Voters Will Punish Harper for Mulroney's Sins

Political leaders often take credit for things that happen under their watch, whether or not they are directly or indirectly responsible.

But more often, we measure our politicians on our perception of their ability to manage a crisis once it happens. With its latest misstep, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is lifting the heavy, dirty rug that previously hid bags of money and one sullied former Prime Minister – and making room for the whole Conservative Party down below.

Yesterday, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he had no authority to block the impending (Dec. 1) extradition of Karlheinz Schreiber to Germany. The Commons ethics committee looking into Schreiber’s dealings with former PM Brian Mulroney would have to proceed without its star witness because, he claimed, because the federal government had no jurisdiction.

Parliamentary lawyers, meanwhile, argued the minister clearly has the power under the federal Extradition Act to amend the order and keep Schreiber in the country as long as his testimony is required. Schreiber’s presence is crucial to the Commons hearing, and will be even moreso to the public inquiry, the terms of which are to be released Jan. 11.

When pressed during Question Period today on the issue of jurisdiction, Nicholson declined to answer any questions because the matter was “before the courts.” Refusing to answer a procedural question such as, “Who’s in charge?” does not jeopardize any proceedings, be they before courts of law or Commons committees.

He knows this. He also knows that there is no obligation under the Canadian-German extradition treaty to extradite Canadian nationals – and Schreiber is a Canadian.

Nicholson also knows that Schreiber has promised to keep his mouth shut about the whole Airbus affair if he is forced to leave the country. And the German government, who wants him on bribery, fraud and tax evasion charges, would be unlikely to let him out of jail to testify in Canada.

This appearance of being less than co-operative and of shirking responsibility comes just weeks after Harper obstreperously dismissed initial calls for a public inquiry, warning opposition parties of the dangers of giving him any more power, even threatening to look into business dealings of former Liberal prime ministers.

When this is all said and done in a few years, and newspapers are printing timelines showing the sequence of events leading up to the inquiry, they will show that this Conservative Party never wanted this inquiry to begin with, and that they deliberately eschewed opportunities to ensure the star witness would be able to testify.

Whether or not they have something to hide, they are giving the impression that they do. This will be particularly damning if there is any hint of a connection -- however remote -- with the current government because their actions will have lost them the benefit of any doubt.

This may well be the first crisis the Conservative Party has had to manage that wasn’t of their own doing. If they’re not careful, it could wind up the one issue to define this government in parts of Canada in the same way that the Gomery Commission caused lasting damage to the Liberal brand in Quebec.

There is a lot at stake here.

Autumn Brings Out True Tory Colours

Unseasonable weather in southern Ontario has meant leaves are taking a little bit longer to fall from the trees this autumn.

Everywhere you look there are blotches of orange and yellow where there would normally be shades of brown and grey at this time of year. You would think having more of that cheerful, sunny yellow in a month where the days get visibly shorter would be a good thing. But yellow has also been shown to be associated with anger: people are more apt to lose their tempers, and babies are more likely to cry in rooms painted yellow.

Could this prolonged exposure to yellow be the reason for all the rage and arrogance to come out of Ottawa this month?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper set the tone at the beginning of November. In response to calls from the opposition for a public inquiry into the Mulroney/Schreiber affair, he said it would be extremely dangerous for him, as prime minister, to have a free hand in launching inquiries against his predecessors. He threatened rhetorically to look more closely into former prime minister Paul Martin’s relationship with his shipping company and even brought up the already dealt-with matter of Jean Chretien’s involvement in the sale of a golf course in his riding. Talk about small-town cheap, and I’m not referring to golf balls.

Last week, House Leader Peter Van Loan called Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty the “small man of Confederation” because McGuinty demanded fair treatment for Ontario in the upcoming redistribution of federal seats. The premier of the country’s most populous province and economic powerhouse had the nerve to ask for fair representation in a democracy. He wasn’t even asking for more money, just to respect the principle of representation by population, a basic tenet of democracy.

Then we have Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. In response to a report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities warning of the “coming collapse of Canada’s municipal infrastructure,” he told cities to quit “whining” and do a better job of collecting taxes and building reserve funds. This is particularly rich coming from Flaherty, considering his role as a cabinet minister in the Ontario Conservative government that forced amalgamation on the City of Toronto in 1998 – and in the process forced the city to pillage its cash reserves just to keep the lights on, let alone pay for provincially mandated programs.

This government and its ministers have shown a lot of arrogance and anger since assuming power almost two years ago. Environment Minister John Baird’s feasts of fury are legendary. But what is sparking all this rage right now? The answer might be in the leaves.

Let’s step outside again for a closer look at those brilliant orange and yellow hues that colour the canopy over our city. These are their “true colours” that only reveal themselves in the fall when the green chlorophyll drains from the leaves.

In a similar way, our federal cabinet is showing its true colours through these latest outbursts: Harper showed that he values partisanship more than the integrity inherent in the office of prime minister; Van Loan demonstrated his party’s disdain for Ontario voters who continue to rebuke the federal Tories; and Flaherty reinforced the Conservative party’s contempt for urban voters.

One of the dangers of leaves lingering too long in the fall is the extra stress this places on tree limbs. One good snowfall or ice storm, and branches begin to snap under the weight of the leaves and the extra ice/snow they collect. Similarly, this minority government has lingered longer than anybody expected and with each contemptuous outburst, is showing signs of stress. Rather than sticking to the merits of their position on key issues, our senior ministers attack their critics and threaten their opponents. Instead of talking and listening, they shout and insult and bully their way through to the next issue.

Either these guys are getting advice from the King Juan Carlos school of public relations – the Spanish monarch told Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to “shut up” after Chavez called a former Spanish prime minister a fascist at a recent summit in Chile – or they just don’t get it. I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Bill C-22 Shows Dark Side of Canadian Social-Democratic Values

All pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.

When George Orwell penned those words in 1945, who would have thought he was talking about Canada?

But Bill C-22, whose goal is to “restore the principles of representation by population” by giving more seats in the House of Commons to the country’s three fastest growing provinces (Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia), could have been written by Orwell himself.

The bill’s seat redistribution formula would give Alberta five more seats and B.C. seven, bringing their number of Commons seats more in line with their proportion of the population. Ontario stands to gain the largest number of new seats with 10, but this number represents only half of the number needed to keep Ontario’s share of seats comparable to its share of the population. Ontario, the biggest pig in the pen, keeps getting bigger.

Critics (including Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who is attempting to recruit support among federal Ontario MPs against the bill) say this is blatant discrimination against Ontario. Others say Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rewarding the two western provinces for supporting his party – and it’s always politically expedient to shaft Ontario.

In Orwell’s Animal Farm, the head pig, Old Major, had his sidekick Squealer – a smaller, but still fat pig that served as his mouthpiece. In the Canadian context, Harper’s little fat pig is Peter Van Loan. Apart from his ridiculous public comments about McGuinty being the “small man of Confederation,” and his nonsensical logic that Ontario should be happy with “more” even if it’s not “enough”, Van Loan also spun us a crash course in Ontario’s historical role in Canada:

“Dalton McGuinty seems to be abandoning the traditional role of an Ontario premier, which would see Ontario's interests protected while at the same time advancing the strength of Confederation.”

Is this revisionist history, or does he have a point?

Going back to 1867, the biggest provincial pig in British North America, Ontario, recruited a couple of Atlantic piglets to join with fellow fat but perpetually poorer pig, Quebec, and create a new Canadian pen where there would be strength in numbers against their giant and increasingly bellicose neighbour to the south. (Hey, who let the elephant in?)

An informal wealth distribution system was created to raise the standard of living in the smaller provinces to that of Ontario’s, with Ontario helping foot the bill. And thus began the Canadian experiment in socialism.

Since adopting a more formal system of equalization payments in 1957, the federal government has taken some of Ontario’s wealth – the only province never to receive equalization payments – and spread it to less wealthy regions. Alberta is now a contributor, but received funds for a long time. B.C. has also been on both sides of the trough, while Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan are poised to become the newest members of the have club. Quebec, as the most populous of the have-nots, has been the largest benefactor of equalization payments since Confederation.

There was one time in the 1970s when Ontario qualified for equalization payments but everybody agreed that this would put too much strain on the federal treasury (and you thought Quebec was expensive!) so Ontario didn’t receive any funds that year, or any other year. It was the right thing to do. The pig was put on a diet, so there would be enough feed for everyone.

So in a sense, Van Squealer is correct: Ontario has been an upstanding provincial partner and shown great leadership in keeping this country strong and united. But it is also in Ontario’s interest to do so – better to be the captain of a championship team than the MVP on a perennial loser (just ask Alex Rodriguez).

However, diluting the clout of Ontario voters doesn’t do anything to strengthen the federation, or level the playing field. It merely normalizes anti-Ontario sentiment by entrenching it in law. There is no greater good being served here.

If we were a more mature democracy that truly valued the principle of representation by population, seat distribution would not be subject to manipulation by the party in power. We need a standard formula that automatically allocates seats fairly without even the slightest perception of partisanship in the process. Otherwise, the system suffers twofold: it becomes less democratic as it becomes less fairly representative; and people lose faith in the system when it becomes less democratic.

But we do not live in a true democracy.

We live in a pig pen.

Canadian bacon, anyone?

Skirting the Issue on Airport Uniform

An airport security guard has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission because her uniform – in both pant and skirt versions – does not conform to her Islamic faith which instructs modesty in dress.

The employee, Halima Muse, had been wearing the pant uniform for five years until she decided should no longer felt modest in them. After being denied a request from her employer for a longer skirt, she altered the uniform and wore the lengthier version for six months before one of her managers instructed her to comply with the rules. She declined, was suspended without pay, and is now going to the human rights commission, charging religious discrimination.

Apart from the “should she or shouldn’t she be allowed to” questions, I’m wondering how we got to this stage. Again.

While there is no doubt that a healthy democracy must openly and intelligently discuss and review decisions around diversity and “tolerance,” we still have no sense of when religious/cultural accommodation is appropriate or even necessary, or even what it means. We still haven’t matured a collective set of Canadian ideals around what it means to live in a multi-ethnic, yet supposedly secular society. But that isn’t even the main issue; it is merely the context in which this story will feed news headlines for some time to come.

On the one hand, the security company already offers a more “modest” option – the pant uniform. This option served her well for five years until she began feeling that the pants brought too much attention to her curves. Why was it OK for five years, and not OK any longer? What changed? Is there such a thing as a born-again Muslim?

On the other hand, she was allowed to wear the altered uniform for several months. And it was OK. Why was it acceptable for so long before the company weighed in on her with “federal regulations?” Surely, an egregious act by an employee that is worthy of suspension should be noticed and dealt with in a more timely manner. How can the company, with any credibility, say this is no longer acceptable, even though there appeared to be no problem for several months? Did they not notice? These are the people responsible for security at our airports?

Let’s stop and think about this. Muse is filing a religious discrimination suit based on a non-religious article in a non-religious context. There’s no hijab or kirpan here, it’s a skirt. This is not about cultural accommodation or religious diversity. In The Toronto Star this week, she said she was “talking for all women who would like to wear a long skirt – practising Christians, Jewish, Muslim, all of them.”

So why is this being filed as a case of religious discrimination? Sounds and feels much more like a case of sexual discrimination – because last time I checked Christian and Jewish women were not prevented from wearing either the skirt or the pant uniform.

We have enough on our plate in this country on the diversity front, let’s file this one where it belongs and have an honest discussion about it. She is, in my opinion, fighting this case as a woman who would prefer not to have to wear a “sexy” uniform, not as a devout Muslim being persecuted for her faith. If we had a better collective sense of what it means to be an ethnic-Canadian and how we all share our space, we would see this for what it is – a fully justifiable sex discrimination suit.

Let’s keep God out it.

How Many Generations of Schreiber/Mulroney?

If Ben Mulroney weren't the spitting image of his father, now would be a good time to start a rumour. It' wouldn't be that outrageous if you think about it. Karlheinz Schreiber arrived in Canada in 1975, and Ben was born the following year. Maybe that "spitting image" is a bit too eery, in a Madame Tussaud kind of way. Could it be that Ben really is the lovechild of Schreiber and Mila? And in order to hide this great shame, the Mulroneys have been progressively surgically altering Ben's face to ensure that he looks more and more like daddy? Okay, perhaps that is a bit outrageous. So outrageous, as to be utterly unbelievable. (But thank you for entertaining my whimsy.)

However, as outrageous as the whole Mulroney/Schreiber story is to the Canadian political context -- and growing more sordid by the day -- sadly, it is believable.

We have a soon-to-be ex-prime minister desperately seeking a way to continue to afford his wife's fetish for fancy footwear, who hosts his friend Schreiber at the PM's official summer residence, days before stepping down as one of the least liked prime ministers in Canadian history. There's a lot of back-shaving, er, scratching going on here. Big, greenback-scratching.

There is little doubt they were friends, at least in Mulroney's eyes. I say "friends" because the two have a history that goes back to at least 1982/83, when Schreiber raised money for Mulroney's run at politics and then paid to have delegates vote against Joe Clark at the leadership convention that Mulroney would win. They were associates who established a friendship rooted in greed.

And with Mulroney it is always personal -- from the personalized thank-you notes and birthday cards to everyone on his very long Christmas card list, to the bitterness he still harbours towards Lucien Bouchard, Pierre Trudeau and Peter C. Newman (to name a few).

As obsessed as Mulroney has shown he is with his legacy, I can't help but wonder if being burned by another friend is losing him more sleep.

But where I lose sleep is over the long-term impact of the sketchy nature of this whole story, especially, overlapping in time as it does with the sponsorship fiasco. The sponsorship inquiry ensured daily media coverage that was unflattering to politicians. A lengthy Airbus inquiry will only further damage public perception of politics as a noble profession. What kind of impact will this have on recruiting the next generation(s) of political leadership? For young people or other professionals who have considered a career in politics, this is devastating. The stories making the news out of Ottawa are just as convoluted, the images just as nasty, as the stories coming out of Washington. It's not supposed to be like this in Canada.

Either that next generation of political leadership possessing a modicum of integrity will be so discouraged by the "outrageousness" of it all that they will turn their backs on the process and we will all lose as a result. Or, they will become so "outraged" as to do something and affect real change. I'm not hopeful.