Ramblings of Noah Arney

I first discovered my only real religion as an undergraduate at the University of Toronto. I was not alone in taking a political ideology as a virtual faith. In our small embattled group was a transplanted American who, when sufficiently plastered at our regular Saturday night socials, could be counted on to declare to all and sundry: “I love socialism.”

Gerald Caplan wrote this in the Globe and Mail this Saturday.  It was the beginning to a lofty thesis (change word).  Discussing the beginning of the CCF, now called the NDP, Caplan explains the importance of the Regina Manifesto.  Beyond calling for things like respect for minorities it has two major thrusts.

Under a CCF government, the state, the institutional embodiment of The People, would quickly take ownership of all banks and insurance, transportation and communications companies. Mining, pulp and paper and the distribution of milk, bread, coal and gasoline, industries “in which exploitation, waste, financial malpractices are particularly prominent” would follow soon after. Very heady stuff.

and two

the establishment in Canada of a Co-operative Commonwealth in which the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits. We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated … and in which genuine democratic self-government based upon economic equality will be possible.”

Basically it calls for government run businesses in all areas which are key to the survival of the country, or which operate in ways wich do not coincide with the CCF’s mandate, and to change the way businesses and government operate from a capitalist model to a socialist model.

First off.  I agree that pure capitalism tends to make a complete mess of things.  That said, non-democratic socialism makes just as big of a mess.  The key to either system is a strong democratic leadership.

Caplan goes on to say that only a few of the goals of the CCF were ever realized: minimum wage, unemployment insurance, pensions, and socialized health care.  All of which I believe are part of what makes Canada amazing.  A minimum wage in Canada that goes from a low of $7.75 all the way up to $10, and averaging about $8.50 rather than the American’s minimum wage of $5.85 (increasing to $7.25 in two years) with the highest minimum wage at $8.07 With their average being about $6.25.

Today, no progressive party in the Western world embraces anything more socialistic than a modest welfare state complemented by social liberalism, as antidotes to market economics and social conservatism.

I read that and thought: “I kinda like social liberalism”  I see the government as a system of checks and balances not just of itself, but of the whole system.  It’s not centrism, as it supports government run programs and government regulations, but it still allows free enterprise.

Caplan ends his essay with a call for the NDP to “Instead of playing arcane parliamentary games and manoeuvring to replace the Liberals, the NDP needs to restore the “New” in its name and its ideas. We need to prove that being a perennial minority party is not a wasted exercise.”

I fully agree.  The NDP has been especially effective in the house for many years regardless of it’s small numbers.  It has begun establishing itself as the actual opposition in the house recently, and has made some very shrewd decisions in the past.  But as much as the NDP would like to be the official opposition, they don’t need to be.  They are making more of a difference right now than either of the other opposition parties.

Here is my difference with Caplan though.  Canada has been a capitalist nation, though one tempered by socialism, for a fairly long time.  Our major influence tends to be from the USA and not from Europe.  Based on the NDP never getting more than 20% of the vote in Canada I think it’s safe to say that people aren’t very comfortable with the NDP.  Whether this is from transferring their animosity from provincial NDP parties to the federal one, a fear of socialism, or even just not believing that the NDP has the ability to lead doesn’t matter.  What matters is that the NDP’s platform is not being accepted.  So yes, the NDP needs to reinvent itself.

The NDP needs to back away from its historical belief in government run industry.  Instead it needs to be seen as a watchdog, examining corporations and proposing regulations.  Rather than being seen as someone who wants to run Canadian corporations, thus being seen as just as bad, they need to be seen as a protector of the Canadian people from those corporations.   The NDP also needs to stop being seen by everyone as the party for unions.  For some reason unions are now being looked on as just another type of government.  People who take your money and claim to give you services in response.  Though this isn’t accurate, it is how they are often viewed.  Instead the NDP needs to be seen as a party for everyone, stepping back from their union focus.

Or they could continue as the #3 party.  Granted they do very good work as the #3 party, but I’m sure they would like to be higher.  The question is, how much do they want to stick to their historical roots, and how much do they want to be able to help Canadians.  Because of the parties currently in the house they seem to be doing the best job.  And no, I don’t vote NDP.  But every time they do something I get a bit closer.

I was watching question period today. It was more rowdy than normal, and not a lot of interest happened. The most important part was what happened right after question period. The government house leader said that key members of the Aboriginal community in Canada will not be invited to sit in the house for the official government apology for the residential schools. They will instead have to be seated in the upper galleries as observers. Basically what this amounts to is that the Conservatives want to apologize for a dark mark upon Canadian history (a laudable goal), but they don’t want to have to look at those they are apologizing to…. Gee, this sounds like a wonderful thumbing of their collective noses at the Aboriginal community.

According to the Globe and Mail the Federal NDP is planning on introducing a non-confidence motion.    Finally.  I’ve been waiting for this for weeks.  Ever since the Liberals lost their back bone and stopped being an opposition and became more of a politely objecting.  For all the bluster of the Liberals they haven’t done much opposing in the last few months.

And now along comes this NDP motion.  First the motion uses the Conservatives’ corporate tax cuts as the reason for the motion.  Unfortunately the Liberals support corporate tax cuts.  Their problem with them seems to be that there weren’t enough of them. 

“A key competitive advantage for Canada used to be our weak currency. Now that our dollar is at par, and we have lost this weak currency advantage, a key advantage must be a competitive corporate tax rate” (Dion, Oct. 12, 2007)

“a Liberal government is committed to reducing corporate income taxes ” (Dion, Jan. 18, 2008). 

 The second problem is that the Liberals don’t want an election:

“It’s a bad government and we’ll choose a time to defeat this bad government,” he told reporters. “You will see. But it will not be at this time where we have a snowstorm in Ontario and just before Easter. I don’t think Canadians want that.” (Dion, Mar. 8, 2008)

I think we can take it for granted that the Liberals will support the Conservatives in voting down this motion.  The only other option they have is to abstain from voting, as they’ve been doing fairly often.  But there’s a problem.

This motion isn’t aimed at taking down the government.  If it were they’d word it so the Liberals could vote for it.  Instead it’s designed to be as far from Dion’s position as possible.  Instead the NDP gets to point to the liberals and say “look how like the conservatives they are”.  The NDP isn’t trying to topple the Conservatives, they’re trying to hurt the Liberals.

 My guess from this is that the NDP’s long range plan isn’t to become the government (lets be honest, they have about as much chance of that as the Green party), but rather to unseat the Liberals as the Official Opposition.  The NDP isn’t aiming for first (though I’m sure they’d love it), they are aiming for second.  And it’s a good bid too.  As the Opposition the NDP would gain a lot of power, and a lot of press coverage, thus guaranteeing them an even better show the next election around.  Very smart, very tactical, and I’m impressed.  Well done NDP.

Also, if you need more proof, the picture I’m using in this post is from the NDP’s homepage.

As you know I sent an e-mail to Nina Grewal (my M.P.) a few weeks ago in regards to the “case” against Ezra Levant before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (you can read my reaction to it here).  A similar case is currently proceeding against Mark Steyn.  A few weeks later I sent a follow up e-mail (just in case my first one got lost in the ether).

Greetings; I would just like to inquire as to what your progress on the matter in the attached e-mail has been.Also.  I noticed the other day that your colleague Mr. Keith Martin has entered a private members motion: M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act. I was wondering where you stood on this.  While I believe that the Human Rights Act is important, I could not figure out the purpose behind subsection 13, especially after finding out that a single person brought up nearly all the cases in which it was the primary issue.I look forward to your input on this.

Noah D. Arney

Just the other day I received a letter from my M.P.  I assumed it would be one of her mailings which I receive regularly, but in fact she had taken the time to send me a letter rather than an e-mail in response to my questions.  As I posted the original e-mail to her, I also am attaching a transcript of her letter.

6 February 2008

 Noah Arney

(Address removed)

Dear Mr. Arney:

Thank you very much for your recent correspondence concerning complaints before Canadian human rights commissions.

In recent weeks I have read several news articles expressing concern over the decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and several of its provincial counterparts to proceed with complaints against Macleans Magazine and Ezra Levant and the Western Standard.  In the Macleans case the Canadian Islamic Congress alleges that an article published last year, excerpted from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia.”  In the other case, the Alberta Human Rights Commission is considering whether or not to proceed with a complaint over a decision by Mr. Levant to publish the infamous Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

The federal and provincial governments established human rights commissions in the 1960s and 1970s to investigate complaints of discrimination.  In the case of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Act sets out the commission’s responsibilities.  Complaints may relate to employment, or to the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation that are customarily available to the general public.  Complaints of discrimination may be made based on race, national and ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.  The commission also has a statutory responsibility to foster public understanding and recognition of the principles of the Act.

I believe there is still a very important role to be played by human rights commissions.  There are, however, areas where reform may be required; specifically the willingness of commissions to consider questions relating to freedom of speech.  I am worried that by censoring one kind of expression, it will be easier to start censoring others.

I feel it may be appropriate at this time for the Minister of Justice to undertake a broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act including those sections of the Act dealing with the Human Rights Commission.  A fundamental review by Parliament is needed to ensure that the commission remains true to the intentions of Parliamentarians.

As for Mr. Martin’s private member’s motion, M-446, repealing section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, it was just recently tabled and will not be up for debate in the near future.  Enacted in 1977, the original purpose of s. 13 was to deal with “telephone hate lines.”  The legislation was extended in 2001 to cover hate messaging on the Internet (s. 13(2)).

Section 13 provides:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I can assure you that when this motion comes before the House of Commons for debate, I will follow it closely and will arrive at a position at that time after careful considering on the arguments for and against its implementation.

Thank you again for writing to me and expressing your views on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Nina Grewal

Member of Parliament

Fleetwood-Port Kells

Well.  That was a bit long, but important it.  It’s good to remember that our MPs are just as interested in these matters as we are.  Also, Ms. Grewal is wonderful.  Thank you.

Well some days you have it, and some days you don’t.

 If you had asked me a few months ago if I thought that Pat Robertson would endorse Giuliani, I would have laughed and said no.  I would have been wrong.

Now I’m wrong again.  The Liberals have been talking big recently, like they were looking for a fight.  The Conservatives called them on it, introducing a motion to stay in Afghanistan for two more years, a motion to increase the mandatory sentences for criminals, and a budget.

Well it seems like the Liberals were bluffing.  They seem to be letting the budget pass, they’re making sounds like they’ll vote for the Afghanistan Mission extension (odd since they have criticized it so much in Question Period), I wouldn’t be surprised if they chicken out on the mandatory sentences.

Well, the Conservatives still want to pressure the Liberals into calling an election, so they will be putting in a controversial motion to rework how the Canadian Wheat Board works.  Again though, it looks like the Liberals may be supporting it.

This of course has the NDP up in arms, they had counted on the Liberals support to take down the Government.  Ahh well Layton, maybe next motion.

Recently I’ve been discussing American politics a lot.  The reason behind this is of course that there is an election coming up.  But now I’ll return to Canadian politics, because… well there seems to be an election coming up.

The Liberals want an election, they feel that people are so fed up with the Conservatives that they can pull enough of the vote to take over with a minority government.  The NDP wants an election , they feel that they can get some more seats now that they’ve clothed themselves in green and have sworn to be anti-war.  The Block wants an election, though no one knows why, they have had a great recent history of loosing seats because Quebecers don’t find them relevant any more.  The Conservatives want an election if only to prove to the other parties that Canadians still support them.

So why don’t we have one?  Because no one wants to cause it.  The NDP has twice been the party to topple a minority government; they lost seats both times.  Why?  Many reasons, but the big one is probably that Canadians don’t like voting, even though they feel it’s their duty to do so.  So those who force early elections are not looked favorably on.

All of the parties know this, and because of that they are treading carefully.  The Conservatives have introduced three confidence motions at the same time: a budget, a motion to stay in Afghanistan for two more years, and a motion to increase mandatory sentences for criminals.

Why are the conservatives so cocky?  Because they can read the polls.  Sure they wouldn’t win a majority government, but they don’t have to.  They’ve figured out what the Liberals never did during their recent minority government stint: negotiate, compromise, discuss.  Because of this they know that if they have an election and win then they will have another year or two to prove to Canadians that they can in fact be trusted.  And then be boosted to a full majority government.

The Liberals on the other hand have been looking for an election since Dion solidified his control.  They know that they can’t take a majority, but they think that they can take a minority.  Of course it remains to be seen if they have learned the lessons of the past. 

The NDP?  They can’t lose.  An election makes the ruling party look weak, which gives them more power.  They have a good chance of gaining some seats.  All in all it’s a good move for them.

And the Block?  Well, I don’t think they’ve realized that people don’t want a one issue party any more.  Most of the conditions that were the cause of the separatist movement have passed, and the new generation doesn’t consider those remaining to be as much of an issue.  It’s no longer just “Anglos and Immigrants” who see the Block as not useful.  But they don’t see that.  They don’t realize that the seats lost to the Conservatives last election were only a beginning.

 So.  It’s election time in Canada.  Eventually.

I was watching cpac today And decided that the following words and phrases will no longer be acceptable for use by politicians.

Terrist: The word is Terrorist, with the emphasis on terror, as in implying that their objective is to create terror.  If you are mispronouncing it because you can not enunciate correctly, please get training.  If you are pronouncing it that way because a certain American tends to, then you go in the same group as those who use the word nuklear.  The beatings will begin shortly.

Support the troops: We get it.  You support the troops.  Just because someone else doesn’t support you, doesn’t mean they don’t support the troops.  Trying to keep them out of harms way is not opposing the troops any more than having them do their jobs is.  Now all three important parties (CPC, Lib, NDP) can stop throwing that phrase at each other.  Supporting the troops should not be the end all be all of policy decisions.  Supporting the country is.  The troops are part of that.

When will (insert name) ask (insert name) to resign: When he or she darn well pleases.  That’s why they’re the leader of the party.  Also, calling for the resignation of someone because he or she doesn’t have a ten page proposal dealing with something that happened less than twenty-four hours ago seems stupid to me.  But maybe I’m unique in my wish for politicians to have the facts before they react.  I say that politicians get forty-eight hours minimum to react to something before their resignation is called for.

Taliban buddy: Just because someone thinks that allegations of torture need looking into doesn’t mean that they support the Taliban.  If you think that sounds like a strange statement, read the news it’s actually happening.

One final note, just because you can’t be sued for insults thrown across the Parliament floor doesn’t mean you should take that as licence to use insults with reckless abandon.  Come on people, we’re all adults here.

Enjoy.