Yesterday the Globe and Mail published the findings from it’s investigation on how the stimulus money is being spent. Frankly, the results were dispicable.
The report found that the stimulus money being spent in the RInC (Recreational Infrastructure) program disproportionately favored government-held ridings by an average of six hundred thousand dollars. The bias was particularly evident in Liberal held ridings who received an average of seven hundred thousand dollars less than Conservative ridings, while NDP held ridings received a comparatively rosy three hundred thousand less.
Prime Minister Harper has attempted to whitewash this by suggesting that opposition MP’s aren’t working hard enough to secure stimulus funding for their constituents. I find this comment ridiculous. It is the responsibility of this Prime Minister to look after the interests of all Canadians, not just the ones who are fortunate enough to have good representation. The constitution emphasizes good government, and I hardly think that just tossing ridings to the winds and allowing the free market of the House of Commons parcel out resources. Not to mention that this approach gives a distinctive advantage to government MP’s. Tories will not only have an easier time making the required connections to secure stimulus due to the fact that they are the sitting government, but will also be more likely to secure said funding due to an inherent, natural bias by the government towards it’s own party.
I call for more transparency and fairness from this government. Currently, we have no idea of how our deficit is being spent, because the government has not opened the records to the public. This has something to do with the newly appointed Parliamentary Budget Officer being placed under the jurisdiction of the Library of Parliament instead of reporting to parliament itself. Whatever the problem is, it needs to be fixed so that the officer in question can do his job: keeping Canadians informed about how their tax dollars (or rather, future tax dollars) are being spent.
This government…has a moral and constitutional obligation to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians.
Second, fairness. As I have already alluded, a party may be elected into government on its ideological or partisan platform, but once in power it is a truly mean-spirited thing to punish Canadians for exercising their democratic right for voting for anyone they choose. This RInC program is such a punishment. This government, especially because it is a minority government, has a moral and constitutional obligation to look out for the interests of all Canadians. They need to put aside their practices of patronage and start focusing on doing good for all of Canada.
I congratulate the Globe and Mail for lending it’s exceedingly credible voice to this issue. Without them, Canadians would still be in the dark.
Also, now that this issue has come to light, the opposition parties better get back on their horses; that is to say that they must criticize this clearly undemocratic and cruel policy of punishing non-Conservative voters. They should do it with vitriol, and propose constructive alternatives. I never though I’d say this about Jack Layton, but I’d rather have him governing all of Canada poorly than have Stephen Harper, “Getting by with a little help from his friends” and rewarding them for it.
Because if we went with Stephen Harper’s friends, we might as well have no government at all.
Manhood. It used to mean something concrete, but definitions had been blurred and changed over the past few decades, and it was up to every boy to decide what kind of man he wanted to be.
What is it that Jonathan saw as manly? Who did he idolize, follow as a role-model?
A man should be moral, he thinks. Yes, a strong moral foundation is where one should begin. Honour is the first word that comes to mind. But honour too is ambiguous, what does it imply? Many things and few. Courage, the kind that does not imply the absence of fear; but instead the strength of will to fight through it. Trust, an honourable man must be trustworth, for the responsibilities and secrets he is entrusted with. Loyalty; a man of honour does not betray those he holds in good standing. Justice; honour must be able to judge right from wrong, or it is wasted. Respect for everyone, even his enemies.
Compassion next. Compassion means feeling about what someone else feels, like empathy. Compassion also implies action; acting kindly towards the weak, showing mercy, and doing one’s best to protect others.
Wisdom too, so important to morality. Not raw intelligence, no, but intelligence mixed with level-headedness; that cool mindset which allows a man to step back from himself and contemplate something objectively, then return with a conclusion. The prudence to realize that knowledge is infinite, and to close the mind is to shut the door on possibility. Skepticism and optimism in equal supply.
Finally, Jonathan thinks, I must be a man who leads. He pauses, noticing his own transition from abstract to concrete. A man who leads as many as he can, by example or persuasion, to his own values. Not resting, but acting.
He resolves to become this man. A man of honour, compassion, wisdom, and the decisiveness to lead others.
And then a new train of though strikes him, pouring through his mind like the torrent that follows a spring thaw. I want politics to be like this, not just my own character, he thinks.
I want our men an women in the service of their country to have courage; just like their military counterparts do. I want them to have the courage to follow their sense of justice, not ignore it. I want Members of Parliament to be trustworthy, as we charge them with not only our money and the custody of the country, but our ideals, dreams and concerns.
I want politics to reward loyalty not just to a party but to an MP’s principles; the strength of will and again, the courage to stand up to a punishing majority view. I want politicians to embrace justice, to know how to call a situation regardless of what might be in their own best interests. I want them to respect each other as people and as people representing people, and I want them to respect the people they represent.
I want them to practice compassion and kindness, empathy and mercy. I want honour and wisdom in politics, an open mind yet an iron conviction, fierce passion yet cool objectivity. I want skepticism and optimism.
And I want them to lead. I want them to lead now.
Governor General Michealle Jean reads the speech from the throne.
The political structure of our government is outdated and it’s time to give it a facelift.
On Oct. 10, the Globe and Mail published an article exploring the topic of what the Governor General’s role in Canada should be. Apparently, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean accidentally let it slip that she was Canada’s head of state. This is untrue—technically Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is Canada’s head of state, while her Governor General is empowered to act with all of her authority.
What does this authority empower Her Excellency to do? It’s a long list: calling Parliament to sit, dissolving Parliament to call elections, Commander-in-Chief of Canada’s armed forces, appointing Senators, appointing Cabinet Ministers, signing or vetoing all legislation passed by the house, reading the speech from the throne, not to mention a plethora of ceremonial tasks and whatever I might have missed.
So basically a lot. So much actually, that she’s by far the most powerful person in Canada by a long shot—and she’s not even elected.
Now you’re probably saying to yourself, “Hold on, I thought that the Prime Minister was the most powerful person in Canada?” You’d be right there. Because although Her Excellency has all the above powers, she performs all the really important tasks described above, “on the advice of the Prime Minister.” In practice, this works out as Prime Minister Harper sending a message to Rideau Hall—where Her Excellency lives—telling her whom she should appoint and she does it.
This was probably best illustrated last December during the now infamous “Coalition Crisis.” Prime Minister Harper, faced with the threat of a non-confidence vote, asked the Governor General to “prorogue” parliament, essentially postponing the sitting of the house until January of this year. I never had any doubt about whether Her Excellency would agree or not. One only has to look at precedent to see why.
There’s the infamous “King-Byng” crisis of 1926. Prime Minister Mackenzie King asked Governor General Byng to dissolve his minority government due to deadlock in the house and instead of dissolving Parliament to call an election, Byng handed over the reins to the opposition Conservatives led by Arthur Meighen, who promptly formed a coalition government of his own.
Canada's Twelfth Governor General, Julian Byng
Soon Canada’s longest serving Prime Minister of all time found a way to turn the coalition against Meighen and after forcing an election, campaigned on getting the Governor General to quit meddling with Parliament because he wasn’t elected. The lesson to successor Governors-General has been to take a passive, symbolic role in the political process.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in a conglomeration of power in the hands of one person—the Prime Minister. If we compared our Prime Minister’s role to that of the President of the United States, it’s clear to see the Prime Minister with a majority of seats in the House of Commons holds much more power than his American counterpart—in relative terms of course.
The U.S. President, being both the head of government and the head of state, can call Congress to sit, can hold a Presidential veto over legislation that isn’t passed with 60 per cent approval, appoints his own cabinet, is Commander-in-Chief of the American Military, fills Supreme Court vacancies with Senatorial approval, along with all his roles as figurehead.
A Canadian Prime Minister with majority seats in the House of Commons holds all these powers and more. He can fill Senate vacancies with whomever he chooses, replace Supreme Court vacancies with whomever he fancies, pass or block any legislation he pleases, can call an election whenever he wishes—and if he really wanted to—unilaterally declare war.
This is far too much power to rest in the hands of one man. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The strength of the American system has always been its checks and balances, not to mention its constitutionally scheduled elections—which would be a good place to begin reform of the Canadian system. We need constitutionally fixed federal election dates. This would promote political stability—especially during minority governments—and allow politicians to act with greater conviction, as they wouldn’t be worried about when the next election might be.
Another check on the power of the Prime Minister would be to dilute it. That could easily be accomplished by giving political authority—by electing—to the two institutions that currently have the technical authority to oppose him—the Senate and the Governor General.
One or the other might do and it’s more likely that the Senate would come first. Along with a few other tweaks, an elected Senate would provide not only a balance on the power of the Prime Minister, but it would also help to balance out the huge power of Ontario and Quebec with the other eight Canadian provinces.
One option to balance the power of the Prime Minister would be to have an elected Senate.
The best thing about having an elected Senate or fixed federal election dates is that they don’t even need the approval of the provinces to be changed, as changes to our constitution that only affect the federal level of government need only a majority approval in the House of Commons.
Luckily, Canadian politicians have rarely abused our political system, but I don’t want to wait for a crook to come along before we start making changes.
As published in the October 20th Issue of the Queen’s Journal.
