Editorial: Who will lead us through these critical times?

With a new Quebec government about to be elected, and as the Harper government in Ottawa stumbles in its first weeks, we have a message for our readers and politicians alike: This is no time for adventurism.

We see the world economy teetering from crisis to crisis, we watch our savings dry up, and more than ever we need strong, stable, sensible government. That is why the Quebec Liberal Party under Jean Charest is the best choice in this provincial election. Yes, the Liberals take voters in west-end Montreal for granted. Still, there are some excellent candidates and with them we still have some clout.

The alternative, as far as having the required number of seats to form a government, is the Parti Québécois under Pauline Marois. With their social-democratic stream, they can be effective in opposition. But the last thing Quebec needs right now is a party committed to breaking up the country taking power, even if the PQ has shelved for now a referendum that would enable such a cataclysmic process to begin.

We dismiss Mario Dumont and his ADQ because they want to go too far, too fast in enabling private health care, and other ill thought-out policies, such as dismantling school boards. We like the Green Party and its call for a saner approach to the deterioration of our environment.

We also appreciate Québec Solidaire and its fight for social justice with such policies as raising the minimum wage from $8.50 to $10.50 and indexing it to the cost of living so the working poor can survive. But between both parties, only Dr. Amir Khadir in Mercier riding has a chance of being elected and we would welcome his defeating the PQ’s Daniel Turp there. If Jean Charest does get a majority this time, we have confidence he will be well placed to get the English super hospital built, reinforce our health care system and maintain our universities with gradual and relatively slight $50-a-semester increases in tuition, which will remain the lowest in Canada.

Stephen Harper, on the other hand, did not get the majority he hoped for when he broke his commitment to fixed elections every four years. He lost it because of miscalculations in Quebec, especially the $35 million in cuts to grants for culture that to many revealed the government bias inherent in his ideology.

Then, without a clear mandate, he tried to pull what can only be described as a dirty trick: Instead of announcing spending programs to stimulate the economy and help hard-hit manufacturing and forestry, his finance minister tried to insert more right-wing ideology. Jim Flaherty had the nerve to attempt first to deny civil servants the right to strike for three years, and second, to cut the $1.95 per vote subsidy to political parties. Both these proposals have since been withdrawn.

On the first point, there is no justification at this time for denying workers, be they in the public or private sector, the right to withdraw their work as a pressure tactic in contract negotiations, except when public safety is involved. As for the crisis around the subsidies to political parties, the Conservatives were beating a hasty retreat in an attempt to avoid being defeated on a confidence motion. This could have set in motion a bid by the opposition parties to cobble together a coalition. The alternative is another costly federal election, surely not in anyone’s interest, including the Liberals as they prepare to replace Stéphane Dion. Harper’s ploy has backfired, revealing a manipulative streak that this country could do without. We would prefer a cooperative approach, one that takes into account that this still is a minority government, and inspires, rather than reeking of rank opportunism.

Editorial: Don’t allow our infrastructure to deteriorate

The worldwide stock market implosion and the start of a recession in North America present a particular challenge to our governments.

With his increased standing in the Commons, Stephen Harper will be tempted to pursue his belief in trickle- down economic policies. We think otherwise. The decreased value of the Canadian dollar, linked to the stun­ning, though cyclical drop in oil and natural gas prices, can only help our challenged manufacturing sector.

But it won’t be enough. Now is the time to revert to much-maligned Keynesian solutions – yes, deficits are bad, but massive unemployment and swollen welfare rolls are worse. We urge the Harper government to massively invest in infrastructure, especially health care and mass transit. When prices in fossil fuels return to where they should be, given limited supply and exponentially increasing demand, government revenues they supply can be used to pay down this spending.

Canadians can be thankful that our more closely regulated (and more monopolistic) banking system is not facing the same problems as those in the U.S. One estimate expects an additional 5 million Americans to join the 47 million already without health care in 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau – 15.8% of the popu­lation, a rate that has increased for six consecutive years. A recent survey of 4500 U.S. hospitals, reported in the New York Times, found that more than half were technically insolvent or at risk of insolvency. The evi­dence is there for all to see: We must not allow our medicare system to deteriorate in a similar fashion just because a right-wing government believes the marketplace solves everything. It doesn’t.

The Harper government must strengthen our health care system at a time when the seniors and soon-to-be seniors who paid those heavy taxes, compared to the U.S., will be needing greater care. If the ripple effect of the world economic crisis curtails demand for our products and creates more unemployment, we expect our governments to see this as an opportunity to rebuild crumbling urban infrastructure and extend mass transit, to make us less dependent on fossil fuels when prices start to rebound, as they will. Then will come the time for deficit fighting, not now.

Strong candidates make voting decisions tough

With storm clouds signaling economic meltdown hovering over the United States, the debates in the Canadian general election seemed liked a passing sun shower. Add to that the drama of Obama versus McCain, and his risky choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, and you have all the makings of drama, even if at times it resembled a daytime soap opera.

But we have a real battle going on right here, with all the opinion surveys pointing to a renewed Conservative victory under Stephen Harper. Still, his vision of the role of government has yet to win him a seat in Montreal or Toronto.

The ridings where The Senior Times is distributed are solidly Liberal and many of our readers reflect this reality. But some fine candidates are running for the NDP, Conservatives and Green Party who are attracting attention and would make excellent MPs. Green Party leader Elizabeth May urges Canadians to vote with their hearts, but some are calling for strategic voting, to support whomever is strongest to prevent a Tory majority.

Some may feel that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, an honest, hardworking, principled and brilliant man, has been pilloried for not being as good with soundbites as others. But the past week has shown him to in fact have an exemplary capacity to articulate his ideas in both languages.

The NDP hopes to repeat their byelection win in Outremont and to pick up Westmount–Ville-Marie as well, where CBC broadcaster Anne Lagacé Dowson is waging a high-profile campaign. Former astronaut Marc Garneau is the Liberal star candidate there – certainly a man of honour and achievement, who has proved his dedication to the common good. The NDP’s Peter Deslauriers, former head of the Dawson College teachers’ union, is also an attractive candidate for NDG–Lachine, up against Marlene Jennings, who has become a well-known advocate of minority rights. It goes without saying that we fully support Stéphane Dion in St. Laurent, and human rights advocate and former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler in Mount Royal.

We know many of our readers will have difficulty choosing this time due to the unusually high calibre of candidates running across the island.

Editorial: Obama shines light for Canada

Anyone who watched Barack Obama's magnificent acceptance speech at last month's Democratic Party convention could only have been impressed by the man's rhetorical skill and the magnitude of this historic moment.

This man is gifted, not just by his use of words – simple words that pack a mighty punch – but also by his ability to touch on the concerns of average Americans at a critical time in their history. His nomination speaks volumes about how the political culture in that country is evolving. His Yes We Can promise of change in such key areas as Iraq, healthcare, and the growing wealth-poverty gap mobilized millions – of people and dollars – from across the spectrum. As power beckons, however, there are signs that Obama is retreating from some of his potentially controversial stands. One example is his reversal on denying retroactive federal immunity to phone companies involved in the Bush domestic wiretap program.

As The Nation magazine reported last month under the heading Change We Can Believe In, progressive Americans who are supporting Obama delivered an open letter to him during the convention, demanding that he not cave on a series of crucial commitments. These include:

• Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable
• Universal healthcare
• A more progressive financial and welfare system
• Public investment to repair infrastructure
• Fair trade policies
• Shifting billions from fossil-fuel consumption to alternative energy sources.
• Restoration of the freedom to organize unions by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

This last point is key to allowing American unions to turn around their erosion in membership, which has hurt the middle class. The Act would allow arbitration on first contracts after 120 days without an agreement, and would stop employers from ordering secret ballots where the majority of workers sign union cards without evidence of coercion.

This is what real change means and these areas clearly distinguish Obama from McCain, whose inherent promise of Òmore of the sameÓ stands in stark contrast to Yes We Can.

***

The intensity and passion seen in Denver and the hope inspired by Obama can only spill over into the upcoming Canadian election. Why Stephen Harper wants one is something of a mystery. The polls show him picking up support in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc, but losing some in vote-rich Ontario.

One hypothesis is that he wants to bleed dry the Liberals' war chest at a time when it can't match Tory fundraising, which is short-term thinking at best – if another Harper minority results, all he'll have done is weaken the Liberals' finances for the inevitable follow-up vote.

Another possibility is that he wants to get the election behind him by mid-October to limit the progressive spillover from the Obama campaign, which can only help the opposition.

Whatever his reasons, Harper has yet to make a convincing case that the current arrangement is holding him back.

Liberal leader Dion, stopping briefly in Westmount to support Marc Garneau, assured The Senior Times that when an election comes, seniors' issues will top his agenda, including his Green Shift plan, which he said is of special concern to grandparents.

Remove the crucifix from the National Assembly

There is a recognizable shadow in the elaborate wood paneling in the main courtroom of the Quebec Court of Appeal on Notre-Dame. Because it was until fairly recently covered with a cross, the wood paneling has not aged at the same rate. A crucifix-shaped outline is clearly visible.

This central icon of Christianity has been removed from the courtrooms of Quebec. For the same reasons, the crucifix should be removed from behind the Speaker’s chair in the National Assembly and placed elsewhere, among other artifacts that recall Quebec’s heritage.

We were extremely dismayed when, under the “leadership” of Premier Jean Charest, the National Assembly voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation almost as soon as it was made public. We heartily support the idea that, to underline the secular nature of our most important political body, the artifact be moved from where it  was set in the mid-1930s. After all, separation of church and state is basic to any liberal democracy.

The commission, among its 37 recommendations, said it should be relocated in the legislature building to a place that emphasizes heritage value. That is where it belongs.

Nobody is denying that the first Europeans to colonize Quebec – and subdue the native inhabitants in paternalistic, abusive and often inhumane ways – were from France. No one is denying the role played by the Roman Catholic Church and its religious orders in providing some education and health care.

But Quebec has changed and the roles have changed. The Quiet Revolution recognized the inadequacy of this system. And since the 1960s Quebec has become the most secular province in Canada, with a massive rejection of the Church, in part because of the abuses some of its institutions and clerics inflicted on innocent believers.

The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms has replaced religious dogma as the guarantor of each individual’s standing in society. Quebec was a leader in granting women the right to decide if they want to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies. Quebec pioneered gay-marriage rights. Quebec has the highest rate of common-law unions in Canada. Retaining the crucifix is an anachronism that contradicts of all of these fundamental changes.

But more importantly, today’s Quebec is a diverse community of communities. Maintaining a religious icon in our legislature sends the wrong message to our lawmakers. With our need for continuing high levels of immigration, the time is coming when there will be a Muslim premier. Or a Jew or atheist or agnostic may fill that role. Future leaders and legislators should not have to face a religious icon when making decisions that affect a multi-faceted and diverse population.

The unanimous vote in the National Assembly was an obvious pitch for old-stock Quebecers’ sentiment. The front-page story in La Presse on a recent Saturday featured a smiling farmer beaming beside a dairy cow. “The Quebec we love,” said the headline. But we know that this bit of happy nostalgia is largely mythical. That Quebec was a place of limited education and opportunity, banned books, misogyny, ostracism for what used to be known as unwed mothers, xenophobia and economic and cultural stagnation. The quarter-century spent under strongman Maurice Duplessis, who had the crucifix installed, was known as the Great Darkness.

The new Quebec is one of openness to the world, of safe haven for immigrants, of individual rights and freedoms, a rainbow of beliefs and respect for all. It is unfortunate that, among all the recommendations made by the commission, the first thing our politicians did was to pounce on the crucifix-removal recommendation and reject it. It does not bode well for the other proposals, such as speeding up steps to recognize foreign university diplomas so that qualified physicians don’t have to drive taxis while our emergency rooms continue to be overcrowded and understaffed.

The commission suggested the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to ban public incitement to discriminate, and urged “exceptional initiatives” to fight anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and discrimination faced by all racialized groups, particularly Blacks. We urge the Quebec government to get on the case and in doing so pay homage to some of the lessons we should have learned from the crucifixion.

Iraq war deserters merit sanctuary

Some 40 years ago, then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam and, like many Canadians, was openly sympathetic to the thousands of young Americans who crossed the border into Canada to evade the draft. Trudeau said at the time, "Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war … have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism."

Those were heady days and the Vietnam War had galvanized the young around the world into a spirit of revolt. Canada then received from 50,000 to 100,000 Americans, draft dodgers and deserters alike. The draft is no more, but similar issues of conscientious objection to an illegal war have now come to the fore with the arrival of an estimated 150 American soldiers in Canada in search of asylum. The question is, should those who signed up for service in the U.S. Armed Forces and gone AWOL be granted refuge?

Many who first supported the U.S. invasion accepted the fact that the war was illegal but believed what is now known as trumped up evidence that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction. The world now knows this was a fabrication. Others believed the U.S., as sole super-power was being the world's police officer in ridding the Iraqis of its murderous tyrant, Saddam. But knowing now how badly the post-invasion was mismanaged, it is perfectly reasonable on a moral level that those who enlisted have seen the horror of it all and are being asked to redeploy for a third and fourth tour of duty can legitimately refuse to take part in an illegal war and occupation.

With a civil war raging, at least 90,000 Iraqis killed, possibly many more, and more than 4,000 U.S. military dead, is it not legitimate for soldiers to reject the effort and renege on their contracts on moral grounds? Canadian courts in dismissing refugee claims in two cases have set aside the issue of the war's legality. Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court wrote in the case of Jeremy Hinzman in 2006 that the legality of the war "is not before the court and no finding has made in this regard." The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear appeals in Hinzman's case and that of deserter Brandon Hughey. His lawyer, Jeffry House, noted that in 1995 the Federal Court granted refugee status to a deserter from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, accepting the argument he should not be compelled to take part in an illegal war. The difference, of course, is that deserters returning to the U.S. face court martial, dishonourable discharges and possible jail terms of five years or so, while an Iraqi deserter forced to return home would have faced torture and death.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien wisely led a government that refused to participate in the U.S. led invasion and subsequent occupation. In so doing he signaled Canada's unease with the justification, moral underpinning, and dynamics of what is now a bloody quagmire. As such, we regret the Harper government is so supportive of U.S. policies that it will not emulate Trudeau's example in showing the moral and political courage and progressive leadership to challenge American policy by offering refuge to U.S. draft evaders and war resisters on moral grounds. They deserved it then, they deserve it now.