Events this past week

Over the past week, the main political event is the Mulroney-Schreiber case. As someone who is tired of hearing about scandals, I have basically ignored this one as it is something you get with every party. Besides Harper was a Reformer while Mulroney was a Progressive Conservative at the time, so I really don't see them as being too heavily connected. They are only connected by convenience since Mulroney wanted the Liberals out of power while Harper turned to someone last election who actually knew how to win elections. So I won't discuss this any further, but instead focus on three other major issues.

The Conservatives have proposed adding 5 seats to Alberta, 7 seats to British Columbia, and 10 seats to Ontario in order to ensure they reflect their growing populations. While I agree with the changes in the first two, I think giving Ontario only 10 more seats is shortchanging them and McGuinty is right to argue against this plan. I don't agree with the Quebec position that Quebec should have more seats than Alberta and BC combined despite having fewer people. However, I do believe in the idea of every vote being worth the same and therefore think Ontario should get an extra 21 as opposed to 10 seats. It also seems quite politically stupid to anger Ontario as there are far more seats there than the West and the Conservatives need to do well there to win. Whether this was a simple mistake or a deliberate attempt to make the changes more favourable to the Conservatives, I cannot say, but it needs to be corrected. The NDP and Liberals should try to amend this legislation in committee. Just because the West was historically given the short end of the stick doesn't mean the Conservatives should turn around and give Central and Eastern Canada the short end of the stick. We should be finding ways to unite the country not divide it. As someone born and raised in British Columbia, with most of my family in Alberta, and now living in Ontario, I believe we as Canadians have far more that unites us than divides us, so lets focus on that.

Another major issue, was Harper's stance at the Commonwealth on climate change. I agree with his assertion that developing countries should not be exempt from targets as if we are going to seriously tackle global warming, China, India, Russia, and the United States must be included. The European Union and a few other developed countries such as Canada will not be able to make the necessary changes on their own. By the same token, I agree with the opposition to that Harper's insistence on not doing anything on this file is also wrong. We cannot ask other countries to take action if we are not willing to take action, therefore we need to set actual targets for GHG reductions in law regardless of what other countries do. Unfortunately, it appears Harper is more interested in finding any excuse he can to avoid dealing with the issue. Lack of an international consensus should not condemn Canada to inaction. Despite the federal government's unwillingness to do anything, BC has moved ahead with aggressive targets as has California in the United States. Both jurisdictions didn't let their federal government's unwilligness to deal with the issue stand in their way.

Finally, there is the issue of the Conservatives change in stance on the death penalty. Ronald Allen Smith is suing the government for not seeking clemency. While it is tough to say what will happen, I don't think one can rely on the Charter to protect them beyond our borders. I generally believe as a rule of thumb that one should go by the laws in the country they are in, not where they hold citizenship. At the same time we have every right to request his sentence be commuted and off course the United States can decide to accept our request or ignore it. I am an unequovical supporter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I also realize it is a uniquely Canadian document that reflects who we are as a nation and our values. Just as it would be wrong to say an American has the right to carry a gun in Canada even though it is a constitutionally protected right in the US; therefore we cannot turn around and say we expect other countries to honour our Charter if we won't honour their constitution for their nationals. I also read the transcript on the debate of the death penalty at the UN. Singapore along with a few Caribbean countries argued that the EU was trying to impose its values on them and that, they didn't tell the EU it had to bring back the death penalty, so the EU had no right to tell them to abolish it. In the narrow scope, I fully oppose the death penalty, so it is easy to say we should ban it everywhere. But another principle I hold very dearly is respecting a country's sovereignty and the view that other country's should stay out of our domestic affairs and likewise we stay out of theirs. So I am somewhat conflicted on this issue since I am dead set against seeing the death penalty returned to Canada, but at the same time I want us to have the ability to decide our own laws irrespective of what other countries think. Now, I agree the Liberals have every right to condemn the Conservatives' reversal here since the issue of the Conservatives not intervening because they don't want to intervene in another country's domestic affairs doesn't stand up with their previous positions. If this is their position, then they need to pull out of Afghanistan and stop lecturing China on human rights, otherwise this position holds little weight and should give everyone reason to fear they would bring back the death penalty if they won a majority.

Taser Incidents

Recently there have been a number of high profile incidents involving the deaths of people due to being hit by tasers by the police. In Vancouver, last month, Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant was killed by one. Due to the recent number of deaths, I think the time has come to do a full review on the use of tasers by the police.

In the case of Robert Dziekanski, he may have been acting erratically, but there were four police officers there and he was unarmed so they could have easily tackled him to the ground and handcuffed him. Although some might have claimed excessive force was used, at least he would still be alive today. In addition, the Vancouver Airport Authority offers translation services in 125 languages including Polish, so if you have someone who cannot speak English acting erratically, wouldn't it make sense to get a translator first to find out why. I saw the video of the incident and it seemed totally unnecessary to taser him once, but certainly after he was on the ground in pain, it was completely inappropriate to taser him a second time, which is likely what killed him. In light of this one, another one in Montreal, and one in Halifax recently, we need to start treating tasers as lethal weapons much like we do with the police sidearms.

All police have firearms, but they go through extensive training and only use them if their life is threatened. This is why we don't hear often about individuals being killed by police firearms and when it happens the suspect usually was armed himself and threatening the police. There may be a smaller likelihood of dying from a taser than a gunshot, but nonetheless it still can kill one.

In the case of Robert Dziekanski, the four police officers should be suspended until a full investigation on the case is completed. If it is determined any of them acted inappropriately, the possibility of charges should not be ruled out. In the mean time a full review of the use of tasers by police should be conducted to prevent any future such incidents.

I don't believe the police should be banned from using tasers as the police do put themselves in dangerous situations that sometimes do require lethal force, but they should be used only if the officer is in danger, not as a method of subduing a suspect who poses no danger. If a suspect was running towards an officer with a knife and threatening to stab him or her, then it would be appropriate to use a taser, but if a suspect is acting a little crazy but posing no threat to the officer directly, using a taser is not appropriate.

By requiring all officers who carry them to go through extensive training and to only use them as the last resort, we can nearly eliminate such incidents, much as the same way we really hear about one being wrongly shot by an officer.

Labor Party wins in Australia

After 11 years in power, Australian prime-minister John Howard was turfed from power today and even lost his own seat. This was no surprise since despite the strong economy in Australia, people generally in most countries tend to turf a party after they've been in power too long. After all, the Liberals lost here in Canada on their fifth try and likewise the NDP in Saskatchewan also lost on their fifth time as well. In fact both Saskatchewan and Australia had a strong economy, which usually means the government is re-elected, but the public still felt it was time for change.

In terms of international relations, I definitely see this as a positive step as Kevin Rudd believes in good relationships with the United States, but not blindly following them on every issue like Howard did. He has promised to ratify Kyoto Protocol, which means Harper and Bush will be virtually alone in the developed world on the issue of climate change. He did oppose the War in Iraq and I hope he does pull Australia out as soon as possible. In fact, if he pulls the troops out of Iraq, this would free up more to go to Afghanistan, which he supports, and therefore we could use some of the Australian troops as replacements for Canada. On domestic policy though, I am a little less sure of whether this is a good thing or not. As a Canadian I am glad to see Howard turfed from office, but if I were an Australian I would have had to look a little more closely at each parties' respective platform before deciding how to vote. If the Labor Party is a moderate centrist party like the Liberals in Canada are, they would have gotten my vote. But if they are a socialist party like the NDP, I would have reluctantly voted for Howard, since as much as I dislike conservatism, I dislike socialism even more. I've witnessed a socialist government for ten years in BC and I can say that they were far worse than anything the Conservatives have done. Thankfully, federally those who don't like socialism or conservatism have another alternative. I generally agree with Howard on economic policy as I am very pro free enterprise and right of centre on economic policy. However, on pretty much every other issue, I disagree with him since I am generally left of centre on non-economic issues.

I wonder how Harper feels now that he has just lost a soulmate. After all, he has very few soulmates left since most centre-right governments in Europe tend to be more like the right wing of the Liberals as opposed to the Conservatives. Sarkosky is perhaps the only ally he might have, but even he supports Kyoto and opposed the Iraq War unlike Harper.

Saskatchewan Party wins in Saskatchewan

First off, congratulations to premier elect Brad Wall on his victory in Saskatchewan. After 16 years in power, the NDP has gone down in defeat to the Saskatchewan Party. This has been a long time coming and most polls have consistently showed the Saskatchewan Party with double digit leads, which beared out tonight. At the same time I was not expecting a total blowout simply due to the way the votes were distributed last time around. Rural Saskatchewan was already solidly in the hands of the Saskatchewan Party, so all we saw is rural Saskatchewan go even more massively for the Saskatchewan Party. In Saskatoon and Regina, on the other hand, the NDP won most of these ridings by large margins so a massive shift was needed just to make those ridings even competitive.

The main reason for the defeat was more than likely, people felt it was time for a change. Asides from Alberta, winning five back to back terms is extremely rare elsewhere in Canada, so I suspect this was the main reason as the economy is doing quite well in Saskatchewan and usually a strong economy results in governments being re-elected. The Saskatchewan Party also ran a very centrist platform so trying to paint them as scary as they did in 2003 was a lot more difficult. Indeed this should be a message to all those hard core conservatives arguing the Conservatives federally and also here in Ontario need to move to the right to be successful. In Saskatchewan, the party ran on a more right wing platform in 2003 and lost, while they ran on a more centrist platform this time around and won. With the NDP now out in Saskatchewan, Manitoba remains the only province with the NDP still in power. Likewise after losing in PEI and New Brunswick, those on the right at least have something to cheer about, at least sort of, although I am sure the ideological right wingers probably will argue the majority would have been a landslide had they ran on a more right wing platform, but the evidence suggests the contrary.

Possible Senate referendum

Harper has agreed to Layton's wishes to have a referendum on abolishing the senate. Personally I support this as my position as explained elsewhere has always been in favour of abolishment, however I do think if we can have a referendum on electoral reform at the provincial level, I don't think having a referendum on senate changes is unreasonable. Now because this would require constitutional changes, which a referendum cannot do on its own, it should only be an advisory one, however I think any premier who ignored the wishes of the majority of residents in their province could risk a potential voter backlash. Therefore in order to consider negotiations on the issue, it should be required to have 60% support nation-wide, 50%+1 in 60% of the ridings, in 7 out of 10 provinces and the provinces where it got over 50%+1 must have at least 50% of the population. This is in essence would not only show there was public agreement on abolishing the senate, but also it would meet the normal test to pass a constitutional amendment.

Now those against this generally fall into two categories. There are those who want an elected senate and while an elected senate may give more legitimacy to it, there are also some dangers behind this. This could lead to even more gridlock if the parties controlling the senate and House of Commons are of different political stripes. The only reason elected senates work in many other countries (note an elected senate is not uniquely a US idea; France, Italy, and Australia just to name a few have one) is there is far greater cooperation between parties and greater willingness to work together for the common good. This is why many European countries are able to have stable minority governments. However, here in Canada, there is too much hostility between the parties that I cannot see them working together any time in the near future. Others argue we should just leave the senate alone as it is. The problem I have here is for all the good things it can do, and it does many, there are few checks on it. Since the prime-minister appoints the senators, it can easily became a place for patronate appointments and more importantly if a party gets voted out and a new one comes in, the new party could be blocked from making the changes they wanted to. Just because the status quo is beneficial to the Liberals at this moment, doesn't mean I will support it, as imagine if the tables were turned. Lets say the Tories were in power for ten years, had dramatically pushed Canada to the right and the Liberals finally get back in and promise to undo the damage the Tories have caused. During this time the Tories gain control of the senate and they decide to block all the changes the Liberals make to undo the damage the Tories did. Would this be right? I don't believe in taking positions because it currently benefits my chosen party, I take positions because they are the right ones to take regardless of which party is in control of the House or Senate. Some say we need a senate in order to ensure regional representation, but I believe this also has its flaws. A person in Vancouver has far more in common in terms of their interests with a person in Toronto than they do with a person in Fort St. John, but despite this, the senate is based on representing provinces rather than regions. A more effective way to ensure the different regions are fairly represented is to empower MPs by allowing them more free votes on more issues and not punishing those who represent their constituents, even if it goes against the party line. If MPs were not trained seals, but rather ones who represented their riding that elected them, we could have very effective representation.

Now I realize this has little chance at passing as the senate will likely block it and if they don't, it will be tough to get enough provinces on side. Still I believe abolishing the senate is the best solution.

I'll have more on the Saskatchewan election later.

Conservatives new death penalty policy

Certainly for those looking for evidence the Conservatives had a hidden agenda, many will point to today's announcement of the Conservatives no longer making an effort to prevent the death penalty of any Canadian convicted abroad. I understand the argument for this which are this, in this particular case, Ronald Smith committed a brutal murder and he committed it in the United States so he falls under US jurisdiction. Still I have some serious problems here. In most cases, I believe you should get whatever sentence applies in the jurisdiction you commit the offence unless it involves violation of one's fundamental rights or involves human rights violations. We may not be able to stop the US from executing him, but we should at least voice our displeasure and do whatever we can possibly do to prevent it.

I know the Liberals are dead set against the death penalty since they believe it is morally wrong, however I am not against capital punishment per se, but I oppose bringing back the death penalty for the simple reason you can never be 100% sure the accused is not innocent. And killing one innocent person is too high a price. This is why as a matter of policy we need to argue against any Canadian getting the death penalty as a matter of principle since even if this guy is guilty, what happens if in another case one is wrongly convicted, which happens all too frequently in the US. Would it be right for us to stand aside and do nothing. I think not. Some say we should do nothing because it will waste taxpayer's money, but lets remember our policy does not say he must be returned to Canada. Indeed, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to serve a life sentence without parole in a US jail. Finally, I should point out the United States and Japan are the developed countries that still have the death penalty. Almost every European country has abolished it and in fact one cannot become a member of the EU without abolishing it and likewise if it were say a British citizen who was facing executing in the US, not only would the British government protest against it, but so would the European Union. In fact every country that I know of that has abolished the death penalty also has a policy of doing whatever is possible to prevent any of their citizens from receiving it. Considering the Tories only have a minority, one just wonders what other policies they have hidden from the public. And for those who say the public supports this, I would argue as I have in the past, that when it comes to rights, the government should defend them irrespective of public opinion. This has been a longstanding policy of both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, but certainly not the Reform Party who dominate the current one.

In addition to this issue, today Harper barred two Red Tories from running because their views we supposedly not in line with the party. This is just another reason why ex PCs like myself have left the party and plan to stay out until Harper and his Reform gang are no longer in control.