributors
Norman Spector
Norman Spector, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, is also a former academic, federal and provincial deputy minister, ambassador and newspaper publisher. He's been writing in The Globe and Mail since 1995 and in Le Devoir since 2003. In 2004, Norman began providing a daily review of the Canadian and international press on his website Norman's Spectator. His book, Chronicle of a War Foretold: How Mideast Peace Became America's Fight, was published by Douglas and McIntyre in 2003. The following year, he contributed an afterword to William Kaplan's A Secret Trial, published by McGill-Queen's University Press.