Quebec as a Nation, time to move on

I had resolved to wash my hands of the Liberal leadership race. All I saw were the different camps tearing into each other creating a great deal of bitterness and no real debate on policy or vision.

It was really starting to irritate me because it was creating the same conditions that existed after the Chretien/Martin fiasco of 1990. I would have thought Liberals would have learned from that. So I said to hell with it. Liberals deserve their fate for being such short sighted idiots.

However, the whole Quebec Nation Resolution came up and I found it too compelling to ignore.

I decided to attempt to find a different perspective than what I was mostly finding on Liblogs. I decided to learn the perspective of Quebecers themselves. Antonio at Fuddle Duddle was a good source as were the Quebec papers but I also asked many of my francophone colleagues about it. Their response was the resolution is just a statement of fact. It is a non-issue. However, what really floored me was I received the same response from my Anglophone friends in Montreal who from time to time have involved themselves in the English rights movement in Quebec over the last 25 years.

I have seen all of the arguments against why Quebec is not a nation. They are intelligent, cogent and logical and I agree with them 100%. However, I would submit that when there is a consensus amongst Quebecers of all political and linguistic stripes that Quebec is a nation the argument is over and we have lost it. No amount of logic will change that so we might just as well accept it and move on to the next step.

That is, how are we going to deal with it?

Unfortunately, our main political opponents, the Conservatives, have stumbled upon an answer, which is to divest pretty well all Federal powers to the provinces and leave the Federal Government as an empty shell.

I believe that this is completely unacceptable to most Liberals but unfortunately it does resonate with a sizable part of the Quebec population, and not just amongst separatists. So Liberals are going to have to come up with a viable alternative to the Conservative model and it seems to me that a necessary first step would be to acknowledge something Quebecers already take for granted as fact, namely acknowledging Quebec is a nation. It pains me to write that but it will not do me any good to remain in denial about this and I don't think it will do the country any good if Liberals also remain in denial.

Of course what happens after that acknowledgement is critical and I am not certain that I trust Dr. Ignatieff on this.

However, none of his opponents have been particularly effective on handling the issue. I am particularly disappointed in Mr. Rae. He supported both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords and he was at the table for both so he has some experience in this. He has first hand experience of what does not work. I would have thought that experience would have resulted in a much more nuanced response to Dr. Ignatieff's position. Instead he resorts to cheap politicking.

I hope that Liberals will see this as more than just a Liberal leadership issue and that they will really engage in debate on how to deal with the fact of Quebec nationhood. We have a lot of smart people in the Party, and several of them are vying for its leadership, and I would hope that they will put their collective heads together to develop an alternative to what the Conservatives are peddling.

The alternative is not Quebec separation but it is Stephen Harper being given a free hand to disembowel the Federal Government and transform this great country into a disunited gaggle of faux provinces, something I think most of us can agree is a much bigger issue than who will lead the Liberal Party.

Iggy, by a nose, on the third ballot

I have had some time to digest the results of super weekend and the subsequent two weeks and barring any major changes to the current leadership dynamic I believe that the above result will be the final one.

Before I begin to explain my reasons let me state that I am not a delegate at the upcoming convention, nor am I a partisan for any of the different leadership camps. I am just a Liberal who voted during super weekend and it just so happens it was not for Iggy. It was for one of the three that are bunched up behind him.

So my conclusion is an educated guess, based on how the race has gone so far and based on my take of the dynamics that I believe will be at play during the next six weeks.

First let's state the obvious. Iggy is the front runner (Well d'uh!) and that gives him a natural advantage going into the final stretch of the race.

Second, there is an "Anybody but Iggy" movement afoot but it is amorphous and for it to work it has to coalesce on one of the three who are trailing him. The question is who?

That is where we find the first problem for the anti-Iggy crowd. Each of the three contenders behind him have a legitimate shot at winning this thing and to make matters worse each of them sincerely believes they have a legitimate shot at winning this thing. That dynamic is going to work against each one because they are going to be as busy trying to separate themselves from the crowd as they are trying to knock off Iggy. The result could be neither of them will be able to present themselves as THE alternative to Iggy before the convention. I thought that Bob Rae might have begun doing so but his recent troubles in BC have probably caused him to drop back into the pack.

As well, it will create the situation where neither of them will be able to reach out to the other for support without creating the perception that they are showing weakness or that they are giving up the battle. Iggy does not have to worry about that and it would not surprise me one bit if it were revealed that some of his people have already reached out to the people of the other three to build up some alliances and to plant some seeds.

That leads to yet another dynamic that is probably at play. It would surprise me a great deal if Iggy's people have not been pressing the Brison and Dryden camps to join Iggy's using his frontrunner status to lever their support towards him. Such an approach could be effective because both have personal ambitions that he can play to.

Mr. Dryden is approaching the end of his working career and he will not want to be relegated to the back bench or to a junior ministry in a future Liberal government. He will want a position of prominence and maybe some influence. So part of his consideration on who to support for the leadership will be the one who can meet that need. Playing the odds, that is currently Iggy and Iggy's camp is probably pushing that point hard.

Mr. Brison's leadership ambitions will not fade with this race and he will want to put himself into a position of prominence and influence in a future Liberal government, something that will not happen in if he backs the wrong horse. Again, Iggy is currently the safe bet for the realization of his ambitions because Iggy is currently in the most credible position to offer Mr. Brison what he wants.

Incidently, the same dynamic is at play for Mr. Kennedy. He did not leave a great job in the Ontario government to fade off into political oblivion. If it becomes apparent to him that he cannot win he will choose the one he believes can facilitate his future ambitions. If that happens to be Iggy, that is who he will back. As well, a seemingly minor consideration but he wants to run in his old Ontario riding, something only Iggy can credibly promise at this time.

So, I believe, that one of the three contenders bunched up behind Iggy will have to break from the pack within the next two weeks so as to give the anti-Iggy crowd a champion to rally around. If that does not happen then Iggy, as the perceived front runner, will begin to pick up support from those who want something from him and from those who just want to be able to claim they backed a winner.

End of an era

For those of you who are like me and have an interest in all things aviation you may find this interesting.

http://www.navytimes.com/static.php?f=lastF14flight080206.php

It's Official, the world is going to hell

When word of the arrests in London hit the Ottawa International Airport this morning they actually shut down the Tim Horton's, in the main terminal, for a few hours.

When weary air travellers are not able to buy a cup of Timmy's coffee there can be only one explanation.

Someone please refresh my memory. Is that not one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Israel's actions could have harmed its security, Part 2

This post will deal with some of the strategic security issues that have arisen as a result of Israel's action in the current crisis.

For Israel the big strategic issue is Iran. A few weeks ago I posted a blog arguing that Iran had instructed its vassal, Hezbollah, to provoke the Israelis for both domestic political reasons and to facilitate its nuclear weapons program. As I stated back then it was very apparent that it was just a matter of time before Israel and/or the United States would strike Iran's nuclear weapons programme. So it was in Iran's interest to provoke the inevitable at a time of their choosing. It would cost them some progress in their nuclear weapons programme but it would also facilitate the completion of it over the long term.

Israel's actions might have saved Iran the cost of such a strike. With the Israelis involved in a protracted conflict with Hezbollah the appetite amongst the Israeli people for further actions against Iran is likely to diminish. Israelis would probably not support anything but a token strike on Iran. One that would give the perception of dealing with Iran but not really do much damage to its nuclear ambitions. As well, with George Bush's approval ratings in the duldrums, largely as the result of the occupation of Iraq, his ability to launch military strikes against Iran are limited. In addition, the one state that kept Iran in check in the past, Iraq, is going through a civil war and is no threat to Iran. Therefore, there is great potential that Iran will be able to develop nuclear weapons with little or no interference for several years. I think many of us can agree that such a situation would not be good for the security of Israel.

For the Middle East in general the growing influence of Iran is also a threat to the security and stability of the moderate Arab states and if Iran managed to develop nuclear weapons their security and stability are even more threatened. That is the reason why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have condemned Hezbollah. They know as Hezbollah goes so goes Iran. They know that a nuclear armed Iran is as much a threat to them as it is to Israel. In an indirect fashion Israel's actions have made the lives of the leaders of these countries much more interesting and dangerous.

Now why has this situation come to pass?

The answer is Israel's strategy towards its neighbours. It has chosen a strategy of belligerence against its neighbours. Part of that strategy is the acceptance of casualties amongst Israeli civilians and its military. They are "acceptable losses" to the Israeli government. Another part of that strategy is when Israel is attacked, Israel retaliates, hard. This has been their strategy for almost 40 years and its enemies have figured it out and are trying to use it against them.

Recall if you will Saddam Hussein and the first Gulf War. As the air war phase of that war began Saddam Hussein began raining Scud missiles down on Israeli cities. Why did he do that? Simple, he was trying to provoke an attack by Israel on Iraq. He knew that such an attack would shatter the fragile consensus, amongst the Arab governments, against him. That in turn would have made the job of kicking him out of Kuwait much more difficult and if he could not hang on to it he might have received some favourable terms for his withdrawel, saving himself and his army.

You might also recall that the only reason why Israel did not strike back at Iraq was because George Bush Sr. practically got down on his knees and begged Israel to hold its fire.

Now Saddam Hussein is not the coldest beer in the fridge. So if he was able to figure a way to use Israel's strategy towards its neighbours against them, others certainly would.

Hezbollah and Iran did and we have seen the results in the past three weeks. Hezbollah has been preparing for the current conflict for months if not years and when they and their Iranian overlords thought the time was right they did something to provoke Israel. And like a Pavlovian dog Israel did exactly what was expected of them and they have been paying the price ever since and they could pay an even greater price in the future.

Three weeks ago Israel's security was not seriously threatened. In the intervening three weeks it is not nearly as secure as it was before all of this started. That is the result of both tactical and strategic blunders in its response to the provocative actions of Hezbollah. By reacting in a wholly predictable fashion to those provocations they have played into the hands of their enemies and they could have actually reduced their security for the future.

Israel's actions could have harmed its security, Part 1

I thought I would post a blog on some of the security implications of Israel's actions in the current crisis in the Middle East.

I am coming at this from a realpolitic point of view instead of the point of view of whether their actions are moral, ethical or legal.

Over the last three weeks Israel has committed both tactical and strategic blunders that could significantly reduce its security. This post will deal with the tactical errors and the more local security issues and I will post a blog tomorrow that will deal with its strategic errors and there broader security issues, issues related to Israeli security and security in the broader Middle East.

From a tactical perspective the Israelis attacked Hezbollah too early. It's forces on the border were not sufficient to defeat Hezbollah quickly, especially since I believe Hezbollah had been preparing for just such an attack and hoped to provoke one by capturing those Israeli soldiers.

Despite the fact the IDF had forces on the border that were superior to Hezbollah's in armour, and artillery, Hezbollah has neither; despite the overwhelming air supemacy of the Israeli airforce; they could not defeat Hezbollah's forces quickly and decisively. In fact the exact opposite is true. In addition, Hezbollah is holding its own in a real high intensity fight as opposed to fighting the Israeli army by means of suicide bombers and other such low intensity tactics.

The result is the status of the mighty Israeli army has been tarnished. Its once mythical status as being virtually invincible has taken a hit and that fact will not be lost on all of the other enemies of Israel.

Another more far reaching and more serious security concern is the rise in status of Hezbollah both in Lebanon and in the Arab world. With each passing day its status grows. There will come a point, and that point might have already passed, where the military defeat of Hezbollah will be irrelevant. It's status and influence in the Middle East will be solidified and it will not go away.

With regard to the Lebanese, many more of them may begin to support Hezbollah as a result of their successes on the battlefield, especially when they begin to compare that to the utter impotence of the Lebanese army in protecting Lebanon and its people. As well, as many have pointed out Hezbollah has representation in the Lebanese government. If support for them grows so will their influence in the Lebanese government. As we all know, Iran is one of the chief backers of Hezbollah, so if it gains influence in the Lebanese government so does Iran. It is not good for Israel if Iran manages to increase its influence in a country that shares a border with Israel.

With regard to the Middle East in general there is a danger that Hezbollah will become a major player on the Middle Eastern scene. If it does become a major player it will have influence in parts of the Middle East that heretofore have been relatively peaceful and stable from the Israeli point of view.

There is precedent for such a situation. Despite successive military defeats the status of the PLO continued to rise from the '70s through the '90s to the point where Israel had no choice but to recognise its legitimacy and begin negotiating with it. Now the status of the PLO has wained as has that of Hamas creating a bit of a vacuum, which could be filled by Hezbollah as a result of the current crisis.

Tomorrow I will expand upon the possible security implications of the current crisis as they apply to the strategic security of Israel and the broader security and stability of the Middle East. As well, I will make a suggestion of why Israel finds itself in this predicament.

Some things Liberals could and should be talking about

Here are a list of topics that Liberals in general and the Liberal candidates in particular could be talking about.

With each topic I have included some general questions that could facilitate a debate.

Vision for the Liberal Party: Where do you want to take the party? Why do you want to take it in that direction? Why should Liberals follow you in that direction?

Liberal Party Renewal: How do you propose to change membership rules? How do you propose to deal with the fundraising issue? How do you propose to change the administration of the Liberal Party to prevent people like the 10 Liberals in Quebec who brought us Adscam from ever having positions of trust within the party?

I think it is sad that a relative newcomer to the Party and someone who is not a leadership candidate stole a march on both the leadership candidates and a commission set up to renew the Liberal Party.

Vision for Canada: Where do you want to take Canada? Why do you want to take it in that direction? Why should Canadians follow you in that direction?

Vision for Canada can be summed up with one simple yet vital question: Why do you want to be PM?

Here are some policy topics that would be worth debating. (It is by no means exhaustive.)

Fiscal policy: What is your position on the balance between taxes, programme spending, debt reduction and budget surpluses?

Health Care: What is your position on the increased privatization of Canada's health care system? If you agree with it, why? If you disagree with it, why and how do you propose to stop it or at least slow it down?

Trade: With the functional failure of the NAFTA how do you propose to protect Canadian industries from the predations of other protectionist industries in the US? How do you propose to assist the Canadian agriculture industry if the Doha Round of the WTO talks fail, which is a distinct possibility? What steps would you take to assist Canadian industries in diversifying their export markets?

Foreign Policy: How do you propose to maintain a good working relationship with the United States? What is your vision for Canada's place in the post 9/11 world and how do you propose to get us there? How do you propose to protect Canada's interests and sovereignty in a international environment dominated by an aggressive hyperpower?

Defence Policy: Canada has increased defence spending but there is no overarching plan on what Canada's defence policy should be. Kind of makes wasting a fair chunk of that money inevitable. So what would you propose Canada's military role in the world should be? What would you propose as the post 9/11 defence strategy for Canada?

Environmental policy: Kyoto has failed in Canada. What would you propose to replace it? What would you consider to be Canada's greatest environmental need and how would you address it?

Social Programs: How would you protect them? Do you have any proposals for new social programs? If so, what are they and why do Canadians need them?

Aboriginal Policy: What do you propose to help First Canadians to escape the cycle of poverty that many of them live in?

These are just a few issues that the Liberal leadership candidates can be talking about.

I realize that it is unrealistic to expect them to talk about all of the issues in depth but it would be nice if they began talking about some of them in a sustained debate.

I also realize that talking about trivialities is a part of all political campaigns but I think it is unfortunate when campaigns are dominated by such trivialities instead of debate about substantial and substantive issues. I also believe that in the Liberal leadership race the dominance of debates about trivial issues will ultimately be self-defeating for the party.

The Liberals are in serious trouble if they do not get their act together

This post is going to be something of a rant.

Today, I found myself defending Michael Ignatieff for his lack of a statement on the current crisis in the Middle East. Which is curious because I am still undecided in this race, but I have narrowed the field down to three possibilities and he is not one of the them.

So I began reflecting on the reason why I was defending him. That lead, in the convoluted way my brain works, to reflection on the leadership race as it has so far unfolded.

My conclusion is I am concerned about how the race is unfolding and I found the attacks on Dr. Ignatieff to be evidence of a malaise that has permeated the race. That malaise manifests itself as petty criticisms of issues that in the grander scheme of things will not have an impact on any future election.

In order for the Liberal Party to win the next election it must renew itself and all of the leadership candidates must articulate a vision of where they want to take the Liberal Party and where they want to take the country. That is the debate we should be having. We should be debating on what needs to be done to renew the Liberal Party. The leadership candidates and their supporters should be debating competing visions and competing policy options. That will give Liberals and Canadians a true sense of the leadership qualities of the candidates and of the worth of the Liberal Party.

It is useless, shortsighted and petty to be debating such things as whether Dr. Ignatieff should have made a statement or whether the reason why he did not make a statement was because of the death of his mother-in-law or he just decided to take a vacation. (WTF!!) Really, does anybody seriously believe that if the Liberals do not present a renewed party with a leader who can articulate a clear vision of where he wants to take Canada, that a statement or lack thereof, regarding the crisis in the Middle East will really matter? Conversely, if the Liberals can present a party and a vision that resonates and connects with Canadians do you really believe the impact of any statement or non-statement will be that great?

Judas Priest, Metallica and Motorhead, I have even seen people state that the quality of a candidate's website is an indicator of a candidate's leadership abilities. Excuse me! No, it is only a indicator of the competence of a candidate's web designer.

So far I have found that much of this race has been reactive. The Afghan debate, the Softwood Lumber deal, the crisis in the Middle East. All have elicited reactions from the various camps but so far I have not seen a coherent vision or a coherent set of policy options.

Liberals just went through two elections where the party leadership did not have a coherent vision or strategy, besides reacting to and lambasting the Conservatives. We all know how they turned out. If we do the same thing the next time we will have all sorts of time to renew our party and choose a leader, probably 4 years of time.

As well, if you look at the Conservatives they showed us what just having the appearance of a plan can do. Their 5 priorties are pretty thin gruel, but it gave them the ability to claim they had a plan and it worked.

Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are vulnerable. There is no real warmth and goodwill towards them amongst the electorate, he is pursuing a style of leadership that wears thin very quickly and he is on the wrong side of several issues that are important to Canadians. If the Liberals can present Canadians with a good reason to vote for them they have a real chance to take back the government. However, if all they do is follow the same strategy as the last two times they have no hope.

So in the humble estimation of this blogger I believe the Liberals have two choices. Get their act together, renew the party, have the leadership candidates debate real issues, and give themselves a chance to win back the government. Or they can continue to bicker and snipe at each other over relatively trivial matters and hand Stephen Harper a four year gift.

Iran is playing a game but probably not the one we think

I have had a very enlightening and stimulating debate with Shoshana today on her blog.

In it she asks the question of why Hamas and Hezbollah are taking the actions they are taking, and she is stating that Iran is involved somehow.

I did not address her question in my comments on her blog so I will address them here.

In all likelyhood, Iran is involved in the current crisis in the Middle East, because it is no secret that they are big financial backers of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

So why would they begin rocking the boat now?

I believe the possible answer is four fold.

First, the reactionary forces that now control Iran are playing the oldest game in the book. Not the usual stuff we see between Israel and the Palestinians but the good old fashion power game.

The current reactionary President of Iran did not win by much. The forces of moderation within that country are moving to replace him at the next opportunity and there is not much that he can do about it domestically. So he could be turning to one of the tried and true methods of holding on to power; create a conflict with an outside force, especially one that is widely despised by your population.

How to do that? Have your vassals attack Israel. Their reaction is usually quite predictable, as it is today, and keep goading them until they overreact. Hell, if you are lucky they may even attack Iran directly. That would be mana from Heaven. If warplanes sporting the Star of David are seen over Tehran dropping bombs on it the forces of moderation will have no chance of ousting the reactionary forces from power for at least a decade.

Second, the Iranians want nuclear weapons and the US and Israel wants to stop them. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is only a matter of time before one or both of these states use military force to do so, especially since Iran is not interested in talking about stopping their program.

So if they know that it is going to happen at some point, they would want to make it happen when it is most convenient to them. That way they can be somewhat prepared for it and mitigate any damage that is caused to their nuclear weapons program. In addition, any attack would probably be a one shot deal, as a result of reason three below, so they would then be free to continue their nuclear weapons program relatively unmolested. Combine that with the reactionary forces likely staying in control for the next decade or so and Iran is well on its way to realizing its goal of joining the nuclear club.

Three, the nuclear facilities are probably well manned and any attack that is designed to destroy them will result in a large number of civilian casualties. Pictures of those broken bodies will create a backlash against the US and Israel, including from Russia and China.

Fourth, the higher oil prices leading up to , through and after a strike would bring in enough extra revenue that they will be able to pay off their vassals for their sacrifice, have money to replace the nuclear technology they will inevitably lose and not upset their fiscal situation.

Two secondary benefits:

Any wedge that they drive between the US and the states of Russia and China would be to their advantage when if comes to replacing their lost nuclear technology. As well, any wedge could convince one or both to give the Iranian nuclear program the political cover it needs for its completion.

Any attack on Iran by Israel could destroy any progress the US has made with the Shiites in Iraq because it would be political suicide for any Iraqi Shia to even be perceived as being friendly to a state that supported an attack on a country that has a largely Shiite population.

Could GST Cut Cause a Recession?

Keep an eye on the CPI numbers out of Statistics Canada, beginning in August. It will be then when we see what impact the GST cut has on inflation.

You see, they calculate inflation by taking the price of an item this month and comparing it to the price of an item last month and 12 months ago. In the process they remove the GST and Provincial Sales Taxes as they are only concerned about the 'before tax price' the retailer charges for an item.

It is expected by many that retailers will just use the GST cut as an opportunity to raise their prices by 1%. If that is the case we will see that in the coming months as a spike in the CPI.

When the Progressive Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, introduced the GST, at the beginning of an economic slowdown, the extra costs of the tax caused Canadians to stop buying and dumped the Canadians economy into a recession.

Would it not be ironic if another Conservative Government, that is being advised by the same Brian Mulroney, caused a spike in the inflation rate by reducing the GST which, in turn, would cause The Bank of Canada to raise interest rates, just at a time when there are increasing signs that Canada could experience a period of slow economic growth within a year?

It would be ironic and unfortunate that one Conservative government dumped us into a recession by imposing the GST and another one could very well dump us into another one by reducing that same GST.

Justice Minister Breaks Silence on SSM

This headline appears in the on-line version of The Montreal Gazette:

Toews says same-sex reference to Supreme Court was politically motivated error

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d021c2db-6aaf-4693-8c11-ed944a9a10c8&k=99000

I have been wondering how long the soc-con wing of the Conservative Party would stay quiet over this issue.

Considering every speech and statement made by a Cabinet Minister has to be vetted by the PMO, Mr. Toews' statements raises a couple of questions and possibilities.

Is he reflecting the opinion of Stephen Harper?

Or another more intriguing thought. The soc-cons are biding their time until the Conservatives achieve a majority governement. That goal took two hits in the last week. Mr. Harper flubbing the "Quebec Nation" question in the Quebec separatist heartland and the first inklings of a party financing scandal that looks like it may have some legs.

Could it be that some in the soc-con wing of the party believe that they need to begin acting on their agenda because they believe a majority is already out of reach?

In all likelyhood Mr. Harper managed to impose discipline on the more loony elements of his party by promising them the opportunity to pursue their agenda if the Conservatives win a majority governement. If that wing of the party begins to believe that he will be unable to deliver on that promise, they will begin to cause him problems again.

Afghanistan: Mission Impossible?

For CTV the answer is no.

For the government the answer seems to be yes!

As many of you know the Senlis Council, out of Britain, has issued a report that is very critical of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I have seen several blogs that have already commented on the report itself so I won't bothering commenting on it.

However, what I find interesting is the reaction of CTV to this report. I was watching Newsnet and they had Craig Oliver duly report on the Senlis Council findings in a two minute segment. Then they had an "expert commentator" come on to talk about it. I recognized this guy as a staunch supporter of the Afghan Mission extension from the night of Mr. Harper's "debate and vote" on the mission extension a few weeks ago. It does not take a rocket scientist doing brain surgery to figure out his reaction to the report and I found it very convenient that Sandra Janssen spent more than 5 minutes asking all of the right questions to facilitate his attack on it. So, even though I already knew this, CTV seems to believe that the mission in Afghanistan is good and winnable.

However, I believe the government just made a tacit admission that they do not agree with that assessment. The very next story was the announcement of the purchase of new helicopters for the CF. During that announcement our Defence Minister stated that one of the reasons why they are needed is they will help save Canadian lives in Afghanistan by saving Canadian soldiers the need to travel by road.

If the only way for Canadian troops to be safe from attack is to fly over the countryside then it is reasonable to conclude that the countryside is not secure and that war is not going as well as we have been lead to believe.

And the governement appears to agree, at some level, even if they do not realize it.

Is Quebec a Nation?

I watched with interest this weekend when Mr. Harper stepped in it in Quebec when he refused to call Quebec a nation. Leaving aside the politics of his refusal it is an interesting question.

Note: I realize that this post is a little late but finding the time to write my own blog is challenging.

I have read many of the other blogs on this where some have said yes and others have said no. One commentator even had the courtesy of giving us the Webster's Dictionary definition of nation.

For those who said no it was a matter of equating nation with country.

For those who said yes it was a matter of Quebec having a distinct language, culture and history.

I have problems with both arguments.

There are many different people living in Canada and Quebec who have different languages, cultures and histories from Canadians. Recent and first generation Canadians do not share the same history and culture as Quebecers or Canadians who have lived here for generations. Are they part of the Quebec nation or do they constitute their own nation within Quebec? Do Jamaicans living in Toronto constitute a nation within Canada? Do Chinese living in BC constitute a nation? For that matter do WASPs like me constitute a nation within Canada?

As well I find the concept of a nation has been cheapened.

Fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs call themselves the Leafs Nation.

Not to be outdone, fans of the Ottawa Senators have begun to call themselves the Sens Nation.

And my personal favourate is the Honda Motor Company inferring nationhood on Honda Civic owners by calling us members of the Civic Nation.

So for me the whole concept of nation has become archaic and meaningless.

So is Quebec a nation? No.

Are Quebecers a distinct people within Canada? Yes. There is no denying that they have a history, culture and traditions that are different from those Canadians that live outside of Quebec. However, unlike some francophones I include anglophones within the "people of Quebec". No matter how much some francophones want to deny it anglophones have been an integral part of the development of Quebec culture and history and cannot be separated from it. As well, recent arrivals to Canada and Quebec are only adding to that culture and history as they share their lives with their new neighbours.

The same can be said of Quebecers and Canada. Canadian culture and history are infused with the traditions and experiences of Canadians from all parts of the country. That is a reality that cannot be denied as the shared culture and history of francophones and anglophones within Quebec cannot be denied.

So that brings me to the million dollar question. Is the distinct nature of Quebec history and culture grounds for a separate Quebec country? No. Carving out countries based on a distinct culture and history is opening a Pandora's box that once opened would lead to disaster. Not just in Canada but worldwide.

Of course, none of the above will stop Quebecers from calling Quebec a nation but that is just an indication of a particular hangup that Quebecers have that would require another post to explain.

So Mr. Harper, from a theoretical point of view you are correct in not calling Quebec a nation. However, from a political point of view...

When is the right time to endorse a candidate?

I was looking at Cerberus' post Cerberus: Liberal leadership endorsements - summary update and I was impressed with and somewhat surprised by the number of Liberal bloggers who have already endorsed a Liberal leadership candidate.

It left me wondering how so many could have decided on who to support at this stage of the race.

I devour the Globe and Mail and La Presse each day. I look at all of the other major news organization websites on a daily basis. I have looked at all of the blogs for the different candidates on Liblogs and I have visited all of their official leadership websites.

Despite all of these sources of information I still do not have enough information about the different contenders to make a decision on who to support. I find that none of them has come up with a clear and compelling central theme for their campaigns and none of them seems to have articulated a clear vision of where they want to take the Liberal Party or the country. I realize many are trying but they are still not there yet.

As well, so far we have only seen staged policy pronouncements and one instance of where the different candidates have been forced to defend their positions in a debate. For me that is hardly enough to make a final decision on who I would support for Liberal leader.

These are not trivial concerns. After all the Liberal Party is in the process of choosing someone who could be the country's next Prime Minister. (Hopefully after the next election.) Liberals owe it to themselves and to Canadians to choose wisely.

Now for those of you who have already chosen who you will support please do not construe this post as a critique or judgement on your decisions or the fact you have already make a choice. I am merely trying to understand some of the dynamics of how this race is shaping up.

I think I already have an idea of one factor in this. The fact the signing up of new members to the Liberal Party is cut off in a few short weeks probably has some influence but I am curious to know some of the other factors.

Another factor is me. I tend to be deliberative when it comes to decisions like this and I wait to the last minute to make a decision, gathering and analyzing as much information as I can get my hands on until time forces a decision on me. In my judgement that time has not arrived yet.

Anyway, that is my take on this and I thought I would just put it out there.

Meaningful Political Discourse, RIP?

I have decided to make my first real post about something that has been in the back of my mind for sometime and which became more relevant to me in the last weeks with the troubles suffered by Mr. Volpe and Mr. Anders.

From where I sit I find that meaningful political discourse has been largely usurped by constant scandal mongering and "gotcha politics". Instead of discussing the issues that have a real impact on the lives and the livelihoods of Canadians we are obsessed with scandals and perceived lapses in political ethics.

We just went through 3 years of hearing about nothing but adscam. No other topic was talked about more than that one during that period. Hell, we had two elections where it was the central theme. Conservatives are still talking about it now, which is understandable considering it won them an election. However, they are not the only party obsessed with scandal. The NDP has reverted from a party that use to pride itself on being the conscience of the Canadian political system to a shell of a party, with no discernible policy focus, and a nasty habit of calling in the RCMP for every action they perceive to be unethical, which lately has pretty much been most of them. The Liberal Party is not immune from this addiction. I see many Liberal bloggers trying desperately to turn every action by the Conservative government into a "scandal" even when it is a real stretch to say the least.

Then there is the "gotcha politics". I was encouraged by the debate on the different Child Care plans during the election. Here was a debate about ideas and issues that mattered. Then Mr. Reid made his silly "beer and popcorn" remark. It was certainly a stupid remark but it did not deserve to be talked about for three days. Plus to make matters worse it stopped the debate dead. Those remarks saved both sides of the debate from actually debating the issue. I found that infuriating and I still do.

In my opinion this has to stop. Keeping an eye on the government and keeping it honest is necessary but it cannot become the only issue of importance. Canada has much more vital issues to worry about, such as our continued woeful productivity, our health care system, remaining competitive in an ever changing and toughening international marketplace and the environment, just to name a few. Issues that will have a profound impact on Canadians if we continue to allow them to be usurped by our continued addiction to scandals.

Now for my Conservative friends who may already be sharpening their acid filled pens to accuse me of condoning "Liberal corruption" I will say this. I don't care because it is blatantly false. I would try to demonstrate that but except for a few thoughtful Conservatives it has been my experience that most of them really don't care what you say with regard to this so to hell with it.

But I would remind them that three men are now in jail or facing jail, about a dozen more have had their reputations shattered and the Liberal Party paid the ultimate political price by being defeated in the last election.

I would also remind my Conservative friends that Canada is blessed with one of the cleanest political systems in the world.

Our politicians do not build palaces for themselves while their countrymen eke out a subsistence existence any way they can. At no time during adscam was there ever any evidence or suggestion of our elected officials enriching themselves, which cannot be said about Duke Cunningham in the US who just pleaded guilty to taking more than $2 million in bribes. As well, no government or PM in this country has ever used their position to stop or inhibit criminal investigations against them, like Silvio Berlusconi did when he became PM of Italy.

Finally, Canadians are not cursed with the petty corruption that many others have to live with. For example we do not have to worry about places like Ho Chi Mihn City, where you rent a motor bike so you can see the country side and you are "fined" by the local police four times before you get outside of the city limits because you do not have an international drivers license. And where the final policemen dings you with an extra "fine" because you have an "ill-fitting helmet" despite the fact all sorts of Vietnamese are zipping by without any helmets at all.

Can meaningful political discourse be resurrected? I hope so and I hope it happens before some of the really important issues that Canadians are facing come home to roost and begin to really hurt Canadians where it really matters.

This is a test, it is only a test

This is my very first attempt at posting a blog.

I discovered blogging during the election campaign and got myself one through Liblogs.

I have been looking at the different blogs since then and commented whenever the notion hit me. Some of you may already know who I am.

Up to this point I have not actually posted my own blog. The reasons are many and varied. Mostly, it is a matter of time contraints. I see the work that goes into other blogs and I just do not have that kind of time. My job keeps me pretty busy when I am at work and my wife keeps me pretty busy when I am at home.

So this blog will be an occasional one.

I am a Liberal supporter because I believe they have done much good for Canada during its history. So, my posts will generally be supportive of the Liberal Party. I make no apologies for that.

However, I also like reasonable political discourse so I will not make glib, insulting remarks about their opponents on this blog. Some thought will go into my posts so I would hope that some thought will go into any responses to them. However, judging by some of the comments I have seen on other blogs I am pretty certain that I will be disappointed from time to time.

Well, this post is just to introduce myself and to do a little experimentation. I will probably tweak it a bit as things go forward.

I look forward to blogging with you all.