One of the more remarkable things about the Democratic Presidential nomination contest is the presence of an out gay man, married to another man, as one of the leading candidates. When Pete Buttigieg announced his intention to seek the nomination it caused barely a ripple. He was a largely unknown small city mayor with little if any national presence and given virtually no chance of sustaining a lengthy campaign for the nomination, let alone winning it. His opponents were polite, if perhaps a little condescending towards the thirty seven year old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, feeling, I suspect, it was good to have an openly gay candidate in the race as it enhanced the Democratic Party’s credentials as inclusive and representative of all Americans.

But something happened in the intervening twelve months, something no one would have predicted. Mayor Pete, as both his supporters and opponents now call him, not only persisted but grew in strength, attracting mind boggingly large donations and consistently registering in the next tier of candidates behind the front runners: Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. People who always assumed he would be one of the first candidates to exit the race watched in surprise as the young man from Indiana held his own against a field of much more familiar and experienced faces. In fact, he not only held his ground, he actually gained with his calm, sensible, centrist positions while swatting away questions about his sexual orientation and youth with all the skill of an experience pol.

And now, just two months before the first caucuses and primaries, he is one of the leading candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to select delegates for the Democratic convention. Suddenly the innocuous, feel good candidate from South Bend is a threat to the perceived front runners and, after months of approaching him with kid gloves, at least one of them and her supporters are taking aim at Mayor Pete.

In the November Democratic Debate Mayor Pete did what he was supposed to do. As a centrist candidate he asked Senator Warren some difficult questions about her endless policy papers, specifically the proposal on “Medicare for All” and the elimination of tuition for all students at public universities in the United States. His questions and criticism effectively halted Senator Warren’s ascent in the polls and brought the wrath of her supporters and those of her fellow traveller, Senator Sanders down upon him.

Suddenly, the token gay candidate is labelled “Wall Street Pete”, or similarly negative sobriquets if you’re a left wing Democrat. Hashtag “Never Mayor Pete” has sprung up as have other hostile social media expressions. Protestors are showing up at his speeches and fundraisers and Senator Warren herself attacked him for not disclosing his clients when he worked for a controversial consulting firm, or failing to disclose publicly his funders. Mayor Pete responded by releasing the names of all his former clients as well as his funders and by opening his fundraisers to public scutiny. So far at least, none of this new information has contained even a whiff of scandal or controversy unless, of course, you count the completely false claim he was somehow involved in a price fixing scheme for bread by Loblaws in Canada. Now some of his young critics are saying they will never vote for him even if he does become the Democratic nominee.

I guess much of this is fair game when Mayor Pete becomes a leading candidate and a threat to others who feel they are entitled to the nomination. But some of it isn’t.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the young protestors and internet warriors who are now attacking Mayor Pete in ways that ultimately will only benefit Donald Trump. Raising unfounded concerns about a candidate’s past ethical behaviour, or about the possibility he’s compromised by his financial backers, is a page right out of the Republican playbook and you can be sure those questions, even though shown to be unfounded, will be repeated over and over again in the Donald Trump re-election echo chamber. Ironically, that is one of the charges made against Mayor Pete by his more “progressive” opponents and their supporters when they complain that by questioning the efficacy or cost and political acceptability of Senator Warren’s policy proposals, he’s giving ammunition for future attack ads against candidate Warren if she wins the nomination. But of couse there is no comparison at all. Senator Warren put all these proposals into play in the public arena and they need careful scrutiny. If that scutiny isn’t provided by an opposing candidate, who will provide it?

Also, to all those young supporters of Senators Warren and Sanders who say if Mayor Pete is elected they won’t vote for him, I simply say “grow up”. America is facing one of the greatest challenges in its nearly two hundred and fifty year history in the 2020 election. Some describe it as existential, believing four more years of a Trump Presidency will do irreparable damage to the Republic, damage that will permanently lessen, if not ultimately destroy it as a functioning liberal democracy. To place partisan Democratic bickering above that is the height of irresponsiblity and is excused by neither youth nor inexperience.

For many of the young supporters of Senators Sanders and Warren Mayor Pete, even though the youngest of the candidates by far, is also the most conservative. They accuse him of mimicking Republican talking points on things like Medicare for All and free tuition even though his positions on these issues are well within the liberal mainstream in America. I understand the wish to create a more just, inclusive society that extends the benefits and prosperity of America to all its citizens, but to insist on abrupt changes that are fundamentally at odds with core American values risks losing the 2020 election and enduring four more years of the current administration. To paraphrase Speaker Nancy Pelosi when speaking of the House of Representatives: unless you have 270 Electoral College votes at the end of the 2020 election, all you are having now is a conversation. And if the Democratic nominating process only results in a conversation then everything Democrats despise about the current administration will continue for four more years. And that could be catastrophic.

The second issue behind criticisms of Mayor Pete is more complex and results from his being an openly gay man who is married to another man. Perversely, it’s a kind of contemporary liberal take on the old descriptiion of homosexuality as “the love that dares not speak its name”. None of the other candidates wants to be tarred as being anti gay and I’m pretty sure none of them is. Aside from compromising their progressive credentials, that would alienate an important Democratic constituency, LGBTQ voters and financial backers.

But you don’t have to be anti gay to be concerned that an openly gay candidate might not be electable. And I’m sure many Democrats harbour that concern but can’t find a way to express it. In the Sanders and Warren camps it’s being mobilized to attack Mayor Pete by masking it with another concern: that he has little support in the black community which is then spun into a narrative about his being a privileged white male with a questionable record on race relations as a mayor. To be clear, concerns he enjoys very little support from communities of colour, particularly older black women which are a core Democratic constituency, are legitimate, but what is mostly absent is a candid discussion of why that is.

I suspect the main reason Mayor Pete has little support in communities of colour is because he is an openly gay man who is married to another man. Recently, some have challenged the assertion that homophobia is greater in the black community than in other communities. This, despite a long history of especially open intolerance of gay men and lesbians from that community. I don’t know why that is although, when it comes to older black women, I suspect the influence of black churches is a significant factor. Everyone is uncomfortable labelling blacks as prejudiced against another group, but without a clear understanding of the reasons behind their lack of support for a candidate progress won’t be made or worse, the wrong path forward will be chosen.

The charge Mayor Pete enjoys “white male privilege” is increasingly making the rounds by those who see his candidacy as a threat to their own ambitions. And it is echoed by their supporters. Speaking now as a seventy year old gay man, I find that claim both ridiculous and deeply offensive. And it tells me that the people making it are either being dishonest or are staggeringly ignorant of what it means to be a gay man in what, despite some progress, is still a deeply homophobic society.

I know that with the adoption of gay marriage as the law of the land, many want to believe acceptance of gay people all across America is complete, but that is just hogwash. Go online and sample the hatred constantly spewing towards gays and lesbians from all corners of the country and then give your head a shake.

So, instead of a frank discussion about this important topic, we hear concerns about Mayor Pete’s age or his white male privilege. While his age may be a legitimate concern, both criticisms are now code words for who and what he is.

The paramount consideration for Democrats choosing their 2020 Presidential nominee must be his or her ability to defeat Donald Trump, and all the digressions over who is or is not more progressive; who cares more about “ordinary” Americans or the increasingly mythical middle class; who will provide medical coverage in one way or another; what approach to take in expanding access to college education etc. all become distractions when viewed through that lense.

Mayor Pete is a very impressive guy and each time I hear him my admiration grows. But I do not believe he is the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump for a number of reasons, including his being gay, his youth and his relative inexperience. It would be nice if others would be this candid. Actually, I think he is more electible than Senator Sanders and maybe even Senator Warren though.

I expect Mayor Pete will have a long and significant career in American politics and this run for the Presidency will provide a good grounding, one that might lay the foundation for a successful run in the future. In the meantime, Democrats must focus and refocus on who will be their strongest candidate in the 2020 contest. I don’t yet know who that is.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that appears at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you click on the blog.

It’s been a year since China seized two Canadians as hostages in retaliation for the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on an extradition warrant from the United States. The two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, have spent the year in harsh prison conditions without access to lawyers and with very limited Canadian consular access. Meng Wanzhou is free on bail as her extradition case is being adjudicated by the Canadian courts. She has a team of Canadian lawyers representing her and is living in one of her Vancouver mansions.

Two days ago China announced their investigation of the two Michaels is complete and the results have been turned over to prosecutors with the expectation they will be charged with some kind of espionage and will be sent to trial. Trials in China have a conviction rate of ninety nine percent.

At the same time, China has banned the import of Canadian canola and, for a time, also banned all Canadian pork and beef products. The meat ban was lifted recently but that is a reflection of shortages of pork in China caused by an outbreak of swine flu in the country, not an indication of any softening of the Chinese position. It has been made clear there will be no movement on the detention of the two Canadian hostages until Ms. Wanzhou is freed.

We have been assured in the past year that the Canadian government is doing everything in its power to secure the release of the two Canadians, including several high level conversations and soliciting support from international allies. This position was repeated yesterday by the newly re-appointed Minister of Justice for Canada, David Lametti. And it isn’t true.

I spent many years negotiating contracts, including what I describe as “asymetical negotiations” where the party opposite was, on paper at least, much more powerful than the group I was representing. I understand the need to proceed with caution and to take all aspects of the relationship into account. But when a negotiation is either not working or, as in the current case, not really happening at all, it is time for a strategic reset. I believe we’re at that point in the current dispute with China.

Part of the problem with the Canadian approach is that it is heavily influenced by business interests who want nothing more than a return to our former relationship with the Peoples Republic of China where Canadian companies can make money in the vast Chinese market. As I’ve said previously, simply returning to the old relationship without learning the lessons of the current conflict would not only be a mistake, it would guarantee similar confrontations in the future. Canada needs a major rethink of the relationship, starting with a clear understanding of the authoritarian and lawless nature of the PRC. I am glad the opposition parties in Parliament out-voted the government yesterday to establish an all party committee to delve into the relationship. In the meantime, however, two Canadians are languishing in a Chinese jail and Canada is being ineffective in its efforts to free them.

It is clear that poking the dragon that is China today has consequences and any actions a mid sized power like Canada takes should be based on a careful calculation of what will be effective and what the blowback will be. However, that does not mean we should never take that poke.

Thus far, China has paid nothing for its rogue behaviour and that must stop. Although I obviously don’t know the complete range of options available to Canada to counterpunch, a number of possibilities have surfaced. They include sending Chinese athletes who are training in Canada home; adopting legislation similar to that now adopted by the United States that threatens consequences for individuals responsible for cracking down on pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong; expelling Chinese consular officials who we believe are committing espionage on Canada and Canadians; closing some Chinese consulates in Canada; limiting Chinese access to Canadian airspace; banning Huawei from participating in the rollout of 5G technology in Canada; and expelling Chinese students studying in Canada. Any of these, coordinated with similar actions by our international allies, will be felt in China.

When I used to teach negotiations one of the principles I emphasized in any confrontation was that you must retain the ability to escalate. That should remain a core factor in determining what we do and when we do it.

Escalating will be neither easy nor pleasant. We know from its past behaviour China will react disproportionately and furiously. I have no doubt the two Michaels will feel that wrath and that other Canadian interests will be affected at least in the short term. But the alternative is for Canada to remain a patsy while its citizens are being abused. That is no alternative at all.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog please click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first click on the blog.

There are many reasons the Liberal Party governed Canada for much of the twentieth century, but near the top of that list is the fact the conservative consensus in this country has never jelled sufficiently to hold and offer a compelling alternative to the Liberals.

And here we go again.

Just a month has passed since the federal election but already there is an extraordindary pile on by Conservative critics of Andrew Scheer. This, despite the party winning the popular vote and increasing its seats in the House of Commons by twenty six, and forcing the once seemingly invincible Liberals led by Justin Trudeau into a minority.

Although the speed with which the critics are attacking may be unprecedented, the pattern is not. Conservatives lose an election and the knives come out. My personal memories on this go back only as far as John Diefenbaker but it is a pattern that has repeated itself over and over ever since. Why is that?

One reason is the Conservative Party, and its predecessor the Progressive Conservative Party, has always been an uncomfortable coalition of right wing populists, usually from the west, and more traditional Tories. Sometimes the disagreements within that coalition lead to complete rupture. That happened when Preston Manning led the Reform Party in a major schism from mainstream conservatism in Canada, leading to years of uninterrupted Liberal government, first under Jean Chretien and then Paul Martin. It only ended when the successor to the Reform Party, The Canadian Alliance, effectively staged a takeover of the old Progressive Conservative Party creating what is today’s Conservative Party. It then went on to win the next election and governed for nearly ten years under Stephen Harper. But in 2015 it was blown out of the water by a resurgent Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau.

Part of the reason for the Liberal’s success in 2015 was that Canadians had grown tired of the Harper government and, particularly, its nastiness towards its opponents and others who did not agree with its increasingly outdated view of what Canada should be.  That reflected rising tensions between the conservative coaltion partners, tensions that, despite Stephen Harper’s strong leadership, were causing fractures.

Canada has changed a lot since the days of John Diefenbaker and continues to do so at an accelerating rate. That is especially true in and around its major urban centres: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, where increasing concentrations of the total Canadian population live. For residents of those centres the narrow social conservative message of prairie populists does not resonate. In fact, it alientates. Yet those views still play an outsized role in today’s Conservative Party.

Which brings me back to the recent federal election where the Conservatives failed to make significant gains in the Maritimes and Quebec and, more importantly, in the many seats in and around Toronto. Even in Vancouver, where some predictions had them wiping out the Liberals, that didn’t happen. Many people are attributing this to the leadership of Andrew Scheer but I think it goes much deeper than that. Certainly, he’s representative of today’s Conservative party but, as such,  he is only the most visible symptom of a bigger problem: the apparent tone deafness of the Conservatives to educated, multi ethnic urban dwellers in Canada’s biggest cities. It is possible that a more charismatic leader who was more comfortable in his own skin might have allowed the Conservatives to eke out a narrow win but that would have been more a comment on the vulnerability of the Trudeau Liberals than the appeal of the Conservative message.

Andrew Scheer is a perfect representative of the current Conservative Party: a social conservative who knows his views on things like womens’ reproductive rights, the equality of gays and lesbians and physician assisted dying will not resonate with large swaths of the Canadian electorate and so plays a game that is too cute by half. The canned message is that there is settled law on at least two of those issues, and he will not seek to change it. But for many people that is not reassuring as they assume that religious and moral beliefs should, indeed must, inform political leaders’ actions. Otherwise, the stench of hypocrisy hangs in the air. So, instead of reassuring voters, the message becomes even more negative and entangled with the trustworthiness of the politician. Voters are not stupid, particularly well educated urban voters, and to think they can be duped into supporting politicians who hold views on social issues completely at odds with their own is a fatal miscalculation. And that doesn’t even address the most compelling issue of the day, climate change and the Conservative’s incomprehensible position on it.

So, what should the Conservatives do? Frankly, the view that just having a new leader will fix the problem falls well short. The party needs to take some bold policy steps that will probably anger its right wing populist base and I’m not at all sure it’s capable of doing that.

Specifically, it would need to change its policies on “trigger” social issues and climate change to reflect where the majority of Canadians now stand while still presenting a message that is fiscally conservative; that aims to limit the role of government in society and that pursues a traditionally conservative foreign policy.  And that cannot be window dressing.  The party needs to truly embrace these ideas, ideas that are certainly anathema to many of its core supporters.  Which brings us back to the leadership question. There’s no doubt Andrew Scheer would not be an effective leader to defend the policies I’m describing. What that party needs is a leader very much of the twenty first century on the whole range of social issues and climate change but with solid conservative credentials otherwise. Ideally, in the current political configuration, a woman would be the best choice. Just think of the challenge that would pose to Justin Trudeau.

If, as I suspect, the current Conservative Party is incapable of this transition then the best alternative is to found a new conservative party that would look a lot like the old Progressive Conservative Party. It would be messy and would likely benefit the Liberals in the short term but, in the long term, would offer a good conservative alternative to the dominant liberal orthodoxy of today.  And Canada needs that if its political system is to remain robust and effective.

I’m not sure whether I qualify as a “red Tory” or a “blue Liberal” but I do know that people like me have no political home in Canada today. In the last election I voted Liberal despite serious misgivings about the government but with even greater concerns about what the Conservatives would actually do in government. That’s hardly the basis for a good democratic decision.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button which will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

For reasons I don’t particularly understand I have been watching Season Three of “The Crown” on Netflix.  After several episodes I feel like I’m experiencing a kind of Seinfeld moment but without the laughter.  In other words, it’s about nothing.

At the same time, the news is full of salacious stories concerning Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died  in a New York prison while awaiting trial on new charges.  The allegation is that Prince Andrew had sex with an under aged girl who was trafficked from America to England by Epstein for just that purpose.  The Duke has denied the allegations or, at least, claimed to have no memory of the events.

I know The Crown is fiction and yet, even in that realm, it struggles to produce a compelling narrative about a family who, it seems, is not all that interesting, unless, of course, they behave as Prince Andrew is alleged to have done.  And that leads me to question why the Queen is the head of state for Canada and why her offspring and relatives are offered any particular deference in this country.

These are people who won the birth lottery.  Nothing more.  They are, by all appearances, ordinary people living extraordinary lives, lives that sometime demand duty of them for which we are to feel some sympathy.  I don’t.

The majority of my ancestors came from the British Isles where, I expect, most of them were staunch royalists.  Growing up in Canada I was taught to feel a special kind of reverence for the Royal Family and remember particular events affecting them as seeming to have immediate relevance to me.  For example, I was only four when I heard that King George VI had died and, although I didn’t understand why, I knew it was terrible and grieved as well as a small boy could.

But now I’m seventy and I live in a country whose diversity and democratic institutions give me a great deal of pride.  And I don’t know how the British Royal Family could possibly be appropriate as the heads of state of that country.  I have no more interest in the comings  and goings of the Royals than I do of movie stars whose names I barely recognize these days.  So, from my Canadian perspective, I declare it is time for Canada to become a republic.  Not, I want to add, a republic like our neighbours to the south, but one that retains its parliamentary form of government and has an appointed head of state who remains above the political fray.

As for the British, once they get through dismantling the United Kingdom there may not be much left for the Royals to preside over, except probably little England.  And, really, that’s fine with me.  I expect it’s good for the tourist dollars the country will need after Brexit has led to its deindustrialization.

Canada, on the other hand, needs to stride forward as a fully independent and self confident modern nation, one that has finally freed itself from the last vestige of colonialism.  I know changing the Canadian constitution is fraught and extraordinarily difficult, so lets start with a simple referendum and then ask the politicians to honour the result.

Yes, my mother is probably rolling in her grave  right now.

 

just sayin

G

Please share this blog.  If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom left hand side  of your computer  screen when you open the blog.

In twelve months many will be breathing a sigh of relief after Donald Trump is defeated in the 2020 election; or will be bemoaning the end of the republic and democracy because he has been re-elected. And the intervening twelve months will be filled with some of the most outrageous and extreme political behaviour most of us have ever seen. At this point, I don’t know what the outcome will be although some recent developments should give hope to Democrats and other anti-Trump people.

America had an election yesterday. Unless you were there, you may not have noticed. It wasn’t just an “off year” election, it was an “off off year election” where neither House nor Senate seats were in play. The (admittedly meagre) results are being hailed as a good sign for those who oppose Donald Trump and, in some respects, that is true. The Democrats took complete control of the state government in Virginia, capturing majorities in both the state house and senate while already holding the governorship. It also appears they’ve won the governorship in Kentucky, home to Mitch McConnell and a deeply red state that Donald Trump won by more than thirty percentage points in 2016. Both states show a continuation of the 2018 trend where suburban communities, hither-to-fore Republican strongholds, are turning increasingly to the Democrats. However, at least in Kentucky, that was partially offset by increased strength for Republicans in rural areas.

What strikes me when I look at these results is how deeply entrenched Trump’s support is in many areas of the United States and that no amount of scandal or bad behaviour is likely to change that. For people on the liberal side of the political spectrum as well as conservative anti-Trumpers, this is beyond understanding. By the standards of their world and beliefs Donald Trump has demonstrated again and again that he is unfit for office and yet his support holds firm. This made me think back to my recent experience trapped on a cruise ship for fifteen days with only Fox News and MSNBC as available news outlets. Not surprisingly, I spent much of my time watching MSNBC but I did dip my toe into the Fox universe occasionally. My first reaction to the Fox reports was absolutely dismissive, certain I was in possession of all the facts and had a clear understanding where truth lay. On reflection, however, I’m not sure that was always the case. The constant repeating of liberal tropes enforced and reinforced my pre-existing views so that I was quite literally incapable of being open to even consider reasonably the perspectives being offered on Fox. And that is a major part of the problem in the United States today. Both sides are huddled in their walled off media universes, hearing the same news but understanding it through very different filters. And the current impeachment process is a good case in point.

Putting aside whether or not proceeding with the impeachment process is good politics, there are legitimate non political questions that deserve to be asked and considered. At this point it seems incontrovertible that Donald Trump, working with Rudy Guliani, attempted to coerce the government of Ukraine to publicly launch a corruption investigation into Donald Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden by witholding congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russia. It also seems certain that some Trump loyalists, and perhaps the President himself, tried to cover up this effort and obstruct investigations into it.

Republicans have turned themselves inside out trying to defend the President; first denying the attempted shakedown occurred; then saying, if it occurred, it was addressing corruption generally and was not aimed at an American political figure; then saying, yes, it occurred but there was no “quid quo pro”; then saying, it occurred, but so what, and now, finally, coming to the right response (if you oppose impeachment): it occurred. it was wrong. we disapprove of it. but it is not sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal from office. And I think that will remain the mainstream Republican response for the duration although that could be derailed by Donald Trump’s fragile ego.

And, even though strongly dismissed by Democrats and the opionators on MSNBC and CNN, it is a fair question. Is the behaviour sufficient to warrant the removal of a President from office and undo the results of a democratic election, particularly less than a year from the next election when the people will be able to conclusively make their own judgement? I’m not going to attempt a detailed legal argument here but, instead, offer the view that impeachment should occur only in the most extraordinary of circumstances where, amongst other things, the security and safety of the nation is at risk. I understand that many feel that is exactly the case with the current impeachment probe, but I’m not so sure. Part of the problem is that Donald Trump’s critics are so offended by so many of his actions that their ability to react carefully and thoughtfully on this one is compromised.

I have many American friends who would happily have him impeached because they believe he regularly violates the emoluments clause in the constitution; or because his election was irredeemably flawed by Russian election interference; or because he regularly debases traditional American values, particularly with regard to immigrants; or because of his blatent sexism and mysogyny; or because of his enabling of homophobia; or because of their belief, fed by his refusal to release his tax returns, that he is corrupt and maybe under the influence of foreign adversaries.

I get that. I really do. There is no question but that he is a horrible man. But he is a horrible man who won the election and who continues to enjoy the support of a significant part of the American electorate and undoing the elections result through impeachment may well have long term and damaging consequences to the American body politic.

So, which should it be? Impeach or don’t impeach. Only time will tell. My own view, given the proximity of the next election, is that votes of censure in both houses would have been a wiser approach although probably not sufficient to satisfy the Democratic base who, as I said earlier, devoutly believe this man should not be President and should be removed at any cost.

Be careful what you wish for.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog, click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

Well, two weeks have passed since the Canadian federal election and the dust is settling. The entrails are being read; the polsters congratulated and the chattering classes are opining on what it all means and what should happen next. So, a few thoughts on the election outcome.

Where to begin? Well, I wouldn’t have normally chosen to start here but, given everybody else is, I guess “western alientation” is as good a place as any. As we are constantly reminded by the media, the Liberal government failed to win any seats between the western suburbs of Winnipeg and the eastern suburbs of Vancouver and this, it seems, is a monumental problem worthy of our urgent attention. More particularly, the voters in Alberta and Saskatchewan chose to elect Conservatives and only Conservatives to represent them in the federal parliament meaning there is no obvious road to having those provinces represented at the federal cabinet table in the new Liberal government.

Shortly after the results of the election were known, Scott Moe, the Premier of Saskatchewan, helpfully suggested the new Liberal government should scrap the carbon tax, change equalization and “immediately” get pipelines built. That, it seems, was the minimum the “west” demanded for having shut out the government (if this doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, you’re not alone).

Jason Kenney, Premier of Alberta then chimed in threatening separation from Canada while not threatening separation from Canada. His most memorable outburst was “Justin Trudeau is not going to push me out of Canada!”. Would someone please give him his Teddy bear and send him to his room. The adults need to have a conversation.

And, right on cue, the voices of western separtism “flooded” the internet while certain Canadian columnists (Rex Murphy I’m looking at you), fed the flames by opining on the grievous insults that had been piled upon those two prairie provinces.

While I’m on the subject of “two prairie provinces” I do want to say, as someone who lives quite literally at the westernmost edge of Canada (yes, that’s the Pacific ocean I’m looking at as I write this), I would prefer they stopped talking about “western” separation or the suddenly fashionable “Wexit”, presumably playing on “Brexit”, as if that was a good role model for leaving a federation (yes, I know Andrew Scheer supports Brexit, whatever that could possibly mean). Perhaps they could call it “Prexit” but then that might offend Manitoba so, really, I think we should just nix the acronyms.

But back to the substance. Alberta and Saskatchewan are aggrieved because they believe they are suffering because of the carbon tax, the failure to get pipeline(s) built and the belief they contribute more to the federation through equalization payments than they should. I don’t know as much about Saskatchewan as Alberta but I do know Alberta has the lowest corporate and personal taxes in the country (including the vaunted absence of a sales tax) and, apparently, the Kenney government is now determined to make those taxes even lower. At the same time, Alberta pays more for most publicly funded services, services like healthcare and education, than any other province and yet doesn’t have better outcomes than similar provinces in any of those areas. By the way, it’s paying more creates serious problems for the other provinces as they try to compete for scarce human resources. What’s more, the last time the Equalization Forumula was changed Jason Kenney was a senior minister in the Harper government that changed it. If it was so egregiously wrong why did he support it?

As for pipelines, it would be helpful to hear from either Premier Moe or Premier Kenney what exactly they propose to expedite the process. Again I note Jason Kenney was a senior minister in the Harper government that in ten years in office failed to build any pipelines despite making a lot of noise about them. The Trudeau government bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline to ensure it would be completed. That probably cost them their majority and yet, even now, they insist it will go ahead.

And as for abolishing the carbon tax: get real! Nearly two thirds of Canadians voted for parties that support the carbon tax, at least two of them wanting it significantly increased and quickly. But, according to Scott Moe, the views of those other Canadians don’t count because the voters in Saskatchewan and Alberta don’t want it. Okay, I know this is not helpful but, really: SUCK IT UP.

The simple fact is there is a horizon beyond which the world will not use fossil fuels. And it may be closer than we think, if only because of the imperative of saving the planet. Albertans and Saskatchewanites need to come to terms with this. If they don’t they will both return to their days as “have not” provinces where, they will be glad to know, they’ll receive equalization payments from the other provinces.

Other than the western woes, I think the election turned out about as well as it could, given the choices. The Liberals deserved a rebuke and they got one. The Conservatives didn’t give centrist voters like me any reason to vote for them and, indeed, offered one or two reasons not to (yes, the carbon tax is one and the virulent social conservative views of many of their candidates, including their leader, is the other).

For me at least, the best news of all was that all the candidates for The People’s Party of Canada lost their deposits.

As one headline said: Canadians are a sensible people.

just sayin

g

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified whenever I post a blog, just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower left hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

I come back to Canada after nearly a month away to discover the political landscape as unsettled as when I left. And Monday is election day. During my lengthy cruise my news options were Fox News and MSNBC. I tried sampling Fox but realized quickly I was endangering my sanity so spent a lot of time following the interminable analysis of all the political minutiae coming out of Washington on MSNBC. I have emerged sane, but damaged.

The extraordinary mess that has engulfed the United Sates made me especially proud of being Canadian and knowing my country at least was sane, well ordered and rational. Only now, I’m not so sure. Which is why I have decided to write a pre-election blog.

As things stand now, the outcome of Mondays election is completely up in the air. It is possible, but not likely, the Liberals will win another majority. More likely, they may win a minority. It is also possible the Conservatives will win either a majority or a minority. Prior to my departure the possiblity of a Conservative minority seemed non existant because of the impossiblity of their getting support from either the NDP or the Greens in a minority parliament. However, with the rise of the Bloc that is no longer the case. The Conservatives have a long history of pandering to so called Quebec nationalists or “soft separatists” and the possibility of their doing so again to the detriment of Canada is real.

I take it as a given that the majority of Canadians are in the centre and centre/left of the political spectrum. It is only when that voting block fragments that the Conservatives come to power. We are facing that possibility now.

I have detailed my crticisms of Justin Trudeau in earlier blogs and I’m not going to repeat them here but I have also said he and his government deserve a second term, certainly when the only real alternative is the election of a Conservative government led by Andrew Scheer. I still believe that.

I have many friends who are supporters of the NDP or the Greens, some of whom voted Liberal in the last election if only to end the ten year Harper Conservative government. Some of them have supported the NDP all their lives and believe deeply and passionately in its policies and ideals. Others are so committed to battling climate change and saving the environment that the absolutist green policies of the Green Party are their only choice. And for them, I do understand why there is no other option than NDP or Green.

But there are others, perhaps closer to my own political beliefs, who are more pragmatic when casting their votes. It is to them that the rest of this blog is directed.

There is no question that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals failed to deliver on some of their campaign promises and committed unforced errors that either embarrassed Canadians or undermined their own authority and credibility. But such is the price of politics and particularly governing a country as big and diverse as Canada. Canada’s great strength is its ability to compromise, to seek and find middle ground on issues that would irreparably fracture a lesser country. And those compromises inevitably leave everyone feeling somewhat let down; somewhat betrayed. And yet each time, we come back together and move forward.

In so many respects, the Trudeau Liberals are the embodiment of that spirit of compromise and accommodation. And that has resulted in decisions on resource development, physician assisted dying, native reconciliation, protecting the environment, legalizing marijuana, reforming tax laws and changing social programs, amongst others, that have left many Canadians dissatisfied because in none of the areas did they receive everything they wanted.

The alternative is the kind of winners take all country we have to the south of us, with winners and losers and a perpetually angry dsaffected minority of the right or the left. And I fear in this election Canada is tending in that direction.

The simple fact is that, despite various “surges” by the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc, there are only two parties with any real chance of forming a government, whether majority or minority: the Liberals and the Conservatives. And we don’t have to delve too deeply to see what a Conservative government will bring to Canada:

• on the environment, they will dismantle all of the good work the federal government has done over the past four years creating and implementing a realistic set of measures to battle climate change, including eliminating the nationally mandated carbon tax and weakening the process for review and approval of future resource extraction/development projects;

• on oilsands and pipelines, they will revive the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, presumably removing the ban on oil tankers in northern B.C. waters, and most likely if they are not reliant on seats in Quebec, will also move forward with the Energy East pipeline proposal;

• on gun control, they will not implement the proposed ban on assault weapons and will undo the recently introduced new regulations that restrict and control gun ownership in Canada;

• on infrastructure spending, they will back away from the government’s commitment to provide stable and predictable funding for transit in Canada’s major cities and will reduce the funding commitments for affordable housing.

• on senate reform, they will undo the progress that has been made in the past four years towards creating an upper house that is more representative, less partisan and better able to provide “sober second thought”.

These are not hypotheticals. They are straighforward commitments from the Conservative platform. Less clear is where they will go on social issues although we do know that at least one third of the candidates running for the Conservative Party are in favour of limiting womens’ reproductive rights; reversing physician assisted dying and reversing the legalization of marijuana. On the first two, there are considerable legal obstacles, but it is never-the-less true they will do everything in their power to advance their deeply held beliefs. Why wouldn’t they?

So, to those who are angry at Justin Trudeau because he hasn’t accomplished everything they wanted or because his missteps have annoyed or offended them, I say this: if you plan to vote against him to punish him, in the end you will be punishing yourselves and other Canadians who care about the environment; who want stricter gun control; who believe expanding and supporting public transit is necessary to make our cities livable and environmentally sustainable; who believe that good quality affordable housing is a right of all Canadians; who, given the inevitable presence of the Senate, want it to be more effective and not a retirement home for party hacks and henchmen that simply rubber stamp government decisions; who believe in a woman’s right to control her own body; who support compassionate physician assisted dying and who support the legalization of marijuana.

When the centre/left in Canada splinters, the Conservatives win. It’s that simple. So I recommend strategic voting as never before. If you are in a riding where the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservative is NDP or Green, by all means vote for them but, if you are in a riding where the only candidate with a realistic chance of defeating the Conservative is a Liberal, then vote for him/her.

As those of you who follow my blog know, I am not a consistent Liberal supporter and, in the past, have voted more than once for each of Canada’s major political parties. I also share the disappointment with some of the government’s actions and policies. But too much is on the line this time in a world that seems to be coming apart at the seams everywhere else. This is the time for Canadians to show their commitment to pragmatic compromise on the big issues of the day. That requires re-electing the Liberal government.

just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified whenever I post a blog, please click on the “follow” box that will appear at the lower left hand side of your screen when you first click on the blog.

I almost made it. I almost got out of the country without writing another blog on the federal election. And then along came the photos of Justin Trudeau in “brownface” or “blackface” (take your pick).

First a bit of background for any out there who somehow managed to miss the last twenty four hours of news both here and in the U.S. Yesterday, Time Magazine released a photograph of Justin Trudeau at a dress-up party in Vancouver eighteen years ago where he was dressed as Alladin or some other such person, including wearing makeup that is being described as “brownface”. A few hours later he addressed the issue with the press and, in response to questioning, stated he had also dressed up as Harry Belafonte, including “blackface”, at a high school concert where he did a version of Belafonte’s hit song “Day O”. This morning we woke to news from Global that they had unearthed a video of Trudeau wearing blackface again, this one undated but evidently, long ago. So, as I write this, we have three occasions where the now Prime Minister wore black or brown face, one eighteen years ago when he was a teacher; one probably thirty years ago when he was a high school student, and one undated but probably from when he was a teenager.

When the news broke the national press went into overdrive. In fact, in the leadup to it on the local Global broadcast yesterday afternoon, I fully expected someone had been assassinated. It was variously described as “an earthquake”; “an explosion”; “unprecedented in Canadian politics”; “unlike anything any of them had ever before witnessed”. After it was clarified what exactly they were talking about, I found myself wondering what adjectives were left if, just possibly, something of greater magnitude should break in the remaining four weeks before the election. But I digress.

It seems to me the appropriate question to ask right now is: “is Justin Trudeau a racist?”. If, indeed, he is, then let me be the first to call for his resignation and defeat in the election. But is he?

One of the few advantages of being seventy years old is that it provides a pretty broad historical perspective. That is especially true on issues of what is/was or is not acceptable in Canada today and in the past. When I was a boy in the early nineteen fifties Canada was mostly a white Christian country populated by descendents of French and British settlers. Then the waves of immigration began.

Where I lived in Alberta at the time the first really noticeable wave was composed of Ukrainians and, to a lesser degree, Polish. While they were white and Christian, they were different from us. And we made fun of them; gave them nicknames and looked down upon them.

Then the Hungarians arrived after their 1956 uprising was suppressed by the Soviet Union. They, too, were different, although partially forgiven because of their heroic story. But that didn’t stop us from making fun of them and looking down on them.

Then, in the seventies the Vietnamese Boat People arrived. They were really different and seemed unlikely to succeed in our Canada. So, we made fun of them too, although that was tempered by growing concern that they brought crime and attitudes that could never be reconciled with our Canada.

Along the way, but less noticed, south Asian immigrants came too. And we made fun of them: their food, their accents; their clothing.

Then, with the return of Hong Kong to China, waves of Chinese arrived, often with a lot of money. They did things we didn’t like. Like spitting in public. Or driving too cautiously. Or buying up homes in neighbourhoods where they weren’t welcome. And we made fun of them too.

And, of course, through it all, we had native Canadians and Metis (we called them “halfbreeds”) to make jokes about and to look down on.

In 2016 another group arrived to great fanfare: Syrian refugees. They too were different. They didn’t really look like us and, worst of all, they were Muslims. But we didn’t make fun of them. We welcomed them. We extended that welcome to the world, displacing the fallen refuge to our south, and taking great pride in it.

So, what happened? Well, for most Canadians, we have come to realize that our country is at its best as a mosaic enriched by the cultures and experiences of immigrants from all over the world who, for whatever reason, have chosen to make Canada their home. And the Prime Minister who led us to that belief was Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Eliot Trudeau. We aren’t there yet. Not at a place where racism has disappeared; where every Canadian is valued for who they are, not what they look like; not their dress; not their religion; not their sexual orientation. And, honestly, we probably never will get there completely. But, we have made tremendous progress and every day we make more.

But there’s a problem. We, and by “we” I mean those of us who had the good furtune to be born here of northern European Christian parents and so were never subjected to the hateful bigotry of racism, still have our pasts. We told, or at least laughed at, the jokes and the nasty comments about the people who were of a different race or religion or, for that matter, sexual orientation, and nothing we do now is going to change that. But is that the most important fact? Isn’t it more important that we’ve changed? That we’ve grown? That we’ve, in so many ways, become citizens of the world valuing our neighbours and fellow citizens. And that’s the lens through which I approach Justin Trudeau’s background using blackface/brownface as a young man and as a teenager.

I am far more interested in who Justin Trudeau is today than who he was eighteen or thirty years ago. And who is he today? Well, from the time he entered political life through his years as Prime Minister there is one constant: he is an unyielding advocate for the equality of all Canadians, regardless of their gender, their race, their religion, their place of birth, or their sexual orientation. That is indisputable. Remember him welcoming the Syrian refugees? Or the enormous commitment of political capital and money to reconciliation between First Nations Canadians and the rest of us? Or the gender makeup of his government and Cabinet (“because it’s 2016”)? I haven’t done the research but I’m pretty confident in saying we have never had a government that was more inclusive of all Canadians than the one he leads. And the credit is his. So, to the question: “Is Justin Trudeau a Racist?”: of course he’s not.

So, confronted with the pictures and videos, how do we react? Well, my father was a clergyman, so I’m tempted to paraphrase scripture here: “who amongst us is without sin?” or “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. But that doesn’t seem to have affected some, most particularly the Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer and his party. Andrew Scheer didn’t react on the fly. No, he waited for several hours to watch the story develop and then, standing in front of his campaign plane, issued a statement and didn’t take any questions which begs the question “how much of the statement was his and how much was his advisors hidden on the plane behind him?” But, no matter, it was issued by him in his name. And it was jaw droppingly hypocritical and as far removed from what I would expect from a future Prime Minister as possible.

After weeks of responding to reports of Conservative candidates who in their, often recent, pasts had made sexist, Islamaphobic, homophobic and racist comments by stating that if people said and believed things in their past and acknowledged them now, even implying they might no longer agree with them, that was all that was needed for their redemption or, more practically, them to continue as Conservative candidates. But apparently not if the past behaviour involved Justin Trudeau and a political advantage for Andrew Scheer. This, by the way, after weeks of failing to distance himself from his own hateful and homophobic statements as a Member of Parliament. But then why would he? He almost certainly still believes those views.

Justin Trudeau did the right thing. He stepped forward, took responsbility, offered no excuses, asked for forgiveness and promised to do better in the future. That is a far cry from Andrew Scheer and the pack of mysogynists, racists and homophobes bringing up his rear.

So, vote against Justin Trudeau if you wish for any number of reasons. But please, please don’t claim it’s because he’s a racist. Not, that is, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

just sayin

g

p.s. I couldn’t fit a comment into the blog on Jagmeet Singh’s reaction to the pictures and video but I do want to acknowledge that I think it was exemplary. I have understood for years that racism is wrong and hurtful, that it diminishes all of us but, until I watched Singh’s deeply personal pain responding to it, it never really grabbed my heart. It’s there now.

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified whenever I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom left corner of your screen when you first open the blog.

A couple of days ago an opinion piece appeared in the Vancouver Sun written by an academic at Mount Royale University in Calgary named Mark Hecht, where he argued that diversity harms a country’s social trust and economic well being. He used Denmark as an example where a formerly homogeneous and successful society was re-thinking its decision to admit thousands of refugees from different ethnic and religious backgrounds and focussing now on forcing them to assimilate. Throughout the piece he claimed that societies that were white and Protestant were apt to be more successful.

The reaction was swift and furious, leading the Vancouver Sun to issue an apology the next day for having published the piece. Much of the reaction noted how Professor Hecht’s assertions were a direct challenge to the very idea of modern Canada as diverse, welcoming and successful. Some comments on social media went further, using this example to attack Canada’s “colonial past and attitudes” and celebrating the likely demise of white protestant northern Europeans at the top of Canadian society. Speaking as the son and grandson of white northern European immigrants who were protestants I found this latter line of commentary troubling, perhaps even chilling, as if the wrongs of the past justified wrongs in the future.

Two weeks ago billboards appeared across Canada that called for an “End to Mass Immigration”, apparently put up by supporters of The Peoples’ Party of Canada led by MP Maxime Bernier. Again, there was strong negative reaction and, after a few days, the company that owned the billboards pulled them down.

In July the organizers of the Pride Parade in Vancouver announced they were banning the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Public Library from participating in the parade because of complaints from Trans people that both institutions had rented meeting space for speakers who’s views offended them.

There’s a pattern here and its one I don’t like.

I haven’t delved into Professor Hecht’s opinion piece in the depth that would be necessary to rebut it properly. I don’t have to to know how much I disagree with it but, for those who insist his research is flawed or his analysis and conclusions are wrong the onus to do so is on you. There was never any question but that his opinion piece was just that, “his”. And it’s an opinion he’s entitled to hold and express. In fact, banning it from media will simply feed it or, at least feed the conspiracy theory mentality of many who want to believe it.

Although the words on the billboard supporting the PPoC look innocuous enough, in the context of Maxime Bernier’s openly expressed views on immigration it’s clear what the dog whistle is and Canadians should be able to challenge it; to debate it; and to win that debate. Not shut it down. Not suppress it because it might offend someone or some group. The strength of our democracy does not lie in censorship of opinions and ideas we disagree with. It lies in our certainty of our cause and beliefs. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws that limit hate speech; or speech that incites violence and leads to social disruption, but that line has to be drawn very carefully so as not to intrude on the core values we are defending. And I’m concerned in the examples I’ve cited we have done just that: trampled on free speech and weakened our moral claim to the high ground.

As a gay man in Canada I sometimes feel discomfort when large numbers of immigrants come to Canada from countries that are murderously prejudiced against gays and lesbians, but I balance that against my day to day experience living in the core of one of Canada’s biggest cities and interracting daily with Canadians from all over the world, many of them new, many of them struggling to fit in, but all here because they want to be. I believe we in Canada are embarked upon a great social experiment, one without parallel in human history, and one that hopefully will show how our common humanity binds us together. Only time will tell.