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 nece
ssary 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.
For months now, the global news cycle has been dominated by the American Debate on health care. A bold initiative for President Obama to stake his legacy on, it seems he has finally found his focus to defend his propositions. Some of the things that he has to defend himself against are ridiculous. ‘Death–panels’. Socialist takeover. I actually read one person say that the Obama Administration wanted to gain possession of people’s bodies. Personally and, as a Canadian, I have lived all my life without the government taking over my body, even though the system I benefit from is a single-payer, “socialist” medicare policy. My country’s citizens have longer life expectancy, lower obesity rates, and lower infant mortality rates than the United States. And we spend at least 6 percent less dollars per capita on Health Care than our neighbours to the South, probably closer to 10 percent. I guess we had it coming, being communists and all.
“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.
The past few months have been just as event filled as those that preceded my last entry. Nationally, the shine of Mr. Michael Ignatieff seems to have worn off, and with the strong possibility of a fall election (almost a certainty in this author’s opinion), the Liberal and Conservative polling numbers are pulling even with one another; making an outcome too difficult to predict. The question that needs to be asked, however, is why Ignatieff didn’t turn out to be the star Liberal leader that the country thought he could be. There are several factors that could have determined this.
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.
