TORONTO, ONTARIO - Earlier this week, Canada lost out to Portugal in a bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. This was the first time in the history of United Nations that Canada had failed to be voted in to a Security Council seat. While it is true that a long list of reasons contributed to the lack of international support for Canada's candidacy, the bottom line is that it where Canada was once viewed as a "Honest Broker," it is now isolated. It's not so much that we lost--shifting dynamics in the world may have favored Portugal in any event--it's that it wasn't even close, and much of the blame falls squarely on the Harper government.
It wasn't so long ago that Canada was viewed positively by many of the nations in the world as a fundamentally internationalist country. It once had the most peacekeepers deployed under UN auspices--now it ranks 12th, with almost all of its foreign deployment under NATO, not the UN, in Afghanistan--a change that started under Liberal governments (and the extent to which peacekeeping leadership was a myth in the first place is a whole separate topic). More importantly, there was a reputation of Canada as the honest broker, willing to listen to less developed countries, willing to take environmental leadership, willing to stand up to the United States, and willing to compromise on issues. That has largely disappeared under the Conservatives--Canada was basically absent on climate change, its support for right-wing elements in Israel has exceeded that of the United States, and off the top of my head I can't think of single issue in which Canada has stood up to the United States on the behalf of the world in the past four years. The epitome of the anti-internationalist attitude of the present government was when Harper decided to go to Tim Horton's instead of a UN meeting.
While he clearly should not have said so publicly, especially before the vote, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is fundamentally right--this Canadian government hasn't earned the right for Canada to be on the security council. In its defense, the government tried to blame Ignatieff, and when it was pointed out that the foreign delegations didn't even know about his statements, they stated that principle was more important to them than the UN seat.
They're missing the point. Why did I start to have positive emotions about Canada in the first place? It wasn't because of bilingualism, which I thought at the age of 11 was rather strange. It wasn't because of multiculturalism, which I appreciate now but didn't understand then. It wasn't because of the more civilized culture, which was not at all obvious in comparing Seattle and Vancouver. It was precisely because Canada seemed to be viewed positively by the whole world, that it had an internationalist stance that matched my ideals, and that its government would publicly stand up to the United States on occasion when it seemed warranted that earned my attention.
Harper's foreign policy has changed all that. Now those with internationalist ideals won't be attracted to Canada. To the outside observer, Canada now seems like an environmentally-irresponsible, resource-based economy that happens to have more financial regulations and nationalized health care. The United Nations vote was a wake-up call from the rest of the world that Canada's international image has changed.
I speak with enough Canadians to know that the Canadian people haven't changed, only their government. The vast majority of the people I encounter liked the old image that Canada had, and don't think much of the current one. Yet, they won't give more than a moment's thought to the UN vote this week. It will take political leadership to talk about what that vote really reflects. If Michael Ignatieff chooses to make this issue in the next election, it won't be enough to win the election unless it is accompanied by more bread-and-butter economic issues, but I suspect it will hit a nerve in the Canadian populace.
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Economics: The Immigrant Gap
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In theory, having a college degree should go a long way toward avoiding unemployment. According to statistics released this week, people with at least an undergraduate degree in Canada have a 3.4% unemployment rate, compared with 8% overall. However, if the unemployment rate of 8% feels too low, that's probably because you have migrated to Canada. Migrants with at least an undergraduate degree have a 13.4% unemployment rate, 4.1 times the rate for born Canadians.
Three factors seem to have been identified as leading to the large discrepancy. Language skills, problems with recognition of foreign credentials, and lack of Canadian work experience are cited. Only the last factor could possibly be at work in my case, and I suspect in this economy that it is by far the largest factor. Near as I can tell, this is a completely experience-driven market--employers will only consider candidates that were doing exactly the same job for several years at another company. Want to sell oneself on the basis of flexibility or education? Good luck. When there's no reward for taking risks in the labour market, the safest thing for an employer to do is hire someone that's already done the job.
The "immigrant gap" in the unemployment rate made the news because Canada is expected to grow only on the basis of immigration by 2030, and the figures on the surface seem to suggest that the country does not know how to integrate the educated immigrants that it will need in the future. As Amanda Lang of the CBC put it, if the current underemployed or unemployed immigrants were working at their potential, there would be $6 billion more flowing through the Canadian economy.
Yet, this may not actually be an immigrant problem; the immigrants like me may be closer to canaries in a coal mine. Because immigrants as a class almost by definition have the least Canadian work experience, they will be hurt the most in an experience-based economy. I've told the story on this blog before about a hiring manager that was so intent on finding the perfectly-matching candidate that a senior position was left open for nine months--until a corporate re-organization eliminated the whole group as under-performing. That was a Canadian hiring manager.
With unemployment high, stories like that are extremely rare right now--so many people are out of work that employers have many "perfect" résumés. When the economy starts to expand at historical averages or better in the future, successful employers will have to get over the perfect-experience mentality, take some risks in order to get rewards.
In the meantime, those of us with experience in fields that may never hire again have a pretty bleak outlook--even going back for more education doesn't help, as unless that results in a blockbuster internship, the fundamental problem hasn't changed--a lack of experience. That's true whether we are immigrants or not.
Three factors seem to have been identified as leading to the large discrepancy. Language skills, problems with recognition of foreign credentials, and lack of Canadian work experience are cited. Only the last factor could possibly be at work in my case, and I suspect in this economy that it is by far the largest factor. Near as I can tell, this is a completely experience-driven market--employers will only consider candidates that were doing exactly the same job for several years at another company. Want to sell oneself on the basis of flexibility or education? Good luck. When there's no reward for taking risks in the labour market, the safest thing for an employer to do is hire someone that's already done the job.
The "immigrant gap" in the unemployment rate made the news because Canada is expected to grow only on the basis of immigration by 2030, and the figures on the surface seem to suggest that the country does not know how to integrate the educated immigrants that it will need in the future. As Amanda Lang of the CBC put it, if the current underemployed or unemployed immigrants were working at their potential, there would be $6 billion more flowing through the Canadian economy.
Yet, this may not actually be an immigrant problem; the immigrants like me may be closer to canaries in a coal mine. Because immigrants as a class almost by definition have the least Canadian work experience, they will be hurt the most in an experience-based economy. I've told the story on this blog before about a hiring manager that was so intent on finding the perfectly-matching candidate that a senior position was left open for nine months--until a corporate re-organization eliminated the whole group as under-performing. That was a Canadian hiring manager.
With unemployment high, stories like that are extremely rare right now--so many people are out of work that employers have many "perfect" résumés. When the economy starts to expand at historical averages or better in the future, successful employers will have to get over the perfect-experience mentality, take some risks in order to get rewards.
In the meantime, those of us with experience in fields that may never hire again have a pretty bleak outlook--even going back for more education doesn't help, as unless that results in a blockbuster internship, the fundamental problem hasn't changed--a lack of experience. That's true whether we are immigrants or not.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Culture: Don't Use Bright Colors in Canada
TORONTO, ONTARIO - According to Genetic Personality Type theory (which I prefer to call Meridian Personality Theory, but I guess the experts define the language), people from the "thinking" world, one of four basic worlds in theory, do not especially like bright light. Sure enough, most of the "thinking" type people I know keep their lights, even reading lights, pretty dark by my standards at night, and are mostly likely to wear sunglasses for practical (as opposed to cosmetic) reasons.
Canada, as I have argued on this blog before, has a "thinking" type culture, as exemplified by its relative emphasis on ideas and debate relative to its southern neighbor, which has an analogous emphasis on image and emotion. It somewhat surprised me upon moving here, though, to realize that the tendency of thinking types to avoid bright colors also exists in Canadian culture.
One of the first things of this nature that struck me was the packaging for Sun Chips. At the time (2006), in the United States, plain Sun Chips came in glossy, dark blue bags. In Canada, the color was somewhat lighter, and the bags were not at all shiny. Of course, since then Sun Chips packaging has become more subdued than either design on both sides of the border, so there is no longer a difference. At the time, though, I started to wonder: Does bright stuff sell in Canada?
In the United States, there are plenty of brands with bright color schemes incorporating screaming yellows, from McDonald's to Pennzoil to Hertz. While those foreign brands seem to do just fine in Canada, I had trouble finding Canadian brands that used bright yellow. Rona, for example, uses yellow, but it's subdued and almost gold. The only two I saw in the Toronto area were No Frills--which even there is pretty limited, as the yellow mostly colors the banana with no buildings painted all yellow--and Pizza Nova. Within months of that observation, Pizza Nova began a makeover to a green and red image as part of an "up-scaling" initiatives, but I had to wonder if the yellow hadn't been holding them back.
How about "day-glow" colors, such as the orange found on Winston cigarettes or even just the fluorescence added to the pastels of Arizona Iced Tea? Telus tried a neon green for awhile before backing off to a more grassy green and purple. I can't think of a single additional example. While there's plenty of red to match the flag (Canadian Tire, Air Canada and Tim Horton's, for example), it's never a glowing shade and there's nothing overtly bright and in one's face. Most Canadian brands are quite subdued, like the blue and orange of Mark's Work Wearhouse, the almost-pastel orange of Pizza Pizza, or the blue and green of WestJet.
Somehow, marketers must have figured out that they were dealing with a "thinking" world culture where flashy colors weren't going to help them very much.
Canada, as I have argued on this blog before, has a "thinking" type culture, as exemplified by its relative emphasis on ideas and debate relative to its southern neighbor, which has an analogous emphasis on image and emotion. It somewhat surprised me upon moving here, though, to realize that the tendency of thinking types to avoid bright colors also exists in Canadian culture.
One of the first things of this nature that struck me was the packaging for Sun Chips. At the time (2006), in the United States, plain Sun Chips came in glossy, dark blue bags. In Canada, the color was somewhat lighter, and the bags were not at all shiny. Of course, since then Sun Chips packaging has become more subdued than either design on both sides of the border, so there is no longer a difference. At the time, though, I started to wonder: Does bright stuff sell in Canada?
In the United States, there are plenty of brands with bright color schemes incorporating screaming yellows, from McDonald's to Pennzoil to Hertz. While those foreign brands seem to do just fine in Canada, I had trouble finding Canadian brands that used bright yellow. Rona, for example, uses yellow, but it's subdued and almost gold. The only two I saw in the Toronto area were No Frills--which even there is pretty limited, as the yellow mostly colors the banana with no buildings painted all yellow--and Pizza Nova. Within months of that observation, Pizza Nova began a makeover to a green and red image as part of an "up-scaling" initiatives, but I had to wonder if the yellow hadn't been holding them back.
How about "day-glow" colors, such as the orange found on Winston cigarettes or even just the fluorescence added to the pastels of Arizona Iced Tea? Telus tried a neon green for awhile before backing off to a more grassy green and purple. I can't think of a single additional example. While there's plenty of red to match the flag (Canadian Tire, Air Canada and Tim Horton's, for example), it's never a glowing shade and there's nothing overtly bright and in one's face. Most Canadian brands are quite subdued, like the blue and orange of Mark's Work Wearhouse, the almost-pastel orange of Pizza Pizza, or the blue and green of WestJet.
Somehow, marketers must have figured out that they were dealing with a "thinking" world culture where flashy colors weren't going to help them very much.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Politics: Changing Files
Member of Parliament Gerard Kennedy spoke at a local community meeting at St. Pius X Catholic School in Toronto, Ontario on 16-September-2010
TORONTO, ONTARIO - While I'm far from a political junkie (I almost never figure out the mystery voice on The House and I don't watch Power and Politics), I do pay reasonable attention to Federal politics in Canada, or so I thought. Then, I went to a meeting held by my local Member of Parliament (MP) tonight and found out that his portfolio had changed.
For the bulk of the last two years since his election, Parkdale-High Park MP Gerard Kennedy has been the Official Opposition Critic for Infrastructure, Cities and Communities. In other words, he was the member of the "shadow cabinet" within the Liberal Party charged with holding the Minister of Infrastructure, Cities and Communities from the ruling Conservative Party accountable. Indeed, Kennedy has been rather visible in this role, frequently appearing in the media to criticize the government's management of stimulus funds, for example.
Not anymore. As of last Tuesday (7-September), Kennedy is now the Official Opposition Critic for the Environment. With all the talent and experience in the Liberal Party on the environment, this might seem an odd pick. However, Kennedy did earn a lot of acclaim for the "Carbon Challenge" he organized in the riding when he was still a candidate, and the riding seemed to respond to the Liberal "Green Shift" policy by electing him, about the only riding in the whole country to so readily embrace that environmental policy.
A pointed question came from the audience tonight about how Stéphane Dion, architect of the "Green Shift" and then-party leader, felt about Kennedy getting the environment portfolio. After mentioning that Dion had already called him, Kennedy pointed out "Those who remember Liberal Party history may recall that I had something to do with Mr. Dion becoming party leader." That ended the discussion. [Kennedy endorsed Dion when he dropped out of the leadership race in 2006, giving Dion momentum that eventually led to his becoming leader.]
Another audience member asked how the transition between portfolios works in the shadow government. Kennedy stated that it tends to be much more flexible than in the government, as there is information to be transferred (instead of bureaucratic briefings to attend). He expects to provide assistance to new Infrastructure Critic John McCallum on several initiatives, which as he pointed out still have overlap with his new portfolio.
"The way I view it, the environment isn't really a ministry," Kennedy said, "It's a philosophy that should underlie your whole government." He told his constituents that they should expect to see the influence of sustainability across the policies of the Opposition, as that was now part of his job.
That is, it is his job until Michael Ignatieff appoints him to some other post while I'm not paying attention.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Margin Notes: Politeness, Signs, Conversation
Do Canadian children really need a book on how to be more polite, as found at a Queen Street West bookstore in Toronto, Ontario on 6-September-2010?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Canadians, at least by American standards, are almost obscenely polite. I thought that it was a joke that they apologized to their furniture after bumping in to them, but then I observed it, and I've even done it myself. So, when I saw the above book in the window of the above book store as I watched the Labour Day Parade, my only thought was "Are you kidding?"
* * * * * *
I don't know what was going on Labour Day morning, but as I walked downtown to the parade I ran into some unproductive canine behavior. A small bulldog was noted trying to pick a fight with a Great Dane at High Park, which looked especially ridiculous as the Great Dane tried to ignore the other dog, and along Dundas Street West a man looked perplexed as he walked two large dogs that suddenly decided to fight each other on the sidewalk. They were still barking and going at it when I went out of earshot.
* * * * * *
A sign guiding bicyclists on an "indirect left turn" was noted at Dundas and Dupont in Toronto, Ontario on 30-August-2010
Farther northwest on Dundas Street West, I ran into the above sign guiding bicyclists that wished to cross Dundas from Dupont to Annette. The whole concept of an "indirect left turn" is rather fascinating--if what they suggest (staying to the right, and then joining cross traffic on another street) is "indirect," then what is the concept of going an extra block and making three right turns?
* * * * * *
That topic might seem a bit obscure, but I bet Ross Reynolds could guide a good conversation about it. The Conversation, a call-in show hosted by Reynolds on KUOW in Seattle, Washington, turned ten years old this week, and is still going strong as a noontime show. My congratulations to the Conversation team for creating ten years of excellent radio!
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Blog: The Two-Year Mark
TORONTO, ONTARIO - According to the calendar, today marks the two-year anniversary of this blog. In the Internet era, that's not saying much--the earliest blogs started almost a decade before this one, and any blog that is regularly updated for more than about three months tends to last for years.
Along more than 850 posts so far, this blog has clearly changed in focus. Originally intended to try to point out some aspects not receiving much attention in the political races in Canada and the United States in the fall of 2008, political posts are quite rare now. That's mostly because the tone of this blog was intended to be largely non-partisan (though I doubt any regular reader had any doubts who I would vote for long before the elections arrived). Nobody wants to hear that. Reasoned analysis is not considered to be of value, only partisan point-making. There's no interest in centrism.
The bulk of the posts now are of the glorified diary variety. Photo blogs of events that I've attended or places that I have visited dominate other attempts at commentary on the state of the world. Still, a perusal of any given week of posts shows a variety of topics, often including media, heritage, transportation and societal trends.
Because successful blogs stick to a single topic that has a target audience that returns regularly, this blog was not expected to be wildly successful, as I had no interest in a single-topic blog. Still, I expected that more comments would be posted to the blog to argue with points raised. Those have been few and far between. Frankly, there's been more deleted spam than challenging comments.
Near as I can tell, the bulk of the regular audience are friends and family checking in on what I have been doing. As a result it seems like the future of this blog might well be limited to the diary-type entries to save time in e-mail and phone communications with friends and family.
Certainly, the idea that this blog might directly or indirectly lead to employment has proven to be a pipe dream. I've been explicitly told that I have no blogging skills by two potential blogs I expressed interest in contributing to, and I can't say I've met anyone as a result of this blog, much less a potential employer.
I rather like the idea of reaching one thousand posts, though, so shortly of having nothing of consequence on my mind, the near-daily posts will likely continue in the present format until that milestone is reached.
Along more than 850 posts so far, this blog has clearly changed in focus. Originally intended to try to point out some aspects not receiving much attention in the political races in Canada and the United States in the fall of 2008, political posts are quite rare now. That's mostly because the tone of this blog was intended to be largely non-partisan (though I doubt any regular reader had any doubts who I would vote for long before the elections arrived). Nobody wants to hear that. Reasoned analysis is not considered to be of value, only partisan point-making. There's no interest in centrism.
The bulk of the posts now are of the glorified diary variety. Photo blogs of events that I've attended or places that I have visited dominate other attempts at commentary on the state of the world. Still, a perusal of any given week of posts shows a variety of topics, often including media, heritage, transportation and societal trends.
Because successful blogs stick to a single topic that has a target audience that returns regularly, this blog was not expected to be wildly successful, as I had no interest in a single-topic blog. Still, I expected that more comments would be posted to the blog to argue with points raised. Those have been few and far between. Frankly, there's been more deleted spam than challenging comments.
Near as I can tell, the bulk of the regular audience are friends and family checking in on what I have been doing. As a result it seems like the future of this blog might well be limited to the diary-type entries to save time in e-mail and phone communications with friends and family.
Certainly, the idea that this blog might directly or indirectly lead to employment has proven to be a pipe dream. I've been explicitly told that I have no blogging skills by two potential blogs I expressed interest in contributing to, and I can't say I've met anyone as a result of this blog, much less a potential employer.
I rather like the idea of reaching one thousand posts, though, so shortly of having nothing of consequence on my mind, the near-daily posts will likely continue in the present format until that milestone is reached.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Culture: Attractiveness to Migrants
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Somehow, I missed a Gallup poll released back in April on international immigration patterns. I don't recall attention to it in the Canadian media either, which is rather remarkable considering the fact that it reveals trends favorable to Canada as compared with its rival for attracting quality immigrants, the United States.
The United States and Canada are clearly the most attractive nations in the world to immigrants, if the Gallup poll is to be believed. 165 million people would like to move to the United States, while 45 million people would like to move to Canada (which, I would point out, is more people than live here presently). The fact that more people would like to move to the United States is not the most interesting part of the poll. Only the younger and less educated potential immigrants prefer the US--the older (25 and up) and more educated (high school and higher) prefer Canada.
At some level, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. When North Americans think about the differences between the two countries, they consider Canada to be the more socialist country, the one with more social programs and safety nets. The older and more educated immigrants generally don't need these social programs nearly as much as the younger and less educated. One might think that the more educated would be attracted to the lower taxes of the United States, and the less educated to the programs that help the less privileged in Canada. Yet, that's not the case. In the most extreme demographic polled by Gallup, college graduates from Southeast Asia, Canada was preferred to the United States by a more than 3:1 margin!
What are people seeing? The poll doesn't directly address that, but I suspect a lot of the difference comes down to cultural reputations. For the past decade, the United States is increasingly known as an intolerant place where immigrants are not welcome, at least if they are in any way identifiable as a immigrant. In contrast, Canada's reputation for being multi-cultural is spreading. The educated around the world understand that in Canada they will be allowed to be bi-cultural--both Canadian and whatever they were before they migrated (this blog has addressed this idea before).
The poll mentions what likely is also a major factor--Canadian immigration policy clearly favors well-educated, skilled immigrants, whereas the mess that can barely be called a system in the United States mostly offers no such preference. If somebody knows they are desired, they tend to find that place more attractive.
Whatever the reason, this isn't good for the United States. If the best and brightest are starting to prefer Canada instead of the United States, the increasingly globalized economy will inevitably start to move to Canada's favor as the Canadian work force becomes more qualified relative to that in the United States.
The United States has many reasons to reform its immigration policies. The Gallup Poll is just yet another reason.
The United States and Canada are clearly the most attractive nations in the world to immigrants, if the Gallup poll is to be believed. 165 million people would like to move to the United States, while 45 million people would like to move to Canada (which, I would point out, is more people than live here presently). The fact that more people would like to move to the United States is not the most interesting part of the poll. Only the younger and less educated potential immigrants prefer the US--the older (25 and up) and more educated (high school and higher) prefer Canada.
At some level, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. When North Americans think about the differences between the two countries, they consider Canada to be the more socialist country, the one with more social programs and safety nets. The older and more educated immigrants generally don't need these social programs nearly as much as the younger and less educated. One might think that the more educated would be attracted to the lower taxes of the United States, and the less educated to the programs that help the less privileged in Canada. Yet, that's not the case. In the most extreme demographic polled by Gallup, college graduates from Southeast Asia, Canada was preferred to the United States by a more than 3:1 margin!
What are people seeing? The poll doesn't directly address that, but I suspect a lot of the difference comes down to cultural reputations. For the past decade, the United States is increasingly known as an intolerant place where immigrants are not welcome, at least if they are in any way identifiable as a immigrant. In contrast, Canada's reputation for being multi-cultural is spreading. The educated around the world understand that in Canada they will be allowed to be bi-cultural--both Canadian and whatever they were before they migrated (this blog has addressed this idea before).
The poll mentions what likely is also a major factor--Canadian immigration policy clearly favors well-educated, skilled immigrants, whereas the mess that can barely be called a system in the United States mostly offers no such preference. If somebody knows they are desired, they tend to find that place more attractive.
Whatever the reason, this isn't good for the United States. If the best and brightest are starting to prefer Canada instead of the United States, the increasingly globalized economy will inevitably start to move to Canada's favor as the Canadian work force becomes more qualified relative to that in the United States.
The United States has many reasons to reform its immigration policies. The Gallup Poll is just yet another reason.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Culture: Don't Look to Canada for Action
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Sometimes I think the average person in the United States doesn't want to admit there are any problems in the world involving externalities. Climate change isn't real, the supply of oil will never actually run out, the oceans won't become too acidic, and economic failures in other counties will not have a significant impact on the US economy.
That isn't the case in Canada. While there is a growing minority of climate change skeptics, particularly in the west, the average Canadian still believes that the world is warming, that petroleum supplies are decreasing (thus making the oil sands in Alberta more important), the oceans are something to worry about, and pretending that other countries can't affect one's economy would be insane when enormous United States economy next door dwarfs one's own.
Ask Canadians to do anything about any of these things, though, and there's not likely to be much of a response. Canadians admit that they use more energy per capita than other developed nations, but nobody seems to be serious about doing anything about it. There's a recognition that the electoral system unfairly disadvantages smaller parties and favors regional parties, but there's not much clamor to actually do anything about it. Pretty much any politician will admit that the health care system needs reform, but it's been almost eight years since the Romanow commission now, and nothing of consequence has passed.
For all their denial about issues, when people in the United States finally agree that there is a problem, they generally take action. They might argue significantly about the appropriate action to take (think health care reform), but doing nothing in the long-term is almost never on the table.
This contrast actually fits with the personality of each country. Canada, coming from the thinking world, focuses on ideas. It likes debating ideas, even bad ideas, and in the end likes to choose the best ones. However, the process can be long, as first there's a debate about whether a problem exists, and then at least one debate about what (if anything) to do about it. There's no premium here for action; the most respect seems to go to those who come up with the best analytical process for making the decision.
In the United States, the emotional world reigns supreme. When people's emotions are strong, they demand action, or at least sympathy. The action doesn't even have to be effective necessarily. Look at how President Obama was pilloried for not showing emotion and taking enough action in the ongoing oil spill crisis. Arguably, he might actually have been taking the most effective course by pressuring BP, including the creation of a contingency fund, but that wasn't what people wanted--they wanted Bill Clinton feeling their pain.
While Canadians could use a little more impetus for action, deriving it from the emotional neediness as occurs in the United States is probably not the best way to get it. Instead, Canada would do well to tap the physical world, which lives to take action in present, regardless of ideas, energy, or even emotion. Of course, what I would expect to happen is that we might actually debate that, take a few years to decide we have a problem, and then spend a few more debating how to access the physical world. Such is the joy of thinking-world culture.
That isn't the case in Canada. While there is a growing minority of climate change skeptics, particularly in the west, the average Canadian still believes that the world is warming, that petroleum supplies are decreasing (thus making the oil sands in Alberta more important), the oceans are something to worry about, and pretending that other countries can't affect one's economy would be insane when enormous United States economy next door dwarfs one's own.
Ask Canadians to do anything about any of these things, though, and there's not likely to be much of a response. Canadians admit that they use more energy per capita than other developed nations, but nobody seems to be serious about doing anything about it. There's a recognition that the electoral system unfairly disadvantages smaller parties and favors regional parties, but there's not much clamor to actually do anything about it. Pretty much any politician will admit that the health care system needs reform, but it's been almost eight years since the Romanow commission now, and nothing of consequence has passed.
For all their denial about issues, when people in the United States finally agree that there is a problem, they generally take action. They might argue significantly about the appropriate action to take (think health care reform), but doing nothing in the long-term is almost never on the table.
This contrast actually fits with the personality of each country. Canada, coming from the thinking world, focuses on ideas. It likes debating ideas, even bad ideas, and in the end likes to choose the best ones. However, the process can be long, as first there's a debate about whether a problem exists, and then at least one debate about what (if anything) to do about it. There's no premium here for action; the most respect seems to go to those who come up with the best analytical process for making the decision.
In the United States, the emotional world reigns supreme. When people's emotions are strong, they demand action, or at least sympathy. The action doesn't even have to be effective necessarily. Look at how President Obama was pilloried for not showing emotion and taking enough action in the ongoing oil spill crisis. Arguably, he might actually have been taking the most effective course by pressuring BP, including the creation of a contingency fund, but that wasn't what people wanted--they wanted Bill Clinton feeling their pain.
While Canadians could use a little more impetus for action, deriving it from the emotional neediness as occurs in the United States is probably not the best way to get it. Instead, Canada would do well to tap the physical world, which lives to take action in present, regardless of ideas, energy, or even emotion. Of course, what I would expect to happen is that we might actually debate that, take a few years to decide we have a problem, and then spend a few more debating how to access the physical world. Such is the joy of thinking-world culture.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Politics: No Party in Touch
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Last week's excellent program "The House Goes to Quebec" on CBC Radio One made an interesting and potentially very important point--the majority of the population of Quebec supports the general position of more autonomy but not independence for the province, and no Federal party supports this position. The Bloc Québécois (BQ) officially supports full sovereignty for Quebec, while the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats (NPD in French) all officially support the current constitutional arrangement.
While there are a variety of reasons why the current situation exists, and exactly what elements of "increased autonomy" would be a tenable political position is somewhat debatable, what this clearly represents is an opportunity. A party willing to take into its platform the unrepresented position has the potential to make serious inroads, in large part by blunting the appeal of the BQ. On the surface, it would seem that the opportunity is open most to the Conservatives--the main risk of taking on this position would be backlash in the west, and it seems unlikely that an Albertan or British Columbian would run from the Conservatives over increased rights for Quebec. Furthermore, once the Conservatives take on such a position, the risk for the Liberals or New Democrats to follow suit would be greatly reduced, and very rapidly the unrepresented position could suddenly be represented by the three national parties. Personally, I'll be watching for the Conservatives to potentially make such a move after the BQ has already weakened--perhaps after current popular leader Gilles Duceppe steps down.
It might seem unlikely, but some are making the case that a similar situation exists in the United States. Amongst others, Matthew Dowd has argued that voters want collective solutions to current economic problems, but do not trust the Federal government. Thus, the collective solutions must come from what might be called activist government at the local and community levels. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous idea from a pragmatic perspective--how exactly are local governments going to solve the immigration problem?--but he has a point that no political party supports this position. The Democrats have been pushing Federal-level solutions, and the Republicans have been trying to reduce the involvement of government at all levels, even state and municipal levels.
Again, the opportunity here seems to be on the right-wing side of the ideological spectrum. It would not be hard for Republicans to drop their current anti-government position and return to their more tradition position of favoring local government over the Federal government. At most, they would be alienating the TEA party faction of their coalition, and these voters realistically would not be likely to run to the Democrats. By emphasizing "community" in their rhetoric and a platform of empowering local government, they could attract independent voters that essentially share Dowd's vision (however misguided it might be). In fact, I daresay they could decimate the Democrats for a generation if they did this and managed to implement it effectively.
However, I don't see this happening. The Republicans lack leadership in general and are dead-set on attracting the TEA party supporters. Likely, they will have enough success in doing so that there will be no incentive to change course, no matter how much more successful another course might be in the long term. Quebec might have its actual preferences reflected the conceivable political future, but community-focused and Federal-mistrusting citizens in the United States probably will not.
While there are a variety of reasons why the current situation exists, and exactly what elements of "increased autonomy" would be a tenable political position is somewhat debatable, what this clearly represents is an opportunity. A party willing to take into its platform the unrepresented position has the potential to make serious inroads, in large part by blunting the appeal of the BQ. On the surface, it would seem that the opportunity is open most to the Conservatives--the main risk of taking on this position would be backlash in the west, and it seems unlikely that an Albertan or British Columbian would run from the Conservatives over increased rights for Quebec. Furthermore, once the Conservatives take on such a position, the risk for the Liberals or New Democrats to follow suit would be greatly reduced, and very rapidly the unrepresented position could suddenly be represented by the three national parties. Personally, I'll be watching for the Conservatives to potentially make such a move after the BQ has already weakened--perhaps after current popular leader Gilles Duceppe steps down.
It might seem unlikely, but some are making the case that a similar situation exists in the United States. Amongst others, Matthew Dowd has argued that voters want collective solutions to current economic problems, but do not trust the Federal government. Thus, the collective solutions must come from what might be called activist government at the local and community levels. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous idea from a pragmatic perspective--how exactly are local governments going to solve the immigration problem?--but he has a point that no political party supports this position. The Democrats have been pushing Federal-level solutions, and the Republicans have been trying to reduce the involvement of government at all levels, even state and municipal levels.
Again, the opportunity here seems to be on the right-wing side of the ideological spectrum. It would not be hard for Republicans to drop their current anti-government position and return to their more tradition position of favoring local government over the Federal government. At most, they would be alienating the TEA party faction of their coalition, and these voters realistically would not be likely to run to the Democrats. By emphasizing "community" in their rhetoric and a platform of empowering local government, they could attract independent voters that essentially share Dowd's vision (however misguided it might be). In fact, I daresay they could decimate the Democrats for a generation if they did this and managed to implement it effectively.
However, I don't see this happening. The Republicans lack leadership in general and are dead-set on attracting the TEA party supporters. Likely, they will have enough success in doing so that there will be no incentive to change course, no matter how much more successful another course might be in the long term. Quebec might have its actual preferences reflected the conceivable political future, but community-focused and Federal-mistrusting citizens in the United States probably will not.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Politics: The Leader Matters
TORONTO, ONTARIO - A recent Angus-Reid survey on the Federal political parties in Canada has gotten relatively little attention. The headline result is hardly surprising--the Conservatives continue to hold a party-preference lead with 35%, with the Liberals trailing at 27%, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) at 19%. What's interesting, though, is that they also looked at what would happen if the latter two left-of-center parties merged (the New Liberals?)--and the results are not necessarily what one would expect, and very dependent on the leader of that new party.
On the surface, one might think that a Liberal-NDP merger would simply combine their support to create a solid 46% preference, well ahead of the Conservatives even if some modest defections from the combined party from purists took place. That isn't what would happen at all, according to the survey. If current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff were to head the party, it would only poll at 34%, with the Conservatives up to 40%. That might sound like centrists amongst the Liberals abandoning the new party because of its history with the NDP, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If current NDP leader Jack Layton led the new party, it would actually be ahead in the polls at 43%, leading the Conservatives at 37%, not that far from the simple combination prediction. Furthermore, the combined party is strong in much of the country in this scenario, including a 10-point lead over the Bloc in Quebec. One could make the case that this is the baseline for Liberal-leaning voters that could not stand the influence of the NDP--marking that group as only something like 2-3% of voters.
So what's going on with the Ignatieff-as-leader numbers? It's not having NDP defections because a Liberal would be leading the combined party. With Liberal Bob Rae as leader of the new party, there's a 38% tie between the new party and the Conservatives. Considering that Bob Rae has significant baggage in Ontario as a result of his time as premier and is hardly a "generic Liberal," this implies that the generic NDP defections would be less than 8% (and one would not expect them, for ideological reasons, to run to the Conservatives).
It pretty much has to come down to individual leadership. Whether because of Conservative advertising or his own actions, Ignatieff is not positively viewed by the electorate, and that clearly matters to voters more than the ideology of the party that he leads. On the other hand, Layton is apparently viewed quite positively (at least by those leaning left). I've long held that political leadership is important, and this poll seems to demonstrate that quite strongly.
While a Liberal-NDP merger or even formal coalition is far from likely at this stage, the Conservatives have to be taking note of this poll. I could imagine that we might start seeing some negative advertising directed at Jack Layton. This would be a dangerous game--Layton has publicly spoke about his ongoing battle with prostate cancer and any negative advertising would be seen as picking on a physically weakened man who is widely expected to only lead his party for one more election.
A far more interesting topic may not be who would lead a combined Liberal-NDP alliance if it formed tomorrow, but who would lead it in the future after Ignatieff, Layton, and the other current players move on. Could it be Liberal Ken Dryden? The NDP's Thomas Mulcair? There will be a search for leadership in Canada, whether for the Liberals and NDP individually or as one, as well as for a new Conservative leader someday. The country will only benefit if competent and effective leaders emerge.
On the surface, one might think that a Liberal-NDP merger would simply combine their support to create a solid 46% preference, well ahead of the Conservatives even if some modest defections from the combined party from purists took place. That isn't what would happen at all, according to the survey. If current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff were to head the party, it would only poll at 34%, with the Conservatives up to 40%. That might sound like centrists amongst the Liberals abandoning the new party because of its history with the NDP, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If current NDP leader Jack Layton led the new party, it would actually be ahead in the polls at 43%, leading the Conservatives at 37%, not that far from the simple combination prediction. Furthermore, the combined party is strong in much of the country in this scenario, including a 10-point lead over the Bloc in Quebec. One could make the case that this is the baseline for Liberal-leaning voters that could not stand the influence of the NDP--marking that group as only something like 2-3% of voters.
So what's going on with the Ignatieff-as-leader numbers? It's not having NDP defections because a Liberal would be leading the combined party. With Liberal Bob Rae as leader of the new party, there's a 38% tie between the new party and the Conservatives. Considering that Bob Rae has significant baggage in Ontario as a result of his time as premier and is hardly a "generic Liberal," this implies that the generic NDP defections would be less than 8% (and one would not expect them, for ideological reasons, to run to the Conservatives).
It pretty much has to come down to individual leadership. Whether because of Conservative advertising or his own actions, Ignatieff is not positively viewed by the electorate, and that clearly matters to voters more than the ideology of the party that he leads. On the other hand, Layton is apparently viewed quite positively (at least by those leaning left). I've long held that political leadership is important, and this poll seems to demonstrate that quite strongly.
While a Liberal-NDP merger or even formal coalition is far from likely at this stage, the Conservatives have to be taking note of this poll. I could imagine that we might start seeing some negative advertising directed at Jack Layton. This would be a dangerous game--Layton has publicly spoke about his ongoing battle with prostate cancer and any negative advertising would be seen as picking on a physically weakened man who is widely expected to only lead his party for one more election.
A far more interesting topic may not be who would lead a combined Liberal-NDP alliance if it formed tomorrow, but who would lead it in the future after Ignatieff, Layton, and the other current players move on. Could it be Liberal Ken Dryden? The NDP's Thomas Mulcair? There will be a search for leadership in Canada, whether for the Liberals and NDP individually or as one, as well as for a new Conservative leader someday. The country will only benefit if competent and effective leaders emerge.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Culture: In Defense of Ecumenism
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I've stated before on this blog that I think leadership and culture have a lot to do with whether people get along with one another or fight, and that Canada is a classic example of what happens leaders and tradition encourage people to figure out how to live together.
Therefore, I don't have much patience with people that insist on emphasizing differences between people, because I find that it just tends to undermine attempts to create, well, peace and order (if not good government). I don't know what his underlying agenda in doing so might be, but Stephen Prothero of Boston University provided a classic example in a recent Christian Science Monitor commentary.
I don't really disagree with any of the facts that Prothero presents as he argues that it is a "dangerous myth" to believe in a unity of religious faiths. It is true that religions offer distinct solutions to distinct problems, as he explains. Why wouldn't that be the case? To me, he undermines his entire presentation with this sentence: "The world's religious rivals do converge when it comes to ethics, but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, mythology, experience, and law."
Isn't that the whole point of the ecumenist movement, that despite different cultures (which is really what his five enumerated areas represent), the underlying ethical standards are largely the same? Is it really "ignorant" to realize that religious cultures are very different in expression, but hold some things--what people like me would argue are the really important things--in common?
The statement that really kills me is this one: "Yet we know in our bones that the world's religions are different from one another." Really? (Never mind that most of what I know resides in my head, not my bones, since we must allow literary devices.) I have the exact opposite "gut feeling"--it seems to me most religions basically exist to help individuals cope with what they experience in their lives, providing a moral compass no matter what is around them, and that is fundamentally similar.
Prothero asserts that my perspective is ignorant, and that "like all forms of ignorance, it makes our world more dangerous." However, his version of dangerous seems to be that it prevents discussion and learning that would otherwise make the reasons for religious conflict more clear. I don't see how believing in a unity of ethics leads to a lack of dialog. It seems to me people don't talk to people that are different when they are told by leaders that the "others" are a threat, not because they think the "others" are the same.
Interestingly, if Prothero's real purpose is to create more discussion of the differences between religions, I completely agree with him. I don't expect a "magical" detente between Christians and Muslims, for example--I expect people to talk to one another and do a lot of hard work. I agree with him that the problem is often ignorance, but I believe that by dialoging and debating with people from other perspectives, one is far more likely to regard the "other" as members of the same human race and therefore not to be feared or attacked. Exactly how that is "dangerous" is beyond me.
I daresay Stephen Prothero needs to spend some more time in Canada and see some practical examples of peace, order, and good government.
Therefore, I don't have much patience with people that insist on emphasizing differences between people, because I find that it just tends to undermine attempts to create, well, peace and order (if not good government). I don't know what his underlying agenda in doing so might be, but Stephen Prothero of Boston University provided a classic example in a recent Christian Science Monitor commentary.
I don't really disagree with any of the facts that Prothero presents as he argues that it is a "dangerous myth" to believe in a unity of religious faiths. It is true that religions offer distinct solutions to distinct problems, as he explains. Why wouldn't that be the case? To me, he undermines his entire presentation with this sentence: "The world's religious rivals do converge when it comes to ethics, but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, mythology, experience, and law."
Isn't that the whole point of the ecumenist movement, that despite different cultures (which is really what his five enumerated areas represent), the underlying ethical standards are largely the same? Is it really "ignorant" to realize that religious cultures are very different in expression, but hold some things--what people like me would argue are the really important things--in common?
The statement that really kills me is this one: "Yet we know in our bones that the world's religions are different from one another." Really? (Never mind that most of what I know resides in my head, not my bones, since we must allow literary devices.) I have the exact opposite "gut feeling"--it seems to me most religions basically exist to help individuals cope with what they experience in their lives, providing a moral compass no matter what is around them, and that is fundamentally similar.
Prothero asserts that my perspective is ignorant, and that "like all forms of ignorance, it makes our world more dangerous." However, his version of dangerous seems to be that it prevents discussion and learning that would otherwise make the reasons for religious conflict more clear. I don't see how believing in a unity of ethics leads to a lack of dialog. It seems to me people don't talk to people that are different when they are told by leaders that the "others" are a threat, not because they think the "others" are the same.
Interestingly, if Prothero's real purpose is to create more discussion of the differences between religions, I completely agree with him. I don't expect a "magical" detente between Christians and Muslims, for example--I expect people to talk to one another and do a lot of hard work. I agree with him that the problem is often ignorance, but I believe that by dialoging and debating with people from other perspectives, one is far more likely to regard the "other" as members of the same human race and therefore not to be feared or attacked. Exactly how that is "dangerous" is beyond me.
I daresay Stephen Prothero needs to spend some more time in Canada and see some practical examples of peace, order, and good government.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Politics: Schieffer Has a Point
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I often credit Bob Schieffer of CBS with the best two minutes of political analysis each week in his commentary at the end of Face the Nation. This week's commentary did it again, bringing up a point that he is hardly the first to express but seems to be largely forgotten in the mainstream media--every time a radical change occurs (a "game changing event"), the opposing political party tends to over-react toward the other extreme and while it might do well in one election, soon finds that it has gone too far from the mainstream and enters an electoral wilderness.
Of course, the reason nobody is echoing Schieffer's message is that neither side wants to acknowledge the historical precedent. The Republicans--at least the Conservative activists--don't want to believe there is a precedent, preferring to believe that this is a "new" era. The Democrats also don't want to look at other historical precedents--like the fact that major legislation (like health care) had never been passed without significant public support before--but more importantly, they are secretly hoping there is historical precedent in this instance and don't want to discourage the Republicans from heading far from mainstream voters. There's no incentive to make Schieffer's point.
People on the left and the right don't want to believe that there is anyone left in the center anymore, but that's still where most elections will be won or lost. The politically median citizen still matters, and they rightly feel alienated by both major parties in the United States right now. Some will not vote, but some will choose between the lesser of perceived evils, and the farther candidates go from the center, the harder it will be for them to attract votes. Contrary to what activists wish to believe, the median voter is not a member of the TEA party--median voters in Oregon and even Arizona have now voted for higher taxes. They may not trust government, but they'd still prefer that it start functioning better.
Canada has a similar problem. The Conservatives can't seem to bring themselves to the true political center, occasionally reverting to their right-of-center Reform origins and simultaneously keeping their poll numbers in check. The Liberals can hardly claim the center when there seems to be serious consideration of a coalition with the unabashedly-left New Democrats. Where is a "Red Tory," once the symbol of the political center in Canada, supposed to go now? Most find the federal Conservatives too far right, and the Liberals too far left. A few I know have actually gone to the Green Party, but that party has yet to win a single federal seat.
This isn't brain surgery; this is Politics 101. All the major parties in North America need to quit acting like they are applying their learning from Politics 457C and get back to the political center. Whoever figures that out first may be pleasantly surprised at the next outcomes at the ballot box.
Postscript: I guess I'm not the only one thinking like Schieffer. See Ed Kilgore's post today on fivethirtyeight.com.
Of course, the reason nobody is echoing Schieffer's message is that neither side wants to acknowledge the historical precedent. The Republicans--at least the Conservative activists--don't want to believe there is a precedent, preferring to believe that this is a "new" era. The Democrats also don't want to look at other historical precedents--like the fact that major legislation (like health care) had never been passed without significant public support before--but more importantly, they are secretly hoping there is historical precedent in this instance and don't want to discourage the Republicans from heading far from mainstream voters. There's no incentive to make Schieffer's point.
People on the left and the right don't want to believe that there is anyone left in the center anymore, but that's still where most elections will be won or lost. The politically median citizen still matters, and they rightly feel alienated by both major parties in the United States right now. Some will not vote, but some will choose between the lesser of perceived evils, and the farther candidates go from the center, the harder it will be for them to attract votes. Contrary to what activists wish to believe, the median voter is not a member of the TEA party--median voters in Oregon and even Arizona have now voted for higher taxes. They may not trust government, but they'd still prefer that it start functioning better.
Canada has a similar problem. The Conservatives can't seem to bring themselves to the true political center, occasionally reverting to their right-of-center Reform origins and simultaneously keeping their poll numbers in check. The Liberals can hardly claim the center when there seems to be serious consideration of a coalition with the unabashedly-left New Democrats. Where is a "Red Tory," once the symbol of the political center in Canada, supposed to go now? Most find the federal Conservatives too far right, and the Liberals too far left. A few I know have actually gone to the Green Party, but that party has yet to win a single federal seat.
This isn't brain surgery; this is Politics 101. All the major parties in North America need to quit acting like they are applying their learning from Politics 457C and get back to the political center. Whoever figures that out first may be pleasantly surprised at the next outcomes at the ballot box.
Postscript: I guess I'm not the only one thinking like Schieffer. See Ed Kilgore's post today on fivethirtyeight.com.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Politics: Britain Understands Politics
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The results of the primary and special elections in the United States yesterday, as well as a community meeting held tonight in my local parliamentary riding lead me to one conclusion--too many in North America have forgotten the purpose of politics, and it's time to look back to Britain for a reminder of how things are supposed to work.
There seem to be almost as many spins on the various electoral results in the United States yesterday as there are analysts, but I believe that it is fairly safe to say that no moderates in either major political party did well. On the Democratic side, Arlen Specter lost in a Pennsylvania senate primary to the more liberal Joe Sestak and Blanche Lincoln heads to an Arkansas senate runoff with the more liberal Bill Halter that she seems likely to lose. On the Republican side, more conservative "Tea Party" candidates did well all over, from Rand Paul in Kentucky to Art Robinson in Oregon.
This is hardly a new trend in the United States. The current highly partisan environment, in the nation's capitol and elsewhere, has been growing for at least two decades. The result has been essentially no bipartisan legislation of any kind except in economic emergencies and growing disillusion with government in general by people of all political stripes. Politicians who dare to actually talk to people of the other party and find common ground can't even receive their party's nomination anymore--just ask Bob Bennett in Utah.
While Canada hasn't decayed nearly as far, the concept of working together seems to be pretty rare here as well. At a community meeting tonight, my local Member of Parliament, Gerard Kennedy, was asked about the prospects of a coalition of left-wing parties in the next election. "People seem to have strong identities as Liberals or New Democrats," Kennedy stated, "They focus on those identities and not commonalities. That's a big problem for sitting down at the table" to even discuss a coalition. While far from calling for inter-party unity on the left, Kennedy did seem to be less than satisfied with the status quo. "We have a cultural issue here in Canada. We're more focused on identity than in finding commonalities."
Great Britain has its own problems--mostly economic--but the election there this month proved that politicians there at least understand that politics is about finding commonalities--usually called "compromises"--and getting things done. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may not be natural partners, but they found enough in common in just five days to form a government that they intend to last for a normal 4-5 year election cycle. Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg figured out how they might work together, and as a result their country has what it needs to address those economic problems (and they are rewarded as being Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively).
I'm not the first to say it, but as many people as possible need to be saying it. North American politicians need to re-learn what Cameron and Clegg demonstrated in Great Britain. Being elected means having a responsibility to govern the country, whether as part of a ruling government or majority party or as part of an opposition or minority party keeping them honest. To best represent the country as a whole, they need to speak to one another and act on their commonalities. If they aren't doing that, they aren't doing their jobs. Most politicians in North America are not doing this job, and voters need to be upset about that, not whether their representatives are ideologically pure.
There seem to be almost as many spins on the various electoral results in the United States yesterday as there are analysts, but I believe that it is fairly safe to say that no moderates in either major political party did well. On the Democratic side, Arlen Specter lost in a Pennsylvania senate primary to the more liberal Joe Sestak and Blanche Lincoln heads to an Arkansas senate runoff with the more liberal Bill Halter that she seems likely to lose. On the Republican side, more conservative "Tea Party" candidates did well all over, from Rand Paul in Kentucky to Art Robinson in Oregon.
This is hardly a new trend in the United States. The current highly partisan environment, in the nation's capitol and elsewhere, has been growing for at least two decades. The result has been essentially no bipartisan legislation of any kind except in economic emergencies and growing disillusion with government in general by people of all political stripes. Politicians who dare to actually talk to people of the other party and find common ground can't even receive their party's nomination anymore--just ask Bob Bennett in Utah.
While Canada hasn't decayed nearly as far, the concept of working together seems to be pretty rare here as well. At a community meeting tonight, my local Member of Parliament, Gerard Kennedy, was asked about the prospects of a coalition of left-wing parties in the next election. "People seem to have strong identities as Liberals or New Democrats," Kennedy stated, "They focus on those identities and not commonalities. That's a big problem for sitting down at the table" to even discuss a coalition. While far from calling for inter-party unity on the left, Kennedy did seem to be less than satisfied with the status quo. "We have a cultural issue here in Canada. We're more focused on identity than in finding commonalities."
Great Britain has its own problems--mostly economic--but the election there this month proved that politicians there at least understand that politics is about finding commonalities--usually called "compromises"--and getting things done. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may not be natural partners, but they found enough in common in just five days to form a government that they intend to last for a normal 4-5 year election cycle. Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg figured out how they might work together, and as a result their country has what it needs to address those economic problems (and they are rewarded as being Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively).
I'm not the first to say it, but as many people as possible need to be saying it. North American politicians need to re-learn what Cameron and Clegg demonstrated in Great Britain. Being elected means having a responsibility to govern the country, whether as part of a ruling government or majority party or as part of an opposition or minority party keeping them honest. To best represent the country as a whole, they need to speak to one another and act on their commonalities. If they aren't doing that, they aren't doing their jobs. Most politicians in North America are not doing this job, and voters need to be upset about that, not whether their representatives are ideologically pure.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Culture: Canadians Can't Sing, Either
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Examples of poor performances of the national anthem in the United States, the Star Spangled Banner, are quite common. This is hardly surprising; the melody is derived from a drinking song ("The Anacreontic Song" which was used to determine sobriety--if one could still sing it properly, one was sober) and is notoriously difficult to sing--just about everyone decides they should have started to sing it lower. Get the lyrics right, and few will complain if one misses a note.
Up here in Canada, with a national anthem having a melody that is not exceptionally difficult, a song specifically commissioned as a patriotic song, one would think there wouldn't be any problem singing "O Canada." However, that apparently is not the case. A recent study from the University of Victoria has found that only 67% of high school choral students made it through the song with two or fewer errors, and just 46% made it through without melodic errors. Lest the fact that the song was originally written in French and translated into English be blamed for the lyrical deficiency, the lowest level of proficiency was actually found in Quebec, where the original lyrics were being performed.
The lyrics of "O Canada" are a little strange. The CBC Comedy Factory brilliantly satirized some of these points in a recent podcast (skip to the last three minutes). Do hearts really glow? More significantly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a Conservative, no less) suggested after [those games in Vancouver] that perhaps "thy son's command" might be a sexist lyric, but a public outcry against that idea ended any initiative to change it earlier this year.
I think Jian Ghomeshi may have been onto something with his monologue on CBC Radio One's Q today; the fact that choral students were tested may have actually skewed the results more poorly than they would have been otherwise. Likely, in choirs, most of the focus is on things that are more difficult to sing than "O Canada." Students likely spend more time trying to get the "Star Spangled Banner" right, and aren't normally practicing their own anthem.
Still, this study is a wake-up call for Canadians. It wouldn't hurt for all Canadian students, not just choir students, to sing the national anthem more often and learn it correctly. I figure that I sang the US national anthem less a dozen times in high school, so likely Canadians sing it similarly few times. Find an excuse to do it once a week, and I wouldn't be surprised if proficiency improved significantly.
Up here in Canada, with a national anthem having a melody that is not exceptionally difficult, a song specifically commissioned as a patriotic song, one would think there wouldn't be any problem singing "O Canada." However, that apparently is not the case. A recent study from the University of Victoria has found that only 67% of high school choral students made it through the song with two or fewer errors, and just 46% made it through without melodic errors. Lest the fact that the song was originally written in French and translated into English be blamed for the lyrical deficiency, the lowest level of proficiency was actually found in Quebec, where the original lyrics were being performed.
The lyrics of "O Canada" are a little strange. The CBC Comedy Factory brilliantly satirized some of these points in a recent podcast (skip to the last three minutes). Do hearts really glow? More significantly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a Conservative, no less) suggested after [those games in Vancouver] that perhaps "thy son's command" might be a sexist lyric, but a public outcry against that idea ended any initiative to change it earlier this year.
I think Jian Ghomeshi may have been onto something with his monologue on CBC Radio One's Q today; the fact that choral students were tested may have actually skewed the results more poorly than they would have been otherwise. Likely, in choirs, most of the focus is on things that are more difficult to sing than "O Canada." Students likely spend more time trying to get the "Star Spangled Banner" right, and aren't normally practicing their own anthem.
Still, this study is a wake-up call for Canadians. It wouldn't hurt for all Canadian students, not just choir students, to sing the national anthem more often and learn it correctly. I figure that I sang the US national anthem less a dozen times in high school, so likely Canadians sing it similarly few times. Find an excuse to do it once a week, and I wouldn't be surprised if proficiency improved significantly.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Economics: Bicycling for Jobs
TORONTO, ONTARIO - It happened again today. For at least the fourth time since the recession began, I was walking down a major arterial in suburban Toronto when a bicyclist stopped to talk to me. It's always a man, carrying far too little on his back to look like he's taking a long trip, but always claiming to be on one, and appearing appropriately exhausted. He always claims to have heard about work somewhere relatively far away, and asks the best way to get there. Then, after asking if I know about any work locally, he pedals on.
This time, the man said he was coming from London, Ontario (180 kilometers away), and was heading to Belleville, Ontario (another 180 kilometers away). He asked me if the street he was on, Dundas Street West, would take him to Scarborough, where he claimed to have someone to stay with for the night. He asked how far it was to downtown, and how far it was to Belleville. I tried to answer these questions. He asked if I knew of any jobs around, or if I was working. When he found out I was unemployed, he accepted my wish of good luck and continued eastbound.
I've also encountered men with similar stories on Airport Road, Bloor Street, and other places on Dundas Street. They're always riding bicycles. They're always headed east, sometimes claiming to be going not nearly as far, perhaps just to Whitby, though I've heard Belleville before. I've heard origins from Windsor to Kitchener. They always inquire about local jobs (the man on Airport Road was especially interested in hearing how to get a job at Pearson Airport). What these men never do is beg, or make any specific request of the person they have found.
I don't know what to make of this phenomenon. I've had enough encounters now, in different places around Toronto on different days of the week, that I can't pass it off as a one-time phenomenon. If the whole thing is a made-up story for begging, it's not a particularly effective one, as they haven't gotten a thing from me other than directions and a wish of good luck. If this is all for real, then there are a number of quite desperate men out there who do have a bicycle that they're willing to ride hundreds of kilometers on the rumor of a job with not much more than the clothes on their back and their wallets. They apparently don't have access to a car or any other transportation. At least one has mentioned leaving his wife behind. All claim there are no jobs where they started. All of the incidents have been since the fall of 2008 when the recession began; I lived here for more than two years before the first encounter.
I've never had an encounter like this in the United States, either. There are certainly migrant workers all over the United States, but they don't tend to move by bicycle. Is this something peculiar to men in Canada down on their economic luck? I'd certainly like to know; next time, I guess I need to ask questions.
This time, the man said he was coming from London, Ontario (180 kilometers away), and was heading to Belleville, Ontario (another 180 kilometers away). He asked me if the street he was on, Dundas Street West, would take him to Scarborough, where he claimed to have someone to stay with for the night. He asked how far it was to downtown, and how far it was to Belleville. I tried to answer these questions. He asked if I knew of any jobs around, or if I was working. When he found out I was unemployed, he accepted my wish of good luck and continued eastbound.
I've also encountered men with similar stories on Airport Road, Bloor Street, and other places on Dundas Street. They're always riding bicycles. They're always headed east, sometimes claiming to be going not nearly as far, perhaps just to Whitby, though I've heard Belleville before. I've heard origins from Windsor to Kitchener. They always inquire about local jobs (the man on Airport Road was especially interested in hearing how to get a job at Pearson Airport). What these men never do is beg, or make any specific request of the person they have found.
I don't know what to make of this phenomenon. I've had enough encounters now, in different places around Toronto on different days of the week, that I can't pass it off as a one-time phenomenon. If the whole thing is a made-up story for begging, it's not a particularly effective one, as they haven't gotten a thing from me other than directions and a wish of good luck. If this is all for real, then there are a number of quite desperate men out there who do have a bicycle that they're willing to ride hundreds of kilometers on the rumor of a job with not much more than the clothes on their back and their wallets. They apparently don't have access to a car or any other transportation. At least one has mentioned leaving his wife behind. All claim there are no jobs where they started. All of the incidents have been since the fall of 2008 when the recession began; I lived here for more than two years before the first encounter.
I've never had an encounter like this in the United States, either. There are certainly migrant workers all over the United States, but they don't tend to move by bicycle. Is this something peculiar to men in Canada down on their economic luck? I'd certainly like to know; next time, I guess I need to ask questions.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Politics: Back to Reality in Canada
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I have to admit that I found the recent political polls showing the Conservative and Liberal parties neck-in-neck in Canada greatly comforting. It's not because of my policy and ideological biases, but because I just didn't see around me what polls had been showing in October--which was an imminent majority government for the Conservatives. While few except Liberal partisans seemed to be especially impressed with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, in particular his move to prompt an election last fall, neither was I hearing much affection for Stephen Harper. As Richard Colvin's parliamentary testimony seemed to credibly mark the present government--as well as its Liberal predecessor--as war criminals for turning over Afghan detainees to be tortured, rumblings against the government seemed to be mounting more than movement in the polls. Either political sentiment in Toronto was radically different than the rest of the country--a common contention, but one that didn't seem to fly in this case considering the interest in conservative potential mayoral candidates--or something was out of whack.
The zeitgeist on the drop in the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals from 15 points to less than two in less than three months is that the prorogation of parliament is the main cause. The Harper government had been slowly losing credibility, in part for the lackluster economy but increasingly for what was coming out in the Afghan inquiry, and prorogation--which amongst other things ended the Afghan inquiry--was a "straw that broke the camel's back," solidified the mistrust of the Harper government, and brought it back to Earth in the polls. Perhaps what I was sensing in the Toronto electorate was just slightly ahead in time compared with the national trend.
This explanation seems consistent with the fact that no single other party has substantially gained from the drop in popularity of the Conservatives. While the Liberals are up by 3 points in the Ekos poll, voters are also moving to the New Democrats, the Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois (each up by 1 points in Ekos). People may want to move away from the Conservatives, but they aren't convinced where else they should go. Basically, the polls are back where they were at during mid-year, before anyone claimed to want an election or prorogation--and they are back in equilibrium with what I think I'm hearing around me.
My impression of Canadian voters is that they are in many ways more demanding than their neighbours to the south. If a party isn't working to the benefit of the country--whether for partisan reasons or incompetence--it isn't long before they pay for it in the polls--whether the ballot box or the research firm. I was starting to wonder if maybe somehow Stephen Harper's Conservatives had somehow broken free of this accountability this fall. The latest polls indicate that they have not.
What these polls really seem to mean is that all the political parties in Canada will need to work harder to gain the support of the public to improve their electoral position before another election (which doesn't seem likely to be called anytime soon). Having all parties on their best behavior can't be a bad thing.
The zeitgeist on the drop in the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals from 15 points to less than two in less than three months is that the prorogation of parliament is the main cause. The Harper government had been slowly losing credibility, in part for the lackluster economy but increasingly for what was coming out in the Afghan inquiry, and prorogation--which amongst other things ended the Afghan inquiry--was a "straw that broke the camel's back," solidified the mistrust of the Harper government, and brought it back to Earth in the polls. Perhaps what I was sensing in the Toronto electorate was just slightly ahead in time compared with the national trend.
This explanation seems consistent with the fact that no single other party has substantially gained from the drop in popularity of the Conservatives. While the Liberals are up by 3 points in the Ekos poll, voters are also moving to the New Democrats, the Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois (each up by 1 points in Ekos). People may want to move away from the Conservatives, but they aren't convinced where else they should go. Basically, the polls are back where they were at during mid-year, before anyone claimed to want an election or prorogation--and they are back in equilibrium with what I think I'm hearing around me.
My impression of Canadian voters is that they are in many ways more demanding than their neighbours to the south. If a party isn't working to the benefit of the country--whether for partisan reasons or incompetence--it isn't long before they pay for it in the polls--whether the ballot box or the research firm. I was starting to wonder if maybe somehow Stephen Harper's Conservatives had somehow broken free of this accountability this fall. The latest polls indicate that they have not.
What these polls really seem to mean is that all the political parties in Canada will need to work harder to gain the support of the public to improve their electoral position before another election (which doesn't seem likely to be called anytime soon). Having all parties on their best behavior can't be a bad thing.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Culture: Canadian Politeness
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I have forgotten which comedian I first heard joke that Canadians apologize to their pieces of furniture when they run into them, as it's a fairly common gag. The only thing is--it's not really a joke. It's true. I have observed at least two Canadians apologize to a sofa or table after stumbling into them, and admit that this is what they had done.
Canadian politeness can be astounding at times, and it always makes me smile. One of my favorite such moments was observed from a TTC bus as I rode through what is regarded as one of Toronto's roughest neighbourhoods, near Jane and Finch. A rather mean-looking individual, someone I would suspect of gang membership even here, was walking down the sidewalk when a car pulled out of a strip mall parking lot and started toward the street. Rather than intimidating the vehicle or just staying out of its way, the man stopped and waved the car by, then kept walking after it cleared. The scene was just quintessentially Canadian.
My first special trip for railroad enthusiasts in Canada, last April out of Guelph, resulted in similar experiences. People offered each other window seats, apologized when they inadvertently got in others' pictures, and just generally seemed well-behaved. The contrast with some of the behavior seen at the Train Festival in Michigan in July could not have been greater, where one photographer ended up putting another in a headlock.
The streak of Canadian railfan politeness continued last night. Many of purist photographers were frustrated by the amount of people in their shots at the actual Canadian Pacific Holiday Train performance at West Toronto, and some of us ended up over at the Old Weston Road pedestrian crossing to try to get some obstructed shots as the train passed that location. Some arrived relatively late, and there wasn't time to coordinate a proper photo line. We did the best we could, but one guy shooting video couldn't take an especially wide shot because of people to his left, and I managed to get in someone's going-away shot because he had moved while the train was going by and I hadn't noticed that in the dark. When the train was out of sight, we all re-gathered at the crossing, and apologized to one another for making our shots more difficult than they needed to be and shared what was on our preview screens from the recent captures. A fight did not break out; in fact, friends were made.
The fact that we were following a Holiday Train designed to spread good cheer and had just watched an uplifting performance probably didn't hurt, but my experience indicates that the same thing would have happened if we had been following any train in Canada, any time of year. Canadian politeness is a powerful force, and it's a shame that it doesn't spread continent-wide.
Canadian politeness can be astounding at times, and it always makes me smile. One of my favorite such moments was observed from a TTC bus as I rode through what is regarded as one of Toronto's roughest neighbourhoods, near Jane and Finch. A rather mean-looking individual, someone I would suspect of gang membership even here, was walking down the sidewalk when a car pulled out of a strip mall parking lot and started toward the street. Rather than intimidating the vehicle or just staying out of its way, the man stopped and waved the car by, then kept walking after it cleared. The scene was just quintessentially Canadian.
My first special trip for railroad enthusiasts in Canada, last April out of Guelph, resulted in similar experiences. People offered each other window seats, apologized when they inadvertently got in others' pictures, and just generally seemed well-behaved. The contrast with some of the behavior seen at the Train Festival in Michigan in July could not have been greater, where one photographer ended up putting another in a headlock.
The streak of Canadian railfan politeness continued last night. Many of purist photographers were frustrated by the amount of people in their shots at the actual Canadian Pacific Holiday Train performance at West Toronto, and some of us ended up over at the Old Weston Road pedestrian crossing to try to get some obstructed shots as the train passed that location. Some arrived relatively late, and there wasn't time to coordinate a proper photo line. We did the best we could, but one guy shooting video couldn't take an especially wide shot because of people to his left, and I managed to get in someone's going-away shot because he had moved while the train was going by and I hadn't noticed that in the dark. When the train was out of sight, we all re-gathered at the crossing, and apologized to one another for making our shots more difficult than they needed to be and shared what was on our preview screens from the recent captures. A fight did not break out; in fact, friends were made.
The fact that we were following a Holiday Train designed to spread good cheer and had just watched an uplifting performance probably didn't hurt, but my experience indicates that the same thing would have happened if we had been following any train in Canada, any time of year. Canadian politeness is a powerful force, and it's a shame that it doesn't spread continent-wide.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Politics: What Has Harper Done?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the United States, President Obama has gotten a lot of negative press lately for a lack of accomplishments in the office. The epitome of the criticism came nearly two months ago on Saturday Night Live skit, featured in this Fox news report. Fred Armisen as Obama describes his successes as two--jack and squat. However, while Obama may have little to show for his administration to this point, even his opponents would never say that he has been lazy and not trying to advance his agenda. Between the economic collapse, two wars, health care reform, climate change initiatives, and other measures, there is no question what Obama has been trying to do, whether he has accomplished it or not.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in office far longer than Obama and in fact has been elected twice, in 2006 and 2008. Yet, I cannot think of single significant accomplishment of his government since the 2008 election. A stimulus package was passed, but based on what was happening a year ago (refresh your memory if needed), that only occurred because otherwise the opposition would have toppled his government, not by the government's own initiative. What else? Nothing comes to mind. Go back to the 2006-2008 government, and there are some symbolic domestic measures (declaring Quebec a "nation" and the apology for the native residential schools), but no other notable legislation. It seems to me that far more so than Obama, it is the Harper government that has exactly two accomplishments--jack and squat.
Furthermore, I can't point to what significant legislation the government has even been trying to get through parliament. There's no climate change legislation, or energy policy. There's no change in tax policy. What exactly is this government trying to do? Based on the last publication from my local Member of Parliament, just about everything on the legislative docket is a crime bill of some kind. Liberals claim this is to "scare the public before the next election," but whatever it is, the government itself isn't talking much about it.
It is a major indictment of the opposition Liberals that they have not been able to articulate a vision of doing ANYTHING that might be more popular than the apparent do-nothing stance of the government. It should be easy to build opposition to a government without obvious accomplishments, but they haven't yet done it. Considering how pathetic that is, it is little wonder that the public continues to favor the ruling Conservatives.
For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, though, the record should be ominous. A government without significant legislation to point to, and no clear articulated vision to advance in the future, can only run on a record of competence and fear of the unknown competence of the opposition. Inevitably, all governments make mistakes and seem incompetent--when that moment comes, the fear seems insignificant. If it continues on its current course, the Harper Conservatives will face such a moment someday--and they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in office far longer than Obama and in fact has been elected twice, in 2006 and 2008. Yet, I cannot think of single significant accomplishment of his government since the 2008 election. A stimulus package was passed, but based on what was happening a year ago (refresh your memory if needed), that only occurred because otherwise the opposition would have toppled his government, not by the government's own initiative. What else? Nothing comes to mind. Go back to the 2006-2008 government, and there are some symbolic domestic measures (declaring Quebec a "nation" and the apology for the native residential schools), but no other notable legislation. It seems to me that far more so than Obama, it is the Harper government that has exactly two accomplishments--jack and squat.
Furthermore, I can't point to what significant legislation the government has even been trying to get through parliament. There's no climate change legislation, or energy policy. There's no change in tax policy. What exactly is this government trying to do? Based on the last publication from my local Member of Parliament, just about everything on the legislative docket is a crime bill of some kind. Liberals claim this is to "scare the public before the next election," but whatever it is, the government itself isn't talking much about it.
It is a major indictment of the opposition Liberals that they have not been able to articulate a vision of doing ANYTHING that might be more popular than the apparent do-nothing stance of the government. It should be easy to build opposition to a government without obvious accomplishments, but they haven't yet done it. Considering how pathetic that is, it is little wonder that the public continues to favor the ruling Conservatives.
For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, though, the record should be ominous. A government without significant legislation to point to, and no clear articulated vision to advance in the future, can only run on a record of competence and fear of the unknown competence of the opposition. Inevitably, all governments make mistakes and seem incompetent--when that moment comes, the fear seems insignificant. If it continues on its current course, the Harper Conservatives will face such a moment someday--and they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Politics: Coming Around on Carbon
Member of Parliament Gerard Kennedy spoke at a town meeting at Runnymede Public School in Toronto, Ontario on 17-October-2009
TORONTO, ONTARIO - One of my favorite Canadian stories to tell outside this country is about a day in 2007 that I decided to attend an event in my neighbourhood put on by then candidate-designee Gerard Kennedy to promote his "Carbon Challenge" within the community. The public meeting was held in St. Pius X Catholic School, a building I had never entered before. It turns out that Kennedy wasn't particularly familiar with the building, either. By chance, I encountered him walking with an aide from the subway station to the school--and it took the three of us several minutes to find the door that we were supposed to be using to access the auditorium. Kennedy had been a serious candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party just months before (in the convention that anointed Stéphane Dion), and not only was he so human that he wasn't sure how to get in to his own event, but he had arrived by public transit! The thought of, say, John Edwards, being in a similar situation in the United States was unthinkable.
Now Kennedy is the Member of Parliament for the Parkdale-High Park riding in which I live and the Critic for Infrastructure, Communities and Cities. Some things do not change, though. While the door to a Town Meeting event he held this Saturday at the Runnymede Public School may have been well-marked, it was clear that he was not operating with an extravagant budget. The projector for his presentations was balky and never really worked correctly, and there were issues with the handouts. Volunteers outnumbered paid staff by a large margin. The Liberals might be one of the two major parties in Canada, but they are clearly not rolling in money.
I attended the meeting largely to hear Kennedy's take on what is happening in parliament and in politics generally, and while some of his statements reflected the Liberal party line widely seen elsewhere, he did say a number of interesting things. On a very local issue, he offered a different take on the recent Metrolinx policy on the Georgetown Line commuter rail expansion (which has been well-covered in substance by Steve Munro). He thinks the specification of "Tier IV diesels" as mandatory for Georgetown Line trains, a technology that is not commercially available, serves as a step toward revising the plan to call for electrification, which obviously is an available technology. "I don't think this issue is completely in stone yet," he stated.
Most interesting to me was his take on what has always been a key issue for him, the environment. During the 2008 campaign, a key issue in the riding was the difference between the climate change initiatives between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP). The Liberals had offered the infamous Carbon Tax, which while really an interesting and more widely-based reform of the nation's tax structure addressed carbon dioxide emissions through direct taxation, whereas the NDP favored cap-and-trade measures on carbon dioxide emission which would be compatible with what then-candidate Obama was proposing in the United States. The NDP argued that cap-and-trade would have the same impact as a carbon tax in a manner that would be more compatible with other programs around the globe, an argument rejected by the Liberals, who claimed that industry could game a cap-and-trade system.
While he made it clear that the Liberal Party position with respect to the upcoming Copenhagen conference has yet to be determined, Kennedy stated on Saturday that "the minimum acceptable outcome from Copenhagen will be a cap and trade plan." At another point, he pointed out, "in effect, cap and trade properly implemented is a tax on carbon." I happen to intellectually agree with these statements, and it was nice to see a leading Liberal politician use such language which he refused to use during the campaign.
And the zeitgeist on the next Federal election as assessed by Kennedy? "It looks like we won't have an election until after the Olympics, at the earliest."
Friday, October 9, 2009
Politics: An Anti-Muslim Government
TORONTO, ONTARIO - One thing I neglected to mention in my post earlier this week on the best place for Muslims to live is that while I crossed paths with quite a number of Muslims in the United States and had conversations with them about the impact of their faith, I have never had such a conversation in Canada. In fact, I suspect that no Canadian Muslims are reading this blog, either, since neither public nor private comments were generated pointing out that the post missed a major point--Canadians as individual citizens may be less fearful and more accepting of Muslims than their southern neighbors, but the government has clearly demonstrated a bias against them in matters of diplomacy and citizenship.
The examples of this apparent bias just in the past two years could fill a week of these posts. Omar Khadr remains the only western prisoner remaining in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp run by the United States. Would the Canadian government really have ignored court rulings saying that they had to seek Khadr's extradition if he had been of European descent? I doubt it. Most recently, Suaad Mohamud was arrested in Kenya for trying to return to Canada because officials suspected she was really her sister. It's unthinkable that the same thing would have happened to someone of European descent. For more examples, just check out this essay from the Ryerson Free Press.
Opposition leaders have tried to force the government to act or explain itself in cases including those of Khadr and Mohamud to no avail. Some, including the editors of the Ryerson Free Press, have suggested that Muslims (and also all those of Arab descent) are treated as less than citizens by the Canadian government. Whether true or not, certainly a number of Muslims do feel that this is the case.
Of course, it wouldn't take all that much to change the situation. No laws need to change. A new government--or even this the current Conservative one, if it so chose--could make a point of publicly stating that there is only one kind of Canadian citizenship that includes Muslims, take action on open cases like Khadr, and then the attractiveness of Canada for Muslims would shine through. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party leader, has used similar language in some recent speeches. However, with the current plunge of the Liberal Party in the polls, a change in outward stance of the government is not likely.
So, regardless of the suitability of the society on a day-to-day basis, the perception (and perhaps reality) that the government is biased against Muslims probably ensures that they prefer the United States or other countries over Canada, completely debunking my thesis from the post earlier this week.
The examples of this apparent bias just in the past two years could fill a week of these posts. Omar Khadr remains the only western prisoner remaining in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp run by the United States. Would the Canadian government really have ignored court rulings saying that they had to seek Khadr's extradition if he had been of European descent? I doubt it. Most recently, Suaad Mohamud was arrested in Kenya for trying to return to Canada because officials suspected she was really her sister. It's unthinkable that the same thing would have happened to someone of European descent. For more examples, just check out this essay from the Ryerson Free Press.
Opposition leaders have tried to force the government to act or explain itself in cases including those of Khadr and Mohamud to no avail. Some, including the editors of the Ryerson Free Press, have suggested that Muslims (and also all those of Arab descent) are treated as less than citizens by the Canadian government. Whether true or not, certainly a number of Muslims do feel that this is the case.
Of course, it wouldn't take all that much to change the situation. No laws need to change. A new government--or even this the current Conservative one, if it so chose--could make a point of publicly stating that there is only one kind of Canadian citizenship that includes Muslims, take action on open cases like Khadr, and then the attractiveness of Canada for Muslims would shine through. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party leader, has used similar language in some recent speeches. However, with the current plunge of the Liberal Party in the polls, a change in outward stance of the government is not likely.
So, regardless of the suitability of the society on a day-to-day basis, the perception (and perhaps reality) that the government is biased against Muslims probably ensures that they prefer the United States or other countries over Canada, completely debunking my thesis from the post earlier this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)