Middle East Crisis

After taking a few days to listen carefully to all sides of the Middle East Crisis, I thought I would give my views on the conflict. I am not an expert in foreign policy and after making the mistake of initially supporting the Iraq war, which I now regret, I thought I would wait until I had enough information before commenting.

First I would like to start off by sending my condolences to all innocent civilians needless killed in the crossfire. My position is similiar to Scott Brison and Joe Volpe . I fully support the right of Israel to defend itself therefore I support the use of limited military action against Lebanon provided all attacks are limited to Hezbollah targets only. However, I believe Harper should have said that Israel has the right to defend itself rather than saying it used a measured response, since it is possible the conflict could escalate beyond its current status in which the response would no longer be measured. Some have suggested we send a UN peacekeeping force in and call for a ceasefire, but I don't believe this is realistic. I support Canada working with the Lebanese government to root out Hezbollah, but I do not support negotiating with either Hezbollah and Hamas. Both groups are groups who advocate terrorism and both advocate the destruction of the state of Israel. While I believe in Canada playing a role as a mediator in general, there are certain principles we must stand squarely against including those who advocating wiping any nation of the map. I instead believe Canada should work with both moderate Israelis and moderate Arabs who want peace and a two-state solution. The fundamentalists from both groups are ones who we cannot reason with.

Now some may say I am being too pro-Israel in my bias, but I do not blindly support Israel. I support Israel withdrawing from occupied territories and dismantling its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, I unequovically support the right of Israel to exist and this is something that I see as non-negotiotable. I should also note Israel allows Arabs to vote and even has some Arab members of government whereas most Arab countries grant Jews few rights and some don't even allow them to enter. Therefore, in my view Israel is anything but a racist state as some on the left accuse it of being.

Some may ask why I don't support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. My reason is this is totally different than either of the two conflicts. I am not against the Americans attacking Afghanistan since they were attacked on 9/11, however I oppose Canadian participation since we were not attacked just as I don't think Canada should participate in Israel's attack on Hezbollah even if I support Israel's actions. In the case of Iraq, the war was totally unprovoked whereas Israel's attack on Hezbollah was in response to being attacked first, not a pre-emptive strike. Also Israel faces a much different situation than the United States. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations such as Syria and Iran who advocate its complete destruction and faces suicide bombings on a regular basis, whereas the United States has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of its neighbours advocate its destruction.

Finally I should say I am glad to hear that Jim Karygiannis is no longer Joe Volpe's campaign manager. Apparently, the two disagreed strongly on the Middle East Crisis. Karygiannis' departure is a good thing for us Liberals since he is a complete slimeball and is all about hijacking riding associations. Indeed he is responsible for delivering the large number of instant members for Volpe. With him gone, those members likely won't show up to the DSMs so hopefully whoever wins won't have to turn to Volpe for support, which before it looked like they would have.

Softwood Lumber Deal Unacceptable

I would like to add my name to a growing number of people who believe the softwood lumber deal negotiated between the Harper government and the United States as falling well short. While this deal may have been better than no deal at all, it was clearly slanted towards American interests and should therefore be rejected by parliament. BC industry and the BC government who supported the agreement in principle in April have now withdrawn their support for the new deal. In particular I would like to outline some of the flaws here:

1. Allows the United States to pull out after 23 months therefore re-starting the trade war in a mere 23 months. So much for long-term stability.

2. Requires permission from the Americans to change any forestry practices while there is no such stipulation for the United States if it wishes to change its forestry practices. This is a clear violation of our sovereignty and totally one-sided. I agree our forestry policies cannot controvene NAFTA and the WTO, but as long as they comply with our international trade agreements we should be free to set our forest policies as we choose.

3. Only returns $4 billion of the $5 billion in tariffs illegally collected, despite repeated NAFTA rulings against the United States. If they gave us unfettered access to their market, I would be willing to accept this as a trade-off, but this plus restrictions on entering their market, it is not a compromise, but a sell out.

4. Quotas are done based on monthly shipments, not total sales so if one month a high volume of lumber is shipped over the border, this cannot be carried over to the next month.

5. $355 US/1,000 square feet of shipped board, which means as soon as the market changes or the dollar drops we have to impose an export tax.

Now I know some will say this was the best deal we could get, but I look at this from the bigger picture. If we capitulate here, it may help us in the softwood lumber industry, but what other industries will the protectionist forces in the United States go after. Signing this deal will show Canada is a weak country that will easily capitulate under pressure and will be bad for Canada in the long-run. I understand Harper wants to improve relations with the United States, but this is simply going too far. We can improve relations but stopping the name calling, but we don't need to start agreeing with the Americans more often. We should continue to disagree with them when they are wrong, we just need to be more mature about our disagreements. The United States may like poodles, but they show more respect for countries that stand up for themselves while continue to bully those who they are easy push overs.

Now this deal will require parliamentary approval and will likely be a confidence vote. I understand the Liberals may be reluctant to vote against it if it triggers an election. I would argue we should vote against it, unless it can be radically altered, even if it means risking an election. We have a process in place to ensure we have a new leader if a fall election occurs. Secondly we lost the last election partly because we spent too much time basing our policies on public opinion polls rather than on principle. We will regain the trust of Canadians when we stand by our word even if it is not the most politically popular thing to do at the moment. If the Bloc Quebecois wishes to pass this agreement, they can go ahead, but we shouldn't pass it even if the NDP and Bloc Quebecois decide to oppose it. Neither should we abstain. We need to stand up for what we believe in.

My Endorsement

After giving much thought to who I would have endorsed, I have finally made up my mind. I would like to say that with the exception of Joe Volpe and Bob Rae, I could happily support any of the other candidates that have a realistic chance at winning. My first choice is Stephane Dion, while mi second choice is Michael Ignatieff should Stephane Dion get eliminated on one of the ballots. I considered supporting Gerard Kennedy, Scott Brison, and Maurizio Bevilacqua, but felt while they were good candidates, now was not the right time to choose them as leader. I was also quite impressed with Martha Hall-Findlay in the debates and feel she has a lot of potential in the future.

I liked Scott Brison's bold new ideas, but I feel he hasn't been a Liberal long enough to lead the party in the next election. After quitting the Tories when Stephen Harper took over since I thought I was an Alliance takeover, I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and support Brison. I supported him for the PC leadership race and remain proud of that decision. Due to his age, I have no doubt he will get another chance sometime in the future. I was also very impressed with Maurizio Bevilacqua and his ability to understand the challenges facing the future of Canada. However, due to lack of name recognition, I feel it would be best to wait until next time. Hopefully, he will get a top notch cabinet position in the next Liberal government; my pick would be finance minister. I considered Gerard Kennedy since I feel it would be good to have someone who was originally from the West since after the thrashing we took in Quebec last election, we will need to gain seats in the West if we want to someday win a majority. But I feel he is still too much of a provincial politician and hasn't made the full transition to federal politics yet. I do though hope he considers running in the West in order to help promote Liberalism in Western Canada.

The reason Michael Ignatieff is mi second choice, but not mi first choice is I like his ideas, but I am concerned that the negative perception some have of him could drag him down. We will likely be thrown into another election within months of the leadership race since Harper knows the longer he waits, the less the chance of him being re-elected. I was impressed with his long-term vision of Canada and its role in the World. And was particularly pleased that he is willing to stick to his positions even if they become unpopular, which is unfortunately a rarity today in politics, but definitely a good trait. Finally the fact he has more caucus support than any of other candidate and from all sides of the spectrum shows he has the strong ability to unite people. If I were convinced the Liberals were going to lose the next election, he would be mi first choice, however, I still believe the Liberals can win the next election therefore I will be choosing who I think has the best chance of defeating Stephen Harper in the next general election.

My reasons for not supporting Joe Volpe are pretty obvious so I won't explain any further. As for Bob Rae, my reasons for opposing his candidacy is two-fold (1) I entered politics to put an end to the destructive policies of the BC NDP here in my home province, so I am not going to support a politician who advocated similiar policies in the past (2) Politics is about perception not reality and almost all the non-card carrying Liberals I've met from Ontario would have a tough time voting for Bob Rae in a general election. While many of the problems Ontario faced in the early 90s, were not his fault, if Ontario perceives one is not fit to govern, then it is pretty difficult to win.

Finally here is my reasons for supporting Stephane Dion. He was both a successful environment and intergovernmental affairs minister. His Clarity Act, which put an end to the separtists asking ambiguous questions to get the result they wanted was a strong act of leadership. I also like his combination of economic growth and environmental sustainability. I have been a strong skeptic of the Kyoto Protocol and its effectiveness, but I believe the environment is a serious issue we must as a nation tackle sooner rather than later. Finally if we want to defeat Harper we need to go after him on his weak spots, not issues that split Canadians down the middle. On Childcare, three parties support a national childcare program while only one opposes it, but with Canadians split evenly on this issue, it is a not a winning issue. On the other hand less than 30% support Harper's environmental policies, so this is an area we can beat him on.

Finally to all candidates, best of luck and may the party choose a leader who can unite the party and defeat Stephen Harper in the next general election.

As a side note, I haven't been able to post much recently since I have been busy, but I was very pleased that the BC Government signed a collective agreement with the BCTF for the first-time since province wide bargaining was instituted. Kudos to Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell for their leadership here.

Happy Canada Day

As Canada celebrates its 139th birthday, today is a day for Canadians from coast to coast, the Arctic to the US border, of all races and religions, and all political beliefs to celebrate the great nation we have built together and look forward to the future successes of this great nation. Most of my past posts have been highly partisan, however this one won't be since I believe anybody regardless of their political views can be a proud Canadian. Here's to 139 years of this great nation and to another 139 years. We have much to be proud of and we should celebrate our successes and look forward to a bright future.