Prince's Trust

Prince Edward Island is one of the most beautiful and picturesque provinces in Canada. It is also one of the most politically astute island communities in the country. Yesterday the electorate had a plebiscite on electoral reform. It was combination of the traditional "first past the post" system with proportional representation. Voters would essentially vote twice: once for the candidate and then for a runner up based on the percentage of votes in the pool. Seventeen members would have been elected in districts across the Island in the standard system. Ten more seats would have been awarded by the popular vote.
 
The people voted NO to this type of electoral reform. The spin from the Premier's office was that they weren't "ready" for the change. The Yes side, and they did have two camps arguing the case, said the government wasn't selling the proposition very well.
You have to understand that PEI’s politics is not run-of-the-mill. Everybody participates. The voter turn out in provincial elections is usually around 80 percent of eligible voters. That's a higher participation rate the Federal vote and considerably higher than most provinces.
 
The residents of PEI enjoy the process. They talk amongst themselves and they argue politics over the dinner table and picket fences. Perhaps the change in the system isn't strong enough or the people of PEI are satisfied that they are being heard by their government. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada, the notion of proportional representation is popular. It even made the platform of the Federal NDP and has been discussed in Ontario. For some reason, the Conservatives are mum on the issue, which seems strange because it would favour them immensely.
 
One thing is certain: some Canadians aren't ready for electoral reform.
 
Pity.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

My Sharona

It’s been an interesting week in the political life of Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel. He quit the Likud Party that he founded 30 years ago, called an election and has the confidence to run as a candidate with a whole new party. Sharon’s confidence is as big as his waistline, it appears, as he tries to fend off the opposition under his own resources.

I suspect the death of Yassir Arafat has a lot to do with the decision. Sharon’s chief adversary is dead and now he can rule the country without wasting resources on the Palestinians. Another factor is the strength of his popularity in Israel. Clearly, he wouldn’t have called an election or quit the party if he didn’t think he could win. No leader in a parliamentary democracy ever calls an election unless victory was assured.

Note the name of his new party: the National Responsibility Party. [I wonder if we can start a Canadian version?] Seriously, Sharon has quietly turned the political corner this year. His objectives to finding a peaceful relationship with the Palestinians must be taken at face value. Perhaps he truly does want to be remembered as the great peacemaker in the Middle East. He’s certainly very popular and generally liked by the electorate, but unlike Willy Loman, “is he well liked?” We’ll find out next March.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Size Matters

The City of Toronto has been under the architectural scrutiny of its municipal council in the past couple of weeks. Two extremely tall structures were denied construction because the local residents were against it. Suddenly, the community has won a couple of victories over bad design and poor location. I guess some of the people of Toronto have seen enough of skyscrapers for now. [tall condos have already ruined the waterfront]

Alas, this has not been a pleasant week for the ideas of two developers, including one Harry Stinson, the brash entrepreneur who buys up downtown lots and former bank towers only to convert them into a studio apartments for the “traveling set”. He wanted to put a new 91 story building right downtown near City Hall. The community rejected the plan.

Similarly, a 75 story tower was proposed for the site beside the Royal Ontario Museum in the posh University and Bloor neighbourhood. It too, was soundly defeated in a community meeting the week before. The people spoke up. The city councilors listened and the shovels never made to the ground. But some business people, politicians and the Globe and Mail newspaper think it was a mistake. They complain about the lack of downtown residents to liven up the city. They suggest that tall buildings are symbolic of a great city like Hong Kong or New York.

I always thought that great cities were made up of neighbourhoods. Places where people raised families and shared cultural ideas. Communities where ethnicity was accepted at face value and encouraged for its European ties and great food.

All politics is local, someone once retorted. While the view from an office tower is very pleasant at sundown, the real vision is on the streets with the people on the ground.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Chocolate Boisclair

André Boisclair is the new leader of Canada’s premiere separatist party, the Parti Quebecois. He’s young, handsome, gay and a former cocaine user. He was raised in Outremont, known as the richer side of Montreal, went to the finest schools in Canada and the United States and now leads the party built by René Levesque.

Once again, another intellectual takes the Quebec stage and tries to do the right thing. This has been the case since Levesque was first elected in 1976: Quebec independence. Even though he stalled during the leadership campaign, Boisclair owned-up when he won it by declaring an independence vote in his first term. Trouble is, he has to be elected Premier first then the question will rise up again like Dracula and try to quench its thirst with a Yes vote for sovereignty association or some constitutional configuration.

At this point, it’s all in the future, but at least Boisclair will have the time to write a clear question requiring a Yes or No answer. In 1980, Levesque and the Yes side were soundly defeated. In 1995, Jacques Parizeau, and the Yes side were narrowly defeated. Could a third attempt finally push the independence question over the top?

It all depends on how people feel about themselves at the time. The question of Quebec independence relies on an individual’s circumstances, economically and socially speaking. The power lies in feeling you’re a part of something better. This is usually experienced at massive rallies in hockey rinks. But once you step into the ballot box, it’s a solitary experience. You might panic and vote No or you might hold your nose and vote Yes or you might spoil the ballot in disgust.

The new leader has to make supporters feel that they’re not voting in isolation. Self-determination is a highly intellectual and liberating process. It’s up to Boisclair to remind his constituents and the people of Quebec that supporting independence will make them feel better.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Minority Report

Canada’s loyal opposition is in the hunt for an election. Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are anxious to go to the polls, hoping to find the oasis of democracy to quench their collective thirst for a vote.

Well, the people aren’t so ready, having little faith in the leaders, their platforms and their rhetoric. But the real issue facing the opposition is who’s going to be the election scapegoat? Not one leader wants to be burdened with the fall of the government because it will not bode well during the campaign. Some voters will lay the blame on them and vote Liberal. Others will simply stay home. [that much can be predicted]

So Messrs. Harper, Layton and Duceppe try to spread the blame by introducing a motion to suggest a January vote. The government, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin, isn’t interested because they know that the party that pulls the plug in a non-confidence vote will take a political beating.

It’s one of those, “shit or get off the pot” scenarios, too and it all proves the point that our federal leaders lack any vision of what this country should be and where it should be going. All they discuss is how to manage the country, not to any specific idea of what Canada should look like in the future.

Keep an eye out for these confusing messages about management. They’re often disguised as a vision, but they’re not. Alas, the days of Trudeau, Levesque, Pearson, Douglas, and Diefenbaker are long gone. They were passionate men with a vision, whether you agreed with it or not, offering voters a real choice. The only choice the people have now is whether or not to vote.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Liberty Balance

This past Wednesday, Tony Blair suffered a major defeat, according to the press, after “losing” a decision that would have increased powers to the police. The legislation has to do with the fight on terror, British style, and to allow police to hold “terror” suspects, without charge for 14 days. Blair, in his wisdom, wanted to change that number to 90, but his government was out voted and the number was reduced to 28. This means that police can arrest a person they suspect has broken the law for four weeks without charging them with a particular crime.

The United States has a similar law, passed 45 days after September 11, 2001. It’s called the Patriot Act. Although approved by congress, most of the senators and representatives didn’t read it. Similar legislation exists in Britain, but it looks like their MPs take the time to think about the implications of such laws.

The mainstream media missed the real story by emphasizing the political implications for the Prime Minister of Britain. What they need to report on is the increasing number of laws passed over the last 4 years that restrict civil liberties. The Patriot Act, so named in the best Orwellian language, was only noted briefly by the press because the shock of the terrorist attacks on NYC was still fresh in their minds. What better than to quickly pass highly restrictive legislation when everyone is looking the other way. [some might call this a weapon of mass distraction]

Benjamin Franklin once said, “they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Clearly, our notions of how safe we feel are completely subjective, be it walking down a dark alley at night or boarding an airplane. How certain can we be?

In Britain they need 28 days to be sure.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Let Them Eat Cake

The violence in the streets of Paris continues as tempers flare and the government sends in the police to make arrests and control the outcome. The spark of the riots was literally due to two students who died at a power station in Clichy-sous-Bois, north of Paris. They were electrocuted after trying to escape a police chase. Apparently, the police are not claiming responsibility for their actions. Regardless, it’s often a simple misunderstanding that starts major conflicts because some people are already feeling angry.

In France, the land of fine cheese and wine, political protests are part of its history. The revolution beginning in 1789, had a similar start. It was a reaction to the changing face of the country: a call to rule by the people instead of the monarchy. Other causes included the changing economic face of the nation and the growing separation between the rich and the poor.

Today, it’s a similar scene: a growing resentment of the ruling order, a rising number of poor people and, most importantly, the struggle of the ethnic class. Like the outdated feudalism of the 18th Century, the people, especially those who are Muslims, are looking for equality. They want economic fairness and racial equity within the existing system. The riots of the past couple weeks are symptoms of the greater problem.

Civil disobedience is a better method of political protest. In fact, a recent march of 1,000 people last Saturday proved to the world a growing number of local residents want change. It took some courage to march through the very territory where all this is happening. On the other hand, one can understand why the pent up anger is fueling these riots but that doesn’t excuse the perpetrators.

France has a long history of practical, political ideas. What it needs now is a little reason over passion.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

November 7th marks an important birthday. In 1879, Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. He died in Mexico in 1940.

The World According to Gomery

In 1995, when the Quebec referendum was held, Jean Chretien put everything he could into a political campaign to save the federation known as Canada. It worked, barely, as the No side won a victory as thin as a razor blade, in a vote against sovereignty association. [That vote was held October 30, 1995]
 
Chretien, in order to keep the federation united, took on the personal responsibility of running a program to promote the national government in Quebec. The purpose was two-fold: maintain a federal presence in the province and boost the local Liberal Party's failing support. In other words, fly more Canadian flags.
 
Unfortunately, the plan backfired. Instead of boosting federalism, Chretien hired the wrong people, all of whom wanted to work the system to their advantage. They were caught by an audit in 2004, for misuse of public funds, kickback schemes and a lot of free lunches. The Gomery Report released this week, followed months of hearings into the fiasco. Over 1,400 pages of testimony and documentation revealed the mess, commonly known as the "sponsorship scandal".
 
While it's still too early to judge who is guilty, I find it ironic that Chretien’s efforts to maintain good relations with Quebec came back and bit him on the ass.
 
He carried the weight of every federalist Canadian on his shoulders for several weeks in 1995 and Chretien couldn't let it go. He did his best to maintain a federal presence in Quebec and he failed. The pundits will probably say that it’s the greatest political failure of his career.

Future leaders should pay heed to the warning: don't mess with Quebec because it’s a fragile relationship that often needs a little TLC, instead of more flags.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.