It’s indescribable, the feeling that you can walk to the Eiffel Tower whenever you want to, and the knowledge that your school is just a stone’s throw away from Notre Dame. It’s quite surreal, really.

Meeting and making friends with a bunch of international students has been awesome too. In the past few weeks, I think that I’ve met people from more countries than I have encountered ever! People from Australia, Denmark, Sweeden, the Phillipines, Thailand…. the list goes on.

And I get to live with these people, in THIS city, for a whole year. Whose idea was that? I’m pretty sure that it was mine. Good thinkin’!

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, seems more like a daddy trying to explain to his four year-old why Stephen Harper is a bad man than an effective political leader.

When he ran for Liberal Party leadership in Dec. 2006, Ignatieff was vaunted as a Trudeauesque intellectual with a capacity for making young people chant his name while coming up with bold, insightful policy ideas. The party was shocked when the owlish Stephané Dion came up the middle to claim victory at that convention.

After almost two years of ups and downs including a poor election performance and failure to capitalize on the second chance that was the “coalition crisis” the Liberal Party rejoiced when Dion announced his resignation. Almost immediately, Ignatieff was crowned saviour of the Liberal party and installed as its new king.

The Liberals had reason to hope again, for the era of the bumbling, ill-spoken professor was over.

After the public opinion honeymoon, Ignatieff began to flounder.

With the third economic “report card” he demanded from the Conservatives due in the fall of 2009, Ignatieff began the election talk. His support sharply dropped and was made to look like a fool when Jack Layton wisely made the decision to support the government budget update to avoid an election nobody wanted. Let’s not forget the mishandling of the Denis Coderre issue. That incident was poor politics in Québec, the one region where the Liberals have a consistent advantage over the Conservatives. The only thing worse Ignatieff could have done was insult Toronto, the most Liberal-loyal area in the entire country.

Now Ignatieff has a new chief-of-staff in Peter Donolo and appears to be making better political decisions. He’s even coming up with–gasp!–policy positions. Canadians appear to be willing to give him a second chance.

But as someone who identified strongly with the Liberals, I remain unconvinced.

First of all, Ignatieff has never been able to come off as sincere—unless you count Question Period. That’s where he looks like someone sincerely peed in his Cheerios. Other than that, though, I just don’t get the feeling he means what he says.

That’s one of the few things I admired Dion for—his readily apparent concern for Canadians. I can distinctly remember watching the English language debate in the 2008 election when Dion looked into the camera. When he looked at you and spoke, you saw and heard a man of compassion, intelligence and sincerity.

Fast forward to the infamous “Narnia” ads the Liberals ran around the middle of 2009. When Ignatieff looked into the camera and spoke I perceived something rather different. He was patronizing, aloof and arrogant. I didn’t perceive the powerful intellect of a highly intelligent man. Instead, Ignatieff was more of a daddy trying to explain to his four year-old why Stephen Harper is a bad man.

In addition to failing at sincerity, I still don’t know what kind of vision he has for the country. Oh sure, I could tell you some of the stuff he wrote while he was at Harvard, like how torture can be justified, but I still don’t know what he wants for Canada.

I don’t know if I would vote for him because I don’t know what would happen if he were elected. Maybe he would give everyone free iPhones. Maybe he would ban cheesy teen soap operas like Beverley Hills 90210 from being broadcast over Canadian airwaves. He’s in the gray. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t raise the bar.

This is a problem I have with all the federal party leaders. Instead of giving a clear-cut choice between two good leaders who differ on principles, or between someone who would be a good Prime Minister and who would be a bad Prime Minister, the 2008 election gave Canadians something much different. We got four leaders we could look at and say, “meh.”

Elections in a democracy shouldn’t be a choice between the lesser of four evils. There should be a plurality of good candidates or a leader who stands out above the rest.

The acclamation of Michael Ignatieff as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was supposed to give Canadians that democracy. Instead, we’re still looking at the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, shrugging their shoulders and saying to each other, “So, did you go to see Avatar yet?”

Canadians don’t want to be patronized or pandered to in an insincere way. They get plenty of that from the current Prime Minister. Neither do we want a guy who could pass a law requiring every university student in Canada read his plethora of books because he needed an ego trip.

Canadians certainly don’t need more of the same boring political sludge that’s been served up ever since Mulroney stepped down from office. Canadians need a leader of principle who will explain and not patronize, lead with a clear vision and stir up political debate on important issues. Michael Ignatieff isn’t that man.

And that’s why I’m not convinced.

As published in the March 12th edition of the Queen’s Journal.

The host of his own Fox News television show, Glenn Beck’s commentary on issues from the health-care debate to the economic crisis is often based on raw emotion rather than logic.

Although I don’t agree with anything he says, Glenn Beck makes an important offering to the American political discourse.

For one, the television and radio host gives voice to a large group of people in the United States.

Second, his irrational method of arguing is effective because the concerns of the group he represents are emotional—not logical—concerns.

Finally, just because the arguments of a group are emotional doesn’t make them less valuable than their logical counterparts.

A frequent subject of broadcasts like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, the 45 year-old Beck provides hours of riff-worthy material.

I should know—I’m among those laughing the hardest at him on a regular basis.

He’s gained international attention for his style of presentation and the views he presents in his self-titled Fox News television broadcast, Glenn Beck.

Beck has addressed issues from the art on either side of the entrance to NBC headquarters showing, in his view, that the building is full of Communists, to his belief President Barack Obama is racist.

Let’s not forget his explosive tantrum on his radio program when a caller took issue with his opinions on healthcare.

Despite his melodramatic approach and seemingly outrageous conclusions, his perspective is valid and important.

One need only look to the American Tea Party protests against healthcare reform to see why.

These protests have been widely covered by Fox News and other American news networks whose broadcasts show there’s a large portion of Americans who are fearful of negative changes resulting from health-care reform.

By examining these issues and airing these concerns—especially the way he does—Beck gives that same large group a chance to have their fears addressed.

These fears aren’t rooted in logical points or problems with the impending legislation. Instead, they arise out of raw emotion.

The proposals to reform healthcare have many people running scared much in the same way President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 inspired millions of Americans to believe again in themselves and their country.

Both the presidential campaign and the health-care debate have produced profoundly emotional reactions.

The President has articulated time and time again there isn’t cause for concern on health care, but their fears remain.

These aren’t rational arguments. They’re deeply emotional arguments that must be overall addressed with passion.

Facts are optional in this kind of debate.

That’s why Beck approaches issues in the way he does—the people he represents don’t think with their minds, but with their hearts.

Bringing attention to their fears is valuable because it shows these fears have yet to be addressed. The only time this type of argument would cease in value is when those fears no longer exist.

Emotional concerns aren’t less valuable than logical points. There seems to be a preference in society for argumentative points that can be backed up by hard evidence. But these arguments aren’t always the best way to support an opinion.

For example, emotion is often the reason for which we fight wars, buy luxury goods and why we are kind to each other.

We fight because we think the other party is evil or has done something wrong.

We buy things we don’t need because we are greedy or because we believe they will make us happy.

We’re kind to each other because we think it’s the right thing to do or it makes us feel good. Emotions are the primary force behind human action and because they are so important we should talk about them and—yes—make arguments based upon them.

So when Beck articulates the emotional fears of any group of Americans in an emotional way, it’s valuable because he represents how they think and feel.

Giving a voice to the voiceless in a way that accurately represents them is profoundly democratic.

It ensures every opinion is heard, no matter how stupid, insensitive or insane those opinions may seem.

The issue really comes down to free speech. The more opinions are aired, the more educated we can be about each other.

By having Beck articulate the concerns of the fearful, the greater chance there is for the fearful having their concerns addressed.

It goes without saying everyone’s concerns deserve to be addressed—not just those who happen to think in logical terms.

He’s not perfect, but I challenge anyone to find a more effective voice for the conservative right than Glenn Beck.

As published in the January 19th issue of the Queen’s University newspaper The Journal.

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.

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.

Parliament resumed this week with one thought on everyone’s mind: With Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff vowing to bring down the Stephen Harper government, what will New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton do? Will Layton try to squeeze some NDP-friendly amendments out of Harper? Will Harper offer an olive branch to Layton in return for his support? Or will the NDP simply bring down the government and force our fourth election in five years?

As it turned out, it was Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, not Layton, who kept Parliament running—for this week anyway. The Bloc Québecois reported on Tuesday they would be supporting the Ways and Means bill that could have potentially brought the government’s demise about.

I found the whole thing ridiculous. Are these really the kind of politicians that our country has produced?

The Prime Minister is a perfect example. Stephen Harper, for all his shrewd intelligence, seems to lack the necessary wisdom to understand what a minority parliament entails—working together with other parties. What a concept. Perhaps picking up the phone or sitting down at a table with members of other parties and trying to work out their differences is just too much for Canada’s Prime Minister. Mr. Harper is combative and even glib towards his opponents. During Question Period on Monday, he called Bob Rae a “left-wing incompetent.” I don’t care whether the man is or isn’t competent—you’re the Prime Minister. Act with a modicum of dignity, please, and leave the cheap shots to John Baird.

Layton and the NDP were critical of the government nearly all of last year without a moment’s hesitation, but as soon as it became apparent that it could be politically unviable to force an election, the brakes are slammed on and Mr. Layton became suddenly, as CTV put it, “gentlemanly” in question period.

When I raise the subject of politics with my grandfather, it usually comes down to the statement, “They’re all crooks!” I used to have faith in our politicians to put the interests of Canadians first, but I’ve become less idealistic. It seems to me the time for greatness in Canadian politics has come and gone.

How I long for the days of old—for politicians like John Diefenbaker, who could set a room on fire with a fantastic speech and stand up to the United States during an international crisis. Politicians like Lester Pearson, who spoke out against the injustice of the war in Vietnam and passed bills like universal health care in a minority parliament, working with other parties to make the government successful; politicians like Pierre Trudeau, who gave Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and kept our country united during the FLQ crisis and first referendum on Quebec separation.

There were days when oratory and dignity were important to politicians. But it seems the Canadian public has been so complacent in accepting “politics as usual” from its Members of Parliament that the level of political discourse in this country has devolved into bitter, partisan, minority governments in which all every party can think about is scoring political points off of their opponents.

It’s time to demand more from our politicians. It’s time to raise the standard of debate in this country. It’s time to demand politicians go to Ottawa to do their jobs: serving the interests of their constituents. No more electoral brinksmanship, especially when the economy is still damaged and there is no real issue that an election could be fought over (I mean, employment insurance? Be serious, please). No more blindly voting against bills just because your political enemies write them. And please, no more negative campaign ads. Sure, Michael Ignatieff may be in it for himself, but aren’t they all?

Canadians love Barack Obama so much because his campaign raised the standard of debate in America. When he spoke, he inspired Americans to hope for a better future. He focused on the issues when he debated, not on personal attacks. And when he won, he raised the bar for politicians across the globe.

A Canadian Barack Obama is likely too much to ask, but we can ask our politicians to change nonetheless. It’s not that hard to do if you try. When the fathers of Confederation wrote the constitution, they enshrined in it three principles: Peace, order and good government. If politicians continue their present course of political deadlock and electioneering, we’ll soon fail to meet the first two principles while continuing to trample upon the third.

The time has come for Canadians to demand a new kind of politician, the kind that doesn’t make people say, “They’re all crooks!” Now, more than ever, we need politicians that can work for our interests and co-operate with others. That’s what minority governments are all about, and that’s what our politicians should be all about. If they don’t act now, they won’t get my vote.

As published in the September 18th issue of the Queen’s University Journal.

“Think about private health care as a way to keep innovation, quality, and technology moving forward, while public health care makes sure everyone benefits from the resulting changes.”

Sarcasm aside, there are some concrete concerns that the American public has with the proposed reforms. They are worried that their quality of care will decrease. They worry too, that a public option for health insurance will stifle private insurance companies. Of course their biggest worry is that any changes to health care will increase the federal budget deficit.

President Obama outlines the requirements for health care reform.

There is no reason to believe that quality of care will decrease. Time and time again, President Obama has stated that, under a new health care system, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” It follows that, if you’re satisfied with the quality of care you are receiving now, you do not have to downgrade under a new plan. And the millions of Americans who do not have health care will get an automatic upgrade to their quality of care, seeing having a doctor versus not having one is a significant shift in quality.

There is also little reason to believe that adding in a public option for health care will diminish the ability of private insurance providers to compete in the health care industry. Private corporations have much more freedom to innovate and change than publicly run organizations do, as corporations are responsible to a board of governors (or equivalent), while public entities are responsible to the politicians that created them. This is the difference between a command economy (public), and a market economy (private). Think about private health care as a way to keep innovation, quality, and technology moving forward, while public health care makes sure everyone benefits from the resulting changes. Thus, a combination of the two (as the president is proposing) would be the best way to go.

Finally, there is the fear that action on health care would add to the federal deficit. However, the danger of no action at all is far greater than the danger of a larger deficit today. As the President noted in his speech to congress on September 10th, inaction now would result in greater pressure on Medicare and Medicaid, to the point where the spending on those two programs combined would soon outweigh all other government spending combined. The proposed reforms will not pass the President’s desk if they, “add one dime to the federal deficit”.

If the plan manages to make its way through the House and the Senate, and finally across the President’s desk, it will be a milestone for the American government, Barack Obama’s Presidency, and indeed, it could be a policy that the rest of the developed world can look to for inspiration when bringing about their own health care reform, or for still developing countries to look at when trying out health care laws for the first time. Perhaps finally, Mr. Glenn Beck of Fox News will truthfully be able to say that America has the best health care in the world.

See the New York Times Analysis of the President’s speech to Congress.

Canadians expected Ignatieff to be their Barack Obama. They could still be right.

Second is Ignatieff’s failure to present a vision for the country. The biggest policy he has fought for has been the reform of employment insurance, and to date he has failed to make it clear to Canadians how important it is and why. This country has seen too many lacklustre politicians in the past two decades, and its citizens are looking for someone who can present lead the country in some direction, whether they be left-leaning, right-leaning, or in the center.

Finally is Ignatieff’s communicative style. One would think that someone with such a towering intellect would take advantage of his vast vocabulary to inspire confidence and awe in the minds of the Canadians whose votes he hopes to win. And yet, one is struck by his simplicity of message in response to the slough of Conservative attack ads; released on May 20th of this year. Do we not want our leaders to be more intelligent and experienced than us? Mr. Ignatieff must play the role of the professor, he needs to be the smartest guy in the room. Why? Because he is. We need Professor Ignatieff to take the country above its politics as usual, as he claims to want in the May 20th response.

When Canadians are looking around for who they want their leader to be and they see a man who is firm in what he believes is best for Canada, is experienced and intelligent enough to bring it about, and is prepared to abandon the party line in favour for blazing his own trail, they will choose Michael Ignatieff. But only if he fixes the things that are restraining him from reaching his full potential. If he fixes these things, then the polls will reflect the approval of the Canadian people.