Vandalism, violence, and deficit reduction: Thoughts on the G20 Summit in Toronto

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I spent the past several days well away from Toronto's downtown core, well away from the G20 protest areas, well away from the security net that effectively divided the city into two. I used to live downtown, near the University of Toronto, and I still work downtown, in a high-security area, but I now live in the suburbs east of the city. I didn't ignore what went on, though. I couldn't. It was all over the news, scenes of a police car on fire, of protesters crowding the streets, of police in riot gear, of the security fences, of vandalism and violence, of tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, of mayhem much unlike what we are used to here in Canada.

And, in general, my feelings are mixed.

While I do not approve of the vandalism and violence, and while I think that the confrontational methods used by some of the more extreme protesters are counter-productive, I tend to sympathize at least somewhat with some of the prevailing views among the protesters. It's not that I'm anti-capitalist, it's that I object to decisions affecting the very fate of our planet being made inside a security fortress. There is security on Capitol Hill, yes, as well as on our Parliament Hill in Ottawa, but those bodies are democratic. The G20 isn't. The leaders were elected democratically, for the most part, but their deliberations were anything but democratic.

Write the protesters off as "thugs," like Prime Minister Harper did, or anarchists, which some of them are, but their anger and frustration are reflections of something much deeper than anti-government opportunism. Look past the vandalism and violence and what you find is an understandable hostility towards the status quo, along with serious objections to the policies imposed on the world's billions by the leaders of the wealthiest nations.

What did this summit accomplish, after all? Did these leaders agree to do something about poverty, genocide, or climate change? No. They basically just agreed to a set of neo-liberal (a label I dislike but will use for lack of anything better) principles centered around balanced budgets. You can read the G20 statement here if you like. The primary goal is "a full return to growth with quality jobs, to reform and strengthen financial systems, and to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth," and the most significant agreement was to cut deficits, with government debt "at least stabilized or on a downward trend by 2016," according to Harper. The commitment is voluntary, with an exemption for Japan, which faces serious fiscal problems, and concerns from the U.S., which, under Obama, is (rightly) focused more on economic stimulus than on deficit reduction.

But how to cut deficits? Some countries will do so through tough austerity measures, as the new government in the U.K. has already initiated. Given that raising taxes is often not a viable political option (and it should be noted that many of those in attendance at the summit the leaders of conservative governments, and hence not so inclined towards tax increases: Harper, Cameron, Merkel, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, etc.), the likeliest way to reduce deficits is to cut spending on social programs. And that means disproportionately harming those who need those programs the most, the poorest and neediest citizens of the G20 nations, those without a voice in Toronto, inside the security fortress, those for whom many of the protesters were speaking.

To be fair, the G20 statement does make reference to "providing social protection to our citizens, particularly our most vulnerable," as well as to "supporting the poorest countries during the crisis," but the focus is clear, and I think C&L's Ian Welsh got it right:

It's really, really simple. The rich crashed the world economy. They were bailed out, with their wealth having almost entirely recovered and corporate profits likewise have pretty much recovered. Now, at the G20, the world's leaders are discussing how to make regular people pay for the rich's follies.

The world's developed countries have built extensive public health systems, promised citizens a paycheck for life and erected a welter of protections around some industries and types of jobs. Now their leaders are conferring over a singular dilemma: how to take some of it back without undermining the economies they are trying to sustain.

You notice that somehow, no one is talking about going back to 1950's levels of progressive taxation, with a top rate around 90%. No, what they're talking about is making the middle class and the poor pay for the sins of the rich.

The key thing here to understand is this: there is no crisis for the rich or corporations anymore, therefore as far as they are concerned, there is no crisis.

*****

At the G20, today, what is being discussed is how to take away what's left of your economic future. Ordinary Americans didn't see a pay raise in the last decade. Not only won't they see one this decade, they'll take a loss, and now even the European experiment in taking care of the population is on the chopping board.

This is your future being decided, and no, they don't think you have a say in it.

And that's part of the problem. You don't. Which is not to say that governments shouldn't pursue fiscal sanity, or to suggest that the G20 leaders don't care at all about "ordinary" citizens, but the fact is, there's a massive disconnect between the priorities of the G20 nations and the priorities of the vast majority of their citizens -- and the priorities of the vast majority of people in the world's wealthiest countries weren't under discussion in Toronto, not in any meaningful way.

Even here, even in the biggest city in one of the world's richest and most privileged countries, a city of massive wealth, you find people living in cardboard boxes or sleeping on heating grates. Go just a few blocks from the security fortress and you find poverty, misery, despair. As anywhere else, you find people struggling to make ends meet, to pay the bills, to put food on the table, to take care of their children. You find people just trying to get by, people trying to deal with an economic crisis that they still feel even while their elected leaders talk about slashing social programs and multi-national corporations rack up profits in the billions. You find people for whom the G20 Summit meant nothing, even if, in the long run, and even if the economy improves in macro terms, it may bring them more pain.

And, again, what of climate change, of oppression and genocide, of human rights, of any other issue that may resonate with the "ordinary" citizens who were shut out of the summit? Nothing. Deficit reduction was the name of the game, that and protecting the interests of the global oligarchy that pulls the strings while the rest of us are silenced.

Really, is it any wonder there was such rage on the streets of Toronto over the weekend? Is it any wonder that those who are shut out, even in a supposed democracy, want to have their voices heard?

And it is any wonder the police cracked down to prevent those voices from being heard? As The New York Times reported:

An escalation of aggressive police tactics toward even apparently peaceful protests at the Group of 20 summit meeting led to calls for a review of security activities.

After allowing a small group of people to burn police cars and smash windows unimpeded on Saturday afternoon, many of the 20,000 police officers deployed in Toronto changed tactics that evening and during the last day of the gathering.

There was a notable increase in both the numbers of police officers who surrounded demonstrations as well as more use of tear gas and rubber or plastic bullets. At the same time, there was a visible drop in the number of demonstrators in the city streets.

As a result, the violence by some demonstrators that marred the opening of the Group of 20 meeting did not reappear on Sunday, and more than 600 people were arrested Saturday and Sunday.


"Civil liberties are in rough shape today," said Nathalie Des Rosiers, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which had two of its observers arrested and detained. "We will have to have some accountability for what is going on."

In a statement, the Canadian branch of Amnesty International called on governments to review the security measures made for the meeting, including a temporary suspension of various civil liberties in the portion of this city's downtown near the meeting site. 

It's all well and good that there's free speech, and that's essential, but the real issue here, and it explains much of the rage and outrage, is that too many voices are simply shut out of the conversation entirely. After all, you can protest all you like, but they won't hear you and don't care to hear you. It's like banging your head against some mad bugger's wall, as Roger Waters put it in a different context.

And so what can you do? Thankfully, most of the protesters behaved peacefully. Again, I won't go so far as to condone vandalism and violence. And perhaps some consideration will be given to alternative views once democratic parliaments, as opposed to a summit of world leaders, take up the issues at hand. But when you see that you've been shut out, that your leaders have erected security fences to keep you back and brought in scores of police to keep you down, maybe, just maybe, you want to lash out. To me, the story is not just that so many protesters demonstrated peacefully but that so few expressed their rage openly. "Ordinary" citizens, after all, those without a seat at the table, are justified to feel disenfranchised and disconnected, as well as to be discontented with the conditions under whey they are governed.

Much of the focus in the media will continue to be on the vandalism and violence, and on the clashes between police and protesters, but there is much more to what happened than that, and it was all about so much more than that. Sometimes people just want to be heard, after all, and sometimes, even in a democracy, especially with their leaders ignoring them and seemingly taking their very democracy from them, people have to take to the streets.

Canada vs. the pirates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With so much attention on piracy off the coast of Africa, mainly because of the taking of the Maersk Alabama and its captain, there seems to be a stepped-up international effort underway to address the problem.

And -- Oh Canada! -- this was something:

Canadian sailors apprehended a band of Somali pirates at gunpoint early Sunday morning after a seven-hour pursuit across the Gulf of Aden, much of it under the cover of night.

HMCS Winnipeg, sailing off the Horn of Africa as part of a NATO-led anti-piracy mission, was escorting a United Nations food shipment when it happened on a skiff carrying seven bandits attempting to hijack the MV Front Ardenne, an 80,000-tonne tanker from Norway.

The Somalis ignored warning shots fired by a Canadian naval helicopter and fled the scene. HMCS Winnipeg, led by Commander Craig Baines, left the food shipment to other NATO vessels and gave chase.

An American ship also joined the pursuit. It was the Canadians who got to the pirates first.

The effort, which includes "a patrol of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that includes ships from Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States," is admirable -- and ought to be the start of further engagement. Joint military operations can focus both on rooting out the pirates and on protecting cargo ships in the region.

Prime Minister Harper is right, though, that, as of right now, there are serious limitations on what can be done, and hence on what can be achieved. First, there is the problem of Somalia itself. Until that anarchic country is stabilized, piracy will continue to pose a threat. Second, the Canadian military couldn't arrest the pirates, as it does not have the authority to do so. Until a legal process is in place that allows for the detention, as well as the prosecution of these pirates -- who, in this case, were disarmed and eventually released -- the international effort will lack the bite to go along with a bark that is getting louder.

Still, this incident proves that military engagement in the region, if only in the form of protection, can work. At the very least, cargo ships -- and 42 were captured in 2008, "including a Saudi supertanker called the Sirius Star and the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks" -- aren't entirely sitting ducks.

The rise of Michael Ignatieff

By Michael J.W. Stickings

My latest piece at The Guardian -- on celebrated public intellectual, former Harvard professor, and current Canadian Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff -- is here.

In brief, I don't much care for him. (I supported former Ontario Premier Bob Rae for the leadership, but Rae pulled out of the race late last year.) Here's a taste:

To me, though, he has never seemed to be much of a Canadian, and certainly not enough of one to be our prime minister. It's not that he has spent so much of his life overseas – mostly in Britain and the US. It's that he has seemed to aspire actively to be anything but Canadian, and more specifically to be American. Which is fine, in a cosmopolitan sort of way, but he comes back to Canada with an air of condescension about him, as if he has seen the world and conquered it and has now decided, with the coaxing of a party eager for him to lead it back to the promised land, to sully himself in the world of politics supposedly on our behalf but really because he just wants to be prime minister, so great would it look on his resumé, a capstone to a long and successful career.

Still, he's better than the alternative, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his vicious band of Bush-lite Conservatives.

Canada denies entry to Bill Ayers

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Toronto Star:

An American education professor, one of the founders of a radical 1960s group known as the Weather Underground, which was responsible for a number of bombings in the United States in the early 1970s, was turned back at the Canadian border [Sunday] night.

Dr. William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a leader in educational reform, was scheduled to speak at the Centre for Urban Schooling at University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. But that appearance has now been temporarily cancelled.

"I don't know why I was turned back," Ayers said in an interview this morning from Chicago. "I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn't going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting... If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn't possibly be a threat to Canada."

And he's right. He's not a threat, and he should have been let in. (What happened decades ago should be left in the past. Ayers has become a leading education theorist, like him or not, and there's simply no good reason not to let him come to this country. He should have the same rights as any other American citizen.)

But it's hardly a surprise that he wasn't. Many of you may not know this, but our prime minister, Stephen Harper, is a Bush-friendly Republican who would be happy to turn us into Bush's America revisited. At this moment, with the Obama inauguration today, one day after MLK Day, and Harper's right-wing Conservatives still in power up here, I'm actually prouder of America than I am of my own country. (I love Canada, but it's because I love it that I oppose Harper. And it is to the south that I look for inspiration and hope.)

(Based on my own experiences, Canadian border guards aren't all that welcoming to Canadians returning home, either.)

Canada’s Liberals set to pick new leader, likely Michael Ignatieff

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you're interested, my latest piece at The Guardian on Canada's rather exciting political situation was posted this morning:

Ignatieff’s moment.

It looks like the new leader of the Liberal Party will be former Harvard professor and noted international relations expert Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff was first elected to Parliament in 2006 -- from a suburban Toronto riding into which he was parachuted, much to the displeasure of some of the locals. Although a relatively new politician, he is seen by many Liberals as the party's saviour, and, indeed, he tends to carry himself with an air of detached (and arrogant) statesmanship.

The question is whether he'll be able to guide the party, currently in opposition, a distant second to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, through these rather turbulent and partisan times. He would certainly boost the party's credibility, as well as its poll numbers (at least short-term), but I have my doubts. While his academic credentials are impressive, his positions on such matters as pre-emptive war and torture, both of which he has defended in terms of his "lesser evil" theory (as in, they're lesser evils than, say, terrorism), are, to put it mildly, controversial. Furthermore, it's not clear what he stands for other than wishy-washy centrism and the advancement of his own political career.

My clear preference is former Ontario premier Bob Rae, a far more progressive and democratic figure than Ignatieff. But Ignatieff has the overwhelming support of the Liberal caucus and the decision could come as early as tomorrow.

**********

UPDATE: Rae has pulled out of the leadership race, throwing his support behind Ignatieff.

Said one "senior Liberal," quoted in the Star, "[Ignatieff] could've well won, but leaping for the reins of power without giving the grassroots a voice -- these are people who are going to do your organizing and legwork for the party. It says the party can't move, can't be nimble. It's very dismaying."

I agree.

The Prorogation of Parliament by the Coward Stephen Harper

By Grace

This morning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with Governor General Michaëlle Jean to ask for a prorogation of Parliament. It was granted.

As I said in a previous post, this is the most selfish and cowardly option that Harper could have pursued. Rather than face the impending confidence motion, he's delaying it by suspending all Parliamentary business. In the face of an economic recession, when swift action is needed and there's work to be done, he's ground everything to a halt -- all for the sake of staying in power.

What he's also done is alienate Quebec voters. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe called Harper's attacks on his party the "worst attacks against Quebecers since the Meech Lake Accord" by repeatedly using the term "separatists" (the majority of Quebec's federal seats were won by the BQ).

The New Democratic Party has vowed to oust Harper at the next possible opportunity. Will the coalition still hold together when the House sits again? It's possible. Anything can happen in a month and a half; as with the last week, the electorate will have to wait and see. If the House falls immediately, we may go to another election -- and see another two months of non-activity in government.

In the meantime, Canadians can probably expect to be bombarded with more Conservative anti-coalition and anti-Liberal ads over the next month to dissuade voters from accepting a Tory alternative. More scaremongering. More divisive rhetoric. Happy holidays, brought to you by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Despite all the talk about the opposition parties doing something "undemocratic" (which was untrue to begin with), Harper has done something even more so by disallowing elected Members of Parliament from governing the country for the next seven weeks. It's outright hypocrisy, but, after so many years, I suppose it's just his style.

Am I furious? Absolutely.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's title may include "Right" and "Honourable," but today he's proven that he's neither.

Bare Naked Politics: The ongoing situation in Canada

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I just wanted to mention that The Guardian asked me to write an article, for it's Comment is Free section, on the turbulent political situation here in Canada (which I initially wrote about here). It was published this morning. You can find it here:

A very Canadian coup.

(Grace has also written about the situation here and here.)

And the situation keeps changing. As I indicate in my Guardian article, Prime Minister Harper, seeking to avoid a no-confidence vote (which he would lose, opening the door either to another election (we just had one less than two months ago) or to the Liberal-NDP coalition being asked to form a government), was probably going to ask the governor general (who is our head of state) to prorogue (that is, end the current session of) Parliament.

Well, he did so this morning, and she granted his request -- meaning that there will be no no-confidence vote until, at the earliest, Parliament resumes sitting late next month. The government may then lose a no-confidence vote on the Throne Speech or the budget, but, in the meantime, both sides (and the Conservatives even more so because they have more money) will campaign aggressively to woo public opinion.

The key for the Conservatives, who are in government, will be to convince Canadians that they are in fact serious about dealing with the economic and financial crisis (and that they therefore ought to remain in power), as well as to seek to break apart the coalition, or at least to undermine support for it by arguing, as they have been already, that it only has a majority of seats in the House of Commons with the support of the separatist Bloc Québécois, a party that, according to Harper today, does not work for the interests of Canada as a whole (even though, I must add, BQ MPs were democratically elected and, whatever their views on sovereignty, represent Canadians in the House -- they, as much as the other MPs, have a mandate, and their votes count just as much).

The key for the Liberals and the New Democrats, as well as for the Bloq (which has signed on to support their coalition into 2010), will be to remain united, not to mention determined, through what promises to be a bitter and contentious campaign for public support over the next month and a half or so. It would look bad for them to split apart or back down now, but I have little to no confidence in Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's ability to keep them united and determined. He pales in comparison to Harper, a vastly more talented politician, and, as he has proven yet again this week, he is simply unable to get his message across effectively. I worry that he will be overwhelmed and that the coalition will fracture.

I hesitate to call the governor general, Michaëlle Jean, a coward, but her decision, I think, was a poor one. Either she should have dissolved Parliament and called an election, or she should have given the coalition, which holds a majority of the seats in the House, the chance to govern. Instead, in granting Harper's request, she has gone along with what the Conservatives want, parliamentary democracy be damned, and given them the upper hand in terms of the campaign to come. Basically, she has saved Harper's sorry bacon, evidently putting his interests before the interests of the country.

It is a sad day for Canada.

Prime Minister... Dion?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How Canada’s Opposition Parties Have United to Bring Down the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper

UPDATED BELOW.

Over the weekend, Grace noted that "there [were] rumblings that two of [Canada's federal] opposition parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, [were] in the process of brokering a deal to throw out the Tories and form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Québécois."

(Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives, or "Tories," won the most seats in October's election, but they only won a minority and so formed, or re-formed, a minority government.)

Well, the deal is done. And, if Harper's government falls (and, then, if Governor General Michaëlle Jean asks the opposition parties to form a government), the new prime minister will be...

Stéphane Dion, whom I supported for the Liberal leadership way back when but whose performance as leader, culminating in October's election (he is currently a lame duck, having announced his resignation and awaiting the selection of a new leader), has been, well, a disaster.

With the Liberals utterly rudderless, though -- the new rudder, er, leader, will likely be either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae -- Dion is pretty much the only suitable compromise. (He leans left and so is suitable to the left-wing NDP and the left-leaning BQ.) Besides, he'd only be the interim PM until a new Liberal leader is selected next spring.

As a Liberal, more or less, I'm all for this. The Conservatives didn't win a majority in the last election (see the full results here), and so this is hardly some sort of coup. If the three opposition parties think they can govern together, and have a deal to that effect, then they should be allowed to do so -- if the Conservatives genuinely lose the confidence of the House. It is unlikely that yet another election would solve anything, and so the only alternative -- and ones hopes that Jean, whom I find rather underwhelming, understands this -- would be to turn to the Lib.-NDP-BQ coalition. And yet, questions abound:

-- Would Dion try to stay in office? (Likely not. The three leadership candidates -- Ignatieff, Rae, and LeBlanc -- all support the coalition but surely want Dion out. What's more, Dion just isn't that popular in the party anymore.)

-- How would the Liberal leadership candidates handle themselves in Cabinet? (Fairly well. After all, they have an interest in making it work.)

-- Would it work? (For a time, probably. It would formally be a Lib.-NDP governing coalition -- the Liberals would get PM, Finance, and most of the other Cabinet spots, though NDP leader Jack Layton would no doubt get a top position (foreign affairs?) -- with the BQ, according to the Globe, "expected to promise to support the coalition to survive for at least a year, which would allow for the passage of two budgets." And the emphasis, at least for now, would be on the economic/financial crisis: "The coalition deal includes a multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy." But after that second budget? Who knows? And while there seems now to be agreement between the Liberals and the NDP on the economy, what about other issues like Afghanistan and global warming?)

-- Would Canadians support it? (Probably. Harper is calling it a coup, but it's not, it's just parliamentary politics. And let's not forget that Harper didn't win a majority of seats, let alone a majority of the popular vote. Of course, Conservatives could spin this as an Ontario/Quebec-based plot to seize power from the country's democratically elected government, and some in the West, where alienation and anti-Central Canada bias run amok, may buy it, but it's not like Harper and his party are hugely popular across the country. If anything, Canadians may welcome the change, not to mention the multi-partisan effort to address the economy. The Liberals and NDP may also be accused of cozying up to the BQ, a separatist party, but the Tories have a long history of doing just that, and, at the moment, the economy is a far more pressing issue that independence for Quebec. Basically, many Canadians have had it with Harper and are looking for new leadership in Ottawa.)

I just heard the deal is expected to be signed shortly. Even then, though, there's still the question of a vote of no confidence in the House and of what the GG will do in response.

Stay tuned. Who knew Canadian politics could be so exciting? (Well, it often is. This is just more exciting than usual.)

**********

UPDATE 1: Dion, Layton, and BQ leader Gilles Duceppe signed the deal this afternoon. "We are ready to form a new government that will address the best interests of the people instead of plunging Canadians into another election," said Dion. A confidence vote will likely take place next Monday.

The Canadian Press: "The agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is to last until June 30, 2011. The Bloc has agreed to support the arrangement until June 30, 2010, at which point their support could be extended."

**********

UPDATE 2: The details:

The opposition parties represent just over 54 per of the popular vote in the Oct. 14 federal election.

Duceppe said the Bloc would not join the coalition government nor have any ministers in cabinet.

A 24-member coalition cabinet would have six New Democrats and 18 Liberals, according to the deal.

The Bloc would support all confidence votes until June 30, 2010, but would be free to vote as it wished on all other non-monetary measures.

The Liberal-NDP pact lasts a year longer, until June 30, 2011.

**********

UPDATE 3: The big question, of course, is... Why did they do it? Here are my preliminary answers (which I wrote in response to a commenter but which I'm moving up into the body of the post):

I think the Liberals, with an unpopular and lame-duck leader, were content to go through a leadership contest, settle in, and regroup for the next election. In other words, I don’t think they were looking for this, given their current state of disarray. I think this move was driven by outside forces:

1) It was, apparently, Layton's idea. The NDP must realize that this is finally an opportunity for it to be in government (and boost its governing credibility, which it sorely lacks). Even in the last election, even with an historically weak Liberal Party, it was only able to win just over 18 percent of the vote. In other words, even with everything in its favour, it's still just a distant third party. If this works, it will not only be in government but develop a potentially lasting partnership with the Liberals, not least because it is fairly strong out west, where the Liberals are weak.

2) After the election, Harper, like Bush in '04, claimed that he had been given a stronger mandate to govern (his minority is larger now than it was after the '06 election. The difference is that Bush actually did win a majority of the votes in 2004 (though, of course, his win over Kerry was narrow and voters clearly weren't giving him much of a mandate, and certainly not one to push through a right-wing agenda, including Social Security reform). True, Harper won more seats this year than he did in the previous election, but he still only won a minority. That's not much of a mandate. Certainly not enough of a mandate to push through a radical agenda, which is what he was clearly looking to do.

3) For the opposition parties, this is about their very survival. They had to act in part because the Conservatives were looking to destroy them by eliminating party subsidies. (For more on this, see here.) As much as anything, this was the driving force behind the deal. (The government has since backed down on its plan to eliminate subsidies.)

4) The opposition parties were responding in large part to the government's economic plan. And, of course, we're somewhere in the middle of an economic and financial crisis. I suspect that this wouldn't have happened in more normal times. The opposition parties are evidently putting aside their differences (say, over Afghanistan) in order to work together to stimulate the economy and help Canadians get through this difficult time.

**********

UPDATE 4: As expected, Western Conservatives are grumbling. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, for example. (Alberta is a Conservative stronghold that, unlike much of the rest of the country, has seen its economy boom, mostly the result of high oil prices. Harper is from Calgary, very much the base of the party.)

Rattling the cage: Instability on Canada's political and economic scenes

By Grace

On October 14, 2008, Canadians gave Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper a minority government. Six weeks later, there are rumblings that two of the opposition parties, the Liberals and New Democrats, are in the process of brokering a deal to throw out the Tories and form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of avoiding running a federal budget deficit, and even went to so far as to claim that under their guidance, Canada would not slide into a recession. Since returning to Parliament, the Tories have reassessed their previous stance and are admitting that a budget deficit may be on the horizon (the great irony being that Stephen Harper himself is an economist), and that a recession is indeed coming. But despite the current auto industry crisis and economic forecasting, Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have yet to craft an economic stimulus package.

The trigger, however, for all the whisperings to oust the current government was a proposal by Flaherty to cut public funding for political parties in a fiscal update bill without putting a stimulus package together. Parties currently get $1.95-per-vote after an election; removing it would "would cement the financial supremacy of the Conservative party and its state-of-the-art fundraising machine." The opposition decries this as a self-serving political and ideological move in a time where efforts should be concentrated on the financial crisis.

Despite winning 37% of the popular vote, a clear minority, Harper has chosen to run Parliament as though he had won a majority: without compromise, on which the longevity of such governments, not to mention good governance, depends. In the face of this new development, rather than, well, compromise, he appeared at a press conference to denounce this move as "undemocratic" and that the parties would rather "take power, not earn it." Well – that's not an entirely fair accusation – the Liberals and NDP together have 44% of the popular vote, and this deal couldn’t be made if there wasn’t a provision for it in the constitution.

What Harper’s press conference has proven is that the opposition has finally made a move, both large and serious enough, to rattle him. It's also clear that he's concerned about whether he can hold onto power or not.

Yesterday, an announcement was made that they would kill the plan to remove public subsidies for political parties. This is all brinksmanship, and this time the Tories blinked first (which may be a first in and of itself). But it appears that the opposition has not been appeased – they still take issue with the absence of a stimulus package and the fact that Conservatives are dragging their feet when calculated but swift action is needed.

Forming a coalition would involve a vote of non-confidence, which would topple the existing government. The Prime Minister would have to approach Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, to request a new election – something she could refuse if she believed that a coalition government would be viable for a sufficient period of time.

It's a huge gamble. If the Governor General doesn't believe that the coalition government would work, Canadians would have to revisit the polls – possibly for the second time in three or four months. It's an expensive proposition when we can't afford needless spending.

Also in question is who would lead the coalition. The Liberals will be at the forefront, but leader Stephane Dion stepped down after the previous election and the party will not choose a new one until May 2009. He remains there as the interim head. The leadership candidates are not good options at this time (it will have an impact on the selection process).

It's all very interesting, but there are too many variables in play. It's a little bit frightening to have instability both in the economy and political arena at the same time – especially now.

Buckle your seat belts, Canucks: It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Canada Votes 2008

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED BELOW.

For reasons related to my work, I generally don't blog about Canadian politics. I don't even think I've mentioned the 2008 federal election at all.

But today, October 14, Canadians went or are going to the polls to vote for their representatives to the federal House of Commons, the lower house of our federal Parliament. Again. For the fourth time in less than eight years. And for the 40th time in our history.

I voted a few hours ago in my suburban Toronto riding. For the record, I voted Liberal.

At the time of dissolution, the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper held the most seats, but not a majority of them, in the House of Commons. In the 2006 election, it won 124 of 308 seats. The Liberals were second with 103, the Bloc Quebecois (a separatist party that only runs candidates in Quebec) third with 51, and the left-wing New Democrats third with 29. One independent won a seat. The numbers have changed a bit since then, with the Liberals losing a handful of seats, but the Conservatives have governed with a minority since the 2006 election.

Although there is fixed-date election legislation in place that requires elections to be held every four years, Prime Minister Harper was able, not without some controversy, to force the dissolution of Parliament. Needless to say, what he wants is to win a majority of seats and so to be able to govern (i.e., pass legislation, etc.) without having to rely on the support of any of the other parties, or individual MPs, in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives have been well ahead in the polls throughout the election campaign, which has lasted for just over a month, but the gap has narrowed. It no longer looks like they will secure a majority. They need 155, but they will likely end up in the 130s. The Liberals, performing weakly under a fairly weak leader (Stephane Dion, whom I supported for the party leadership in 2006), will finish second, but the NDP, led by Toronto-based Jack Layton, should finish a strong third outside of Quebec and the Greens (which have never won a seat) look to do well, for them, at least in terms of the overall popular vote (Elizabeth May, the party leader, is trying to unseat a well-known Conservative in Nova Scotia, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, but she will finish second at best in her riding). The BQ could see a reduction in its seat total.

For more on the election, see the Wikipedia entry here.

CBC will have all the results here. Polls closed here in Ontario at 9:30 pm. Polls in B.C. and the Yukon remain open until 10:00 pm. Results are already slowly trickling in.

It looks to be a long, long night.

**********

10:14 pm - It's still very early, but the numbers don't look good for the Liberals. The Conservatives are currently up 121 to 75, even winning a seat in Prince Edward Island, usually a Liberal stronghold. The BQ is leading in 40 ridings, the NDP in 27. A majority may still be unattainable for the Tories, but they could reach the 140s.

I'll be back with updates throughout the evening.

10:20 pm - The Conservatives have reached 126, which is the number of seats they held at dissolution. I keep thinking there's no way they can pull off a majority, but...

I'm getting more and more worried.

10:27 pm - The NDP, as expected, is doing really well, elected or leading in 30 ridings. Much of this has to do with Liberal weakness, but Layton has also emerged as an especially strong leader. Meanwhile, the BQ seems to be underperforming in Quebec.

The CBC has a fun interactive map here.

10:35 pm - Obviously, the major party leaders have all won their individual seats. Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, once a New Democrat and now a Liberal MP from Toronto-Centre, has won, too. One key question will be whether Dion holds on to the Liberal leadership or not. He's been extremely ineffectual. He's smart, and has a solid environmental record and platform, but he's a terrible communicator, more awkward university professor than dynamic political leader. Should he step down, or be forced out, the two top candidates to replace him would likely be Rae on the left of the party and, on the right, noted author, professor, and international relations theorist Michael Ignatieff, who holds a seat in the southwest area of Toronto -- or, rather, has held one and will hold it still after tonight.

10:43 pm - The Conservatives are up to 142 (leading and elected).

10:45 pm - Remember, this is all about single member ("first-past-the-post") ridings, not the popular vote. It is generally the party with the most seats in the House of Commons that forms the government. And even leading and elected in 142 ridings, fairly close to a majority, the Conservatives have only won just over a third of the vote, currently 36.64 percent. The Liberals are second with 28.49 percent, the NDP third with 19.48 percent. The BQ only has 7.46 percent of the vote nationally, but of course its vote is concentrated in Quebec, where it is currently leading or elected in 47 ridings.

10:48 pm - The CBC has just predicted a minority Conservative government. It will be a larger minority, but, still, at least not a majority. I had hoped for a somewhat stronger performance from the Liberals, but, overall, I can't be too unhappy with this result.

12:08 am - Alright, well, it's all been predictably anti-climactic. The Conservatives won a few more seats than expected, the Liberals collapsed into an even more distant second, and the NDP made some solid gains. What happens now is unclear: Will Harper be able to govern effectively with his new minority? Will there be pressure on Dion to step down? If so, will he? Will the three opposition parties be able to unite on ad hoc bases to repel some of Harper's more adventurous Conservative plans? How will all four parties respond to the financial crisis, one that has deepened over the course of the campaign? Is consensus, or at least majority consensus, possible with respect to the issues that are now front and center for Canadians, including the economy, Afghanistan, and the global warming?

12:12 am - The Globe has more here.

12:14 am - One thing to keep in mind. Although the seat totals favour the Conservatives -- now at 143, with the Liberals trailing at 77, then the BQ at 49, and the NDP at 37 -- popular support for Harper's party remains well below 40 percent. Which means that the overwhelming majority of Canadians continues to prefer the liberal-to-moderate parties (the centrist Liberals, center-left NDP, and center-left (for the most part) BQ) over the Tories. Canada remains, in essence, a liberal-progressive country. What is different now is that for the second straight election the Conservative have beaten a weak Liberal Party, traditionally Canada's major governing party, and a divided liberal-progressive opposition. Once again, the Conservatives won even though most Canadians are against them.

To me, the NDP and the BQ have reached, or almost reached, their respective ceilings. If the Conservatives are eventually to be beaten, then -- perhaps in four years, perhaps sooner -- it will take a re-energized, rejuvenated Liberal Party. And I'm just not sure Dion is the right man for the job. He had his chance, he disappointed, and it may now, or soon, be time to move on, to Rae or Ignatieff. (I'll take Rae.)

For now, though, we must accept what was, going in, the likeliest of outcomes, another Conservative minority. I don't see any point in wallowing in defeat. It's over. And the effort must now be, for the Liberals, on being again the loyal but determined opposition in the House of Commons, and on rebuilding. The next federal election, after all, may be upon us before we know it.

Stephen Harper vs. The Arts

By Grace

This is not what I wanted to see the day after I arrived home from culture-rich London, England. Yesterday, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this of government arts funding while on the campaign trail: "I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people,"

This in response to the $45 million he cut from arts programs in Canada.

It has sparked remarks about a new "culture war", but whether it gains enough momentum to become a real election issue, or makes any impact on the Canadian electorate, remains to be seen.

Anyone with any respect for and connection with the arts community in this country understands that the majority of artists are not monetarily "rich" by any means. In fact, in order to do what we love, we either have to resign ourselves to doing it during off-hours from our day jobs or live lives where, financially, we barely scrape by. It's insulting and unfair to portray them as a bunch of "elite" money-grubbing whiners.

Harper's remarks also come after his attempt to limit tax funding for Canadian film productions by denying credits to those with so-called objectionable content.

Don't give me any nonsense about the practicality of art and culture. It's a way to express our identity - both as Canadians and as people. It has its practical applications, sure, but art's emotional resonance is what makes it so important. It's boundless in scope, encompassing all kinds of mediums - film, music, performance, fine arts, poetry and literature, among many others; its influence cannot be measured. The best can inspire us, change our entire philosophies and outlooks on life, and even the smallest can make us smile.

Art is not "elite" nor "niche" as Harper calls it. While I was wandering through the Tate, I was chatting with one of my father's friends about surrealism. She said that it was sometimes hard for her to "get it". I told her that pieces that can only be grasped by certain people are completely ineffective because the message gets lost. If you have a favourite singer, a painting on your wall, or a photograph on your desk, art has touched you - it's really that simple.

While it cannot be quantified, we as human beings, as Canadians, need the arts. And the artists who produce it will occasionally need government subsidies.

The true wealth of the arts community is our talent and enthusiasm for sharing it - by trying to stifle it, Harper has proven himself to be a cultural pauper.

An ugly perversion of democracy (in Zimbabwe)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It isn't often that I have occasion to praise Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our Conservative government, but they are doing and saying the right things in response to the current situation in Zimbabwe:

OTTAWA — Canada was set to impose diplomatic sanctions against Zimbabwe after Prime Minister Stephen Harper condemned what he called a “corrupted vote” in the African nation.

The prime minister said Canada would add to international pressure on President Robert Mugabe and his regime to hold a free and democratic election.

“Our government has condemned the corrupt vote in the strongest possible terms,” Mr. Harper told a meeting of B'nai Brith International.

“And we are working with the international community to bring in strong measures to pressure the Mugabe regime which has illegitimately stolen the election.”

He called the election process in Zimbabwe “an ugly perversion of democracy.”

Harper is exactly right, but what is needed is not just pressure in support of a free and fair election but pressure to end the undemocratic rule of the authoritarian Mugabe and his brutal thugs.

That pressure likely won't come from Africa, which is soft on Mugabe and weak on democracy, and so it needs to come from the U.S., the U.K., and other mature democracies like Canada -- and preferably from the U.N. as well.

For now, though, it is good to see my country speaking out against the "violent, illegitimate sham," as opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai recently put it, that passes for Mugabe-enabling "democracy" in Zimbabwe.

(For my most recent posts on the situation in Zimbabwe, see here and here.)

I guess they really aren't fully vetted

By Edward Copeland

For all their bellicose ranting that there's "no more surprises" and there's nothing to see here, the Clintons still are trying to block the release of certain documents relating to Bill's presidency, this time all those concerning Bill's pardons. As reported by USA Today:

LITTLE ROCK — Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

I wonder: Will those archivists now be accused of Ken Starr-like tactics by reviewing their orders? Perhaps they'll have to come up with a new one, since they've already used Karl Rove, Dubya, Reagan, Starr and "friend of Holocaust denier" labels on Obama.

Meanwhile, it bears repeating the continued unfolding of the NAFTA-Canada brouhaha, you know, the one where the Clintonistas accused an Obama adviser of secretly telling the Canadian government he didn't mean what he said about scrapping NAFTA when in fact it was Hillary's people who first told that about her stance to a Canadian official. Of course, Hillary keeps repeating the lie about Obama's part because she's not one to let a little thing like the truth get in the way of scoring political points. As reported by The Globe and Mail on Friday:

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Thursday that an internal investigation would probe all facets of how information was leaked that may have influenced the U.S. Democratic presidential primaries, including the alleged comments by his own chief of staff, Ian Brodie, and the subsequent leak of a sensitive memorandum.

*****

"New reports indicate very clearly that it was Ian Brodie, the chief of staff," New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said yesterday in the Commons. "My question to the Prime Minister is very simple. Will he now apologize to this House, the American people and Senator Obama, and will he fire his chief of staff?"

*****

The controversy began after Mr. Brodie allegedly told a group of journalists from CTV News that candidate Hillary Clinton was not serious about earlier suggestions that she would reopen NAFTA if she became president. The network later reported that it was Mr. Obama's campaign that had informed Canadian diplomats not to be overly concerned that he would fundamentally change the deal. The network also reported that Ms. Clinton's officials indirectly tried to deliver the same message, a report the campaign denied the next evening.

Of course, the biggest part of this so-called scandal may be the attempts of Stephen Harper's Conservative government to make mischief in the Democratic primaries to help the GOP hold the White House.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Canadian

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't much care for the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but it's here to stay, for the time being, and its first post-Throne Speech action was a good one:

Aung San Suu Kyi will be granted honorary Canadian citizenship to recognize her efforts to promote peace and democracy in [Burma].

Sure, it's symbolic, and largely meaningless (meaning: nothing will come of it -- concrete international action is needed), but it's a nonetheless a noble and worthy gesture of support both for a great woman and for the pro-democracy movement of which she is a leading figure.

Many of Harper's other actions have been manipulative and cynical, notably everything he's done on the environment file, and whenever he's played the support-the-troops patriotism card (flag-waving doesn't go over as well here in Canada as it does in, say, the U.S.). This one, however, should be applauded.

As long as, however symbolic, it is not empty.

More Canadian dead

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The unpleasant latest: "The dangers of Afghanistan were driven further Wednesday night with news that two Canadian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were killed and another soldier and two Radio-Canada television journalists were injured."

The Canadian death toll in Afghanistan since 2002 now stands at 68, including a diplomat. Yes, far fewer than the number of Afghans killed, and far few than the number of Americans killed in Iraq, but still deeply troubling for this country.

**********

I tend to support Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan, in some form or another, more than most other Canadians, but my support is wavering, uncertain.

Canadian troops -- who are doing a "fabulous job," said Bush at the recent summit in Quebec -- are scheduled to come home in February 2009. "Canada has performed brilliantly," echoed Harper.

They are both right, regardless of whether or not the troops should be there at all.

The troops make us proud, regardless of the mission.

**********

And should they be there? Let's see how 2008 goes. It is much easier to support a NATO-led action than a U.S.-led one, but my support would be more robust, I suspect, if the U.S. hadn't turned away from Afghanistan to wage irresponsible war in Iraq.

The Afghans need us, the Taliban is totalitarian, and the cause may be just.

But the mission must be clear.

And the cost? Every life lost hurts dearly.

Another federal election in Canada?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to Prime Minister Harper, and as reported in the Globe, Canadians could be heading to the polls "at any time". This is even "a campaign training weekend for about 2,000 [Conservative] party nominees, MPs and volunteers". And it might very well be a good time for Harper and his minority government to seek that long-desired majority:

There has been much speculation of late about a spring vote, with some suggesting it could be triggered by Monday's budget.

With the Tories making some headway in public opinion polls and the Liberals finding their way under a new leader, some pundits wonder if Mr. Harper will try for a coveted majority by engineering his own defeat – introducing some sort of budget measure that the opposition can't live with.

Harper would no doubt blame the opposition parties, led by the Liberals, for subjecting Canadians to another election -- the last one, the one that brought the Conservatives to power, was held just last January -- but there is little doubt, it seems, that Harper and the Conservatives want an election far more than the Liberals do. If Harper thinks he can secure a majority in a spring election, he'll go for it, whereas the Liberals, I suspect, would prefer to have a bit more time for Stéphane Dion to continue to grow into his position as party leader -- that process, in my view, has been slow and agonizing, and I say that as a Dion supporter.