“Come, Let Us Reason Together, Says The Lord.”

It was not a scandal and it wasn’t deserving of the coverage it received. When Stephen Harper received the communion wafer at Romeo LeBlanc’s funeral, he couldn’t have known that he was entering a maelstrom of controversy with the church. A video showed he didn’t take the wafer immediately and someone claimed that he pocketed the wafer instead of consuming it.  A high ranking New Brunswick church official reacted sharply to the news and stated that the Prime Minister owed the church an explanation.  A few hours later, the PM’s office stated that Stephen Harper actually ate the wafer.

I am a man of faith, though I’m quiet about it. I realize that such moments of solemnity such as the Roman Catholic mass are sacred affairs.  But by all accounts, Stephen Harper is a religious man and hasn’t been hesitant to claim it.  Yet whether he pocketed or ate the wafer is a matter for himself and his own conscience, especially at such a solemn occasion. To chastise him in such a way undermines the true meaning of both church and state.  I’m with the Prime Minister on this one.  As was the faithful Roman Catholic church goer I met with this morning at a press conference about the Ontario Child Tax Benefit. He confessed that he was embarrassed that such a line had been drawn in the sand by the church.  ”He doesn’t owe an explanation,” the man uttered humbly, “it’s between him and his God.”

My children from Africa have all been raised Roman Catholic, in respect for their mother who died tragically in a raid years ago. In fact, they received their First Communion only three weeks ago.  On similar occasions, we have been unsure as to whether to take the wafer because we are not Roman Catholic and didn’t wish to offend the priest or the church. This is natural and shows respect for the church. If the PM didn’t take the wafer for the same reason, I commend him, as should we all.

Stephen Harper was present at a loving and respectful funeral for a truly great Canadian – a Liberal, I might add. He showed up in respect and carried himself accordingly. He prayed, sang, and welcomed Romeo LeBlanc’s legacy. But although he held the highest office in the country, he was also there as a guest of the church. There is no scandal here, only the need for the church to provide him an explanation as to why the welcome extended to him was treated in such a manner. In true respect, they should have kept this out of the media and reasoned together with another person of faith. Jesus didn’t die for this. It’s not a story.

Enough said.

Altered States – WYSIWYG

Former press gallery dean Douglas Fisher is about to turn 90 this summer. Sadly, the mention of his name in Ottawa doesn’t quite bring back the nostalgia it used to. The capital has become a hard place and people, perhaps especially those in the media, have moved past the yearning for a better kind of politics and journalism to a steely kind of pessimism that sucks the air out of the place.

Not that they don’t have a reason; politics has become a blood sport to the degree that it demeans the entire country. But rather than challenging the prevailing winds, the media itself has been worn down by all the negativity and flowed with the current. This trend has caused Douglas Fisher, his mind still acute and prophetic, to bemoan the loss of “objectivity” with the Parliamentary Press Gallery. And he knows of what he speaks. Prior to his stint as a national columnist, Fisher was a parliamentarian, a good one, so he understands both sides of the decline.

There is a subtle distinction between honesty and truth, and Fisher knew the difference. Honesty is the act of holding our faces to the mirror but it is also subjective and is at times wrong. Ottawa breathes this kind of stuff right now. Truth, on the other hand, is an enabler, a kind of moral force that propels us towards more meaningful lives, whether institutionally or individually. It’s more holistic. In its pursuit of the failings of politicians and governmental bureaucracy, the media often forgets to tell some of the more profound successes within Parliament.

Sometimes in this blog, I will write about a discussion I had with another politician that reveals a personal bias. Often, others link to the blog in order to prove politics is a bungled occupation. But when I write about an MP like Todd Russell, the representative for Labrador, and all the remarkable work he does, it gets nary a second look. And this is because it isn’t news. It’s also not the kind of material journalists are looking for. There are those rare occasions when I mention the great work done by members from other parties that a certain interest is created, but that’s only because it’s seen as different or rare. But it’s not; it’s the truth and it goes on every day in Ottawa.

I’ve been one of the many that speaks about the hyper-partisanship in Parliament, and I think that more politicians should speak out against it. One of the best ways of doing so is to show those moments when it actually does work and where politicians work together for the sake of an achievable end. But political types are hesitant to do so because they might be disciplined by their own party. Perhaps more importantly, their more non-partisan actions leverage little support from the media.

This is what worries Fisher and others like him, who believe that Parliament should be a hall of great debate, leavened with statesmanship and respect. He understands well enough that as politicians we fail this test, but he also maintains that the modern media has failed in similar fashion. Will they accept this from one of their historical sages? Unlikely. It is true in politics right now that What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG). If journalists continue to ignore the less glamorous stories of where politicians are effectively doing their jobs, then the public only sees from the media what it sees in Question Period, and that doesn’t tell the whole story. Moreover, it feeds the culture of disdain rippling through Ottawa at present. It’s not the media of old; its more effective state has been altered.

Honesty and truthfulness. Modern media has to take the same strong medicine it offers the political system. Be as honest as you want, but the result is often brutal, dispiriting and sometimes wrong. It must be balanced with a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of Parliament. That will require journalists to get past the “money shot” and pursue government in its more boring but efficient dimensions. This is what made Douglas Fisher’s career so seminal and it waits to be replicated.

Altered States – The Real World

To listen to today’s Parliament, and more especially the Senate, you would get the unfiltered opinion that Africa remains the great Lost Continent. As if admitting this defeat, the Conservative government has cut much of its aid to 8 African nations, causing a number of ambassadors from those countries to state publicly that they feel “abandoned.” In a major Senate report of two years ago, Africa was continually portrayed as a place of deep corruption, ineffective aid and lost causes, and subsequently caused many MPs and Senators to question why we are there at all.

Except that the perennial pessimists are wrong. Many international commentators now feel that the continent is better positioned for prosperity and healing than at any other time since the independence movements of the 1960s. In a full assault on the conventional wisdom that seems deeply rooted in Ottawa today, numerous economists and  international development observers are now pointing to many of the successes which came from the foreign aid disbursements of the last 20 years.

Once again, Geoffrey York has led the way in our understanding of issues like this by penning an insightful article on the good news emanating from Africa (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/africa-chronicle/). He points out, for example that the child mortality rate, which was 229 per 1,000 births in 1970, has now fallen to 146 in 2007. Since 1990, the child mortality rate has dropped by 40 per cent or more in countries such as Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger and Eritrea. He adds that there are 30 democracies in Africa at present, compared to just 5 at the end of the Cold War, and that where there were once 13 civil wars troubling the continent in the 1990s, today that number is reduced to 3.

Commenting on the state of education, he reminds us that primary school enrollment is up by almost 20%, and that adult literacy has jumped from 27% to 62% in those years when the skeptics were stating the foreign aid was a useless exercise.

Perhaps most heartening of all have been the improvements in health. Measles deaths have dropped by 89 per cent in the current decade, mostly because of higher levels of immunization. And in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia, malaria deaths have decreased by as much as 66%. That most ravaging of all African challenges – AIDS – has also yielded some clear success stories. Several countries have significantly reduced their AIDS prevalence rates. More than two million people are receiving AIDS treatment today, compared with just 10,000 people in 2001.

Not all of these improvements  have come from foreign aid, it’s true. But most have, and that is a story that needs to be told. Ironically, much of this success was occurring at the time of the great negativity on Africa running through the House of Commons, the Senate, and eventually through much of the country. How was it missed? Was it, in fact, ignored? And with such measurable success, how could CIDA possibly make the decision to pull out its long-term development funds from many of the very countries that were doing what we asked.

If more nations now do what Canada has recently done by pulling the plug on the continent’s more progressive future, then all that has been gained will be lost. For decades, Africa summoned great imagination, effort and policy out of the Canadian political establishment; we invested because we believed things would improve. But now we have abandoned the real world and created an altered state that demeans Canada as much as Africa. Geoffrey York has done us a great service, as have all the development workers in Africa from around the world. How could we forego our compassionate imagination just at the time when it was seeing results? Don’t fall for the false world being created by the naysayers in Ottawa.

Altered States – The Barbarian Invasions

Former Progressive Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield once noted that a modern and effective state was one that recognized and respected political jurisdictions. He would once again be tossing and turning in his grave today. Into every Bloc riding in Quebec, the Conservative government has launched negative mailings claiming that the Bloc isn’t willing to do anything to stop child pedophiles and showing a blurry image of a man guiding a young child away by the hand. In a word, this is sick. Worse yet, you paid for it; the Conservative attack ads were put out at taxpayer expense without any of those citizens having a say as to whether they approved or not.

In past years, such a practice would never have been condoned at the federal level. To be sure, there were partisan ads, usually reserved for election seasons, but nothing of this kind would have breached the tolerance level in all portions of Parliament. But those were days when politicians believed that in order to gain public respect they had to show respect for one another. We are now a nation at war, not only in Afghanistan but in the halls of Parliament as well. Yet no one voted for this or even condones it.

There is something remarkably hypocritical in these ads against the Bloc. In the days of his charm offensive in Quebec only a year ago, Stephen Harper claimed that the Quebec people were socially progressive, at times ahead of the rest of Canada in preserving their culture. That love affair didn’t last very long, as we all know now, but to claim that the Bloc would do nothing about pedophilia is nothing but the most sinister act of unfaithfulness. I have worked with Bloc members on any number of occasions and have learned that their views on criminal activity are as serious as in any other part of the country. In fact, on many committees they lead the charge against such practices.

The Conservatives base their rationale for the ads on the fact that in one particular vote in Parliament the Bloc didn’t vote for one aspect of their crime agenda when the other parties did. Bloc members had a solid reason for voting against the initiative in claiming that judges should be permitted discretion when they passed sentences. The governing party is especially vulnerable in this rationale because on more occasions that I can count they were the only party that voted against issues such as fulfilling Kyoto, recognizing numerous UN declarations, fulfilling the promises of the Kelowna Accord for our aboriginal peoples, and placing proper preventative measures in criminal decisions. Does that mean that they don’t believe in protecting the environment or in the UN? Hardly, and yet they pummel the Bloc with their sinister approach.

I received a piece of mail last week from Jay Hill, Conservative House Leader, claiming numerous weaknesses in Michael Ignatieff. This was the same Jay Hill who approached me at a charitable event last month in Ottawa, claiming that we should find more ways to work together in the future. I believe he meant it; his mailing seems to imply something else. What in all the world was Jay Hill doing sending letters to a London, Ontario riding? And how can the Conservatives possibly justify their slanderous mailings into Quebec at tax payer expense?

Preston Manning, one of the godfathers of the present Conservative government, put out an op-ed just a few days ago, calling on political parties in Ottawa to work together for the sake of the country and to treat one another honourably in the House of Commons. How does he explain this? And is he willing to come out in condemnation of this violation of jurisdictions?

These are barbarian invasions – “barbarian” because they are crude; “invasions” because they violate recognized lines of distinctions. Robert Stanfied was right, but that was a different day and this is a different kind of conservatism. This is what has changed in Parliament and the present altered state not only violates jurisdictions but the Canadian spirit as well.

Altered States – “Where is Here?”

Having just come through another Canada Day, politicians of all stripes spent their time in numerous events yesterday, welcoming new Canadians with sincere “Canada is a special country” sentiments. Citizens set off fireworks, gathered for parties, frequented concerts in parks, and generally used the July 1st holiday as cause for letting loose a little.

There’s no question that this is a great country to celebrate, but beneath it all lay a subtle query about “Who are we?” Every Canada Day, new polls come out showing that Canadians remain largely ignorant of their past and increasingly perplexed about their present status. Our country had been built by hard work and institutions that forged something of a framework that gathered this country together. Without government would there have been a ribbon of rail stretching across the country? With no allegiance to the King and Britain, would we have signed up in such large numbers to “storm the beaches” as Churchill summoned? Could we have maintained order in the vast west and north without the RCMP – our national police force?

Martin Gannon, Professor at the University of Maryland, defines national character as “any activity, phenomenon, or institution that represents a people’s values.”  Nowhere is this more true than in Canada – a land so vast and lightly populated that only a sheer act of national will working through its institutions could have made it possible.

And yet the Canadians who celebrated their country yesterday no longer show the deeper level of such allegiances to their national institutions as they used to. The RCMP remains sullied; no one knows if the railway is publicly owned or not; the CBC fights for its existence; the Governor General is a nice symbolic post, but doesn’t thrust our sense of loyalty beyond our own borders; legions across the country are slowly closing down; our military, while still a subject of national pride, is nevertheless accepted at a distance because we can’t square in our minds that we are warriors and peacekeepers at the same time.

And nowhere has our allegiance to an institution crumbled so steeply as with our national government. Canadians don’t know what to think anymore. We never really celebrated heroes in this country, but we did express a heightened respect for prime ministers and government officials. There was a benign belief that order and good government represented “Canada,” and that we were set apart from other nations by our deep trust in those institutions that held us together despite vast geography, harsh climate, regional differences, and various racial and ethnic preferences. Alas, that state has altered and Canada is now … what?

Northrop Frye said it simply: “The fundamental question in Canada is not ‘Who am I?’ but, ‘Where is here?’ ” It appears we are now a collection of various regions and that we are experiencing great difficulty in forming a national consensus once more. We pride ourselves in our health care system, but only some 40% of it is now truly public. We say hockey is our national sport while willingly accepting its rank commercialization and cultural centre south of the border. We take pride in our military but want out of Afghanistan. We say we are environmentalists but continue to accept policy options on climate change that constitute an international embarrassment.

“Where is here?” The answer to that question will determine the future of Canadian politics. If “here” is Alberta, Ontario, Quebec or Newfoundland, then we are in serious trouble. We are not regions but a people, and it is in our national institutions that we find one another in the dark and move forward with more courage. The loss of faith in those institutions means only that we have lost faith in ourselves and our ability to keep together.

Altered States – How It Should Be

Todd Russell is amazing. A seeming throwback to the MPs of the past, he is, in fact, the very model of what effective politicians of the future could look like.

I can drive across my riding of over 100,000 people in about 15 minutes. For Todd, it would take more than a day’s flying time to span his Labrador constituency west to east, or north to south, and he only has 26,000 people in all of Labrador. Todd is the region’s only MP. A former leader of the Metis nation, his knowledge of the people is remarkably intimate and detailed, yet challenged by the sheer geography of the place.

I just returned late last night from spending four days with this remarkable man. Out of internet range for most of the time (thus, no posts), I had asked two other senior MPs to join me as we moved throughout the region in support of Todd. My wife and I were there last year as well, seeking to understand the daunting challenges one single MP has to face as a public servant. We understood immediately that a lone Liberal MP from Labrador can get lost in Ottawa, and so we asked others to join us this past week.

We participated in high school graduations that were as sad as they were celebratory. The first saw five graduates accept their diplomas from Todd, and the second witnessed only two – the very school Todd himself had graduated from years earlier. For some Labradorian communities life is slowly coming to an end and their demise is as painful as you can imagine. These communities survived centuries of hardship only to fall prey to huge international fishing firms and bungled federal management over the decades. Once thriving, they now endure through the strength of their communities and remarkable resilience. Yet as they recede, a key part of this country’s history goes with them.

We also traveled to the military base in Goose Bay and the northern coastal community of Nain, where the blessings of Labrador’s vast natural resources have given the town new life and a reason for optimism. Todd’s challenges are so vast that the rest of us could only shake our heads in wonder. As their MP, he knew every leader, instinctively comprehended their myriad problems and encouraged every community that they mattered in Ottawa.

Except that they don’t, at least not much, and that’s the tragedy. Todd Russell is a lion in Parliament, well-respected and eloquent. But he gets drowned out by screaming partisans, tin-ear bureaucrats and by large cities encumbered with complex problems. I watch him repeatedly attempt to speak out for his people and their crucial needs, only to be heckled by MPs who care more about their party and political prospects than they do about people.

Todd Russell is no mere nostalgic figure from our more rural past; he is a modern, savvy political servant who takes on the challenges of starvation, loss of industry and culture, climate change fallout, and remarkable natural bounty in a spirit as vast as his land and its people. In Ottawa, where we come from should matter but often doesn’t. Nothing of the kind can be said about this man. He is the prototype MP, and through all the machinations taking place in Ottawa in these last two decades – the altered states – he remains true to the spirit of politics at its best and patriotism at its most durable. He’s the kind that never gets covered by the media or noted in blog postings, but he is the essence of our future as politics that matters. My friends, wife and I came away humbled, not only by the challenges and opportunities of a remarkable place, but by the humility and perseverance of a man that is a tribute to to his people. Would that we as MPs were all like this and that the media’s own interest was captured by such a dramatic story told in subtle lines. For those of you who link to this blog, pass it on as a narrative of hope.

Altered States – Inky Is Right

Inky Mark is right.  The Manitoba Conservative MP, in announcing his retirement, stated that the practice of toeing the party line has actually cut MPs off from the constituents that elected them.  The Conservative Party in the House is by far the most rigidly disciplined, almost like boot camp. The price for departing from that discipline can and would be severe. Perhaps the best proof of this is that Inky Mark could only speak his mind fully because he was retiring.

This is the perennial condition for all parliamentarians, regardless of which party they come from.  When Mr. Mark stated, “There is no check and balance,” he was only speaking the truth.  Citizens elect local MPs who then go to Ottawa in a credible attempt at representing their regions.  But then they are informed that they have to vote with the pack and nobody wants to consider the consequences of challenging this prevailing wisdom.

Except it’s not so wise because it undermines the political space in this country, placing discipline over democracy.  In a minority Parliament, the imminent threat of election causes every party to consider its own political fate countless times each month.  And so, to assure that no mortal strategic error occurs, discipline is imposed from top-down to ensure survival.

The public witnesses such actions and shake their heads in disgust.  But really, what other option is there? When the current government is in a full-court press 24-7, how can the other parties back off enough to consider how they might best serve the people who elected them?  The possibility of another election at any time hardly creates the environment required for reflection and responsible government.

Truthfully, we’re in a perpetual state of political war, and in any conflict discipline is the only guarantor of possible survival.  Majority mandates at least provided three years of legislative and democratic opportunity should the government of the day choose to pursue such actions.  But with a new and bloody battle repeatedly on the horizon in the House, MPs are mere foot soldiers, there to protect the core and expendable should they stray from the battle plan.

Where does this leave their constituents?  Like citizens on the home front in our great wars, they read the daily battle reports in the newspapers or on television, often checking the lists for casualties.  Everything else is on hold, rationed, and domestic production is meant to feed the war effort.

Except that it doesn’t, because this is a war nobody wants. Canadians elect minority parliaments and then curse them when they prove dysfunctional. But should any party choose to take its finger off the trigger in order to pass legislation that truly matters to Canadians, they could well find themselves history.  People continue to follow media stories of politics, but not to check on the fate of their loved ones or for enlightenment on the overall war effort.  They watch it because it’s morbid.  Or they don’t watch it at all.

Yet I maintain that almost all of the MPs elected to the House are there for the dedicated purpose of serving their constituents.  I have witnessed their sincere efforts repeatedly, firsthand, for over two years.  They go home every weekend, sacrifice their time with family, and serve their constituents in noble and, at times, effective ways.

It’s time for the leadership of all parties to take the risk, create this democratic space for their MPs, and provide the conditions for proper debate and responsible government.  As MPs, we’ve retreated long enough.  For the sake of those we represent, let’s speak to our leadership and fight for a stable peace in our time.

Altered States

We shook hands in the elevator at West Block, wishing each other a good summer. Exiting, the more senior MP noted that things in the House of Commons had clearly changed. “I think life was easier for our predecessors,” he opined. “Oh, I know some things have improved, but it seems like the public no longer holds us in high regard anymore, and that’s too bad because we’re all working hard.” He waved and was off.

Riding up to the fourth floor, I got to thinking about his reflections.  Somehow, he had performed that rather remarkable rhetorical feat of acknowledging that the country had changed but that MPs were the roughly the same as before. It’s a view collectively held by most members of parliament and I’ve struggled over the last couple of years with how we in the House sometimes miss those truths about ourselves that might very well assist us in winning back the respect of some in the country if we would but learn the lessons.

But it’s not just MPs or citizens.  It’s a broad net of decline and has captured numerous journalists, bureaucrats and even observers from other countries.  In a pessimistic stage regarding political service, there has been an almost benign acceptance of the negative traits in politics that have entrapped and weakened us all.  Living in a fishbowl for any politician is at times unfair and maddening and has resulted in the collective turning inward of public life.  Journalists have also pulled out of the public sphere to a large degree, opting to take on the role of disenchanted prosecutor instead of the more traditional searchers of truth in both its good and bad forms.

Bureaucrats abound in Ottawa and federal jurisdictions across the country and they are the efficient managers of the delivery of government services. But it’s hard to find a civil servant these days who doesn’t feel “under the gun,” usurped by overbearing political masters and hindered from providing the effective and efficient supervisory role in Canadian public life.  I know, I’ve talked to many of them and they all feel the same.  And so they retreat.

As I have discovered all too well in recent months, international observers, blessed with the gift of distance and objectivity, have taken repeated note of our decline. Ironically, they have developed a similar practice as the rest of us – pulling away from Canada in international venues in everything from the environment to foreign aid.

And so in a nation once noted both internationally and within the country itself as a remarkably efficient and fair land, with a highly competent public service, we have retreated into a place we don’t really recognize.  Worse yet, we don’t really recognize ourselves, and that is troubling. Apathy has a price and we are now paying it.  But we’ve been doing it on the installment plan, bit by bit every year and through successive governments.  We live in a world of altered states, but the key characteristic that defines us now is skepticism, and in a country as vast and diverse as Canada the results of this latent negativism can be costly.

And so, over the summer, we’ll be considering this collective political retreat a couple of times each week in this blog.  I have spent so much time in discussion with others on this matter in the past two years that a picture is beginning to emerge and it is of Canada on the decline.  Many will disagree, and those who are only interested in newsy political details will move on from this blog to other fields. But these subjects are so important to our national condition that they must be discussed, even by junior Members of Parliament.  It’s time we did some reflection and there’s no better time for introspection than the summer.

Prime Minister – Please!

The House concluded last Friday for the summer and I spent some time speaking with Stephen Harper before a series of votes that would end the session. We shook hands, spoke about our families and ruminated about a certain charitable event we were involved with for Africa. He was friendly and warm and we parted in respect.

Except I didn’t say what I wanted to tell him; given the circumstances, the time just didn’t seem appropriate.  I wanted to give him an observation and perhaps a bit of a challenge.  I didn’t then, so maybe I can broach it now.

That day had been Don Newman day.  Earlier, in Question Period, Mr. Newman was a guest in the House because it was his final day as host of the Politics program on CBC. For the 15 minutes prior to the beginning of QP, numerous MPs from around the House used their allotted statements to praise Don’s illustrious career.  Every statement represented a personal tribute and he received numerous standing ovations.

And then something embarrassing happened. Michael Ignatieff stood to make a tribute to the CBC commentator.  After he concluded, he turned to face the guest of honour and once again we all stood.  As with the previous statements, it was a moving moment and Mr. Newman appeared at a loss for words, especially when he put his hand over his heart and quietly nodded to us all. For a brief time we were all a little more noble than we had been moments before.  The practice is that the Conservatives get the last statement just prior to the commencement of QP and Mr. Ignatieff’s first question of the Prime Minister.  One of the government MPs used his statement in a full frontal assault on the Liberal leader, questioning his qualifications. No sooner had he begun that an audible moan ran through the House.

This man is not an unpopular member in the House and has accomplished the dutiful work of an MP. But at that moment he was a patsy, doing what he was commanded to do by the PMO but soiling the House in the process.  Look, I know these things are done these days and that its part and parcel of the battle and how we have lost respect for one another. So I don’t expect it to end anytime soon.  The issue for me is that it ruined the moment of tribute for Don Newman.  I wrote about this a few months ago when, after a dignified tribute by Mr. Ignatieff over the deaths of three Canadians in Afghanistan, the Conservatives did the exact same thing, eclipsing the sacrifice of those soldiers by sheer partisan opportunism.

My issue is really one of timing – and flexibility. In moments like these, when the House is elevated above its usual schoolyard antics, surely some direction can be signaled to the person who would normally make the last statement to choose another subject, one more fitting to the occasion. The Conservatives pride themselves on their discipline in the House, so surely that shouldn’t be much of a task for them. It’s a slight thing but easily doable.

And so I’ll ask Stephen Harper what I failed to ask on Friday: “Please, Prime Minister, ask your Whip and House Leader to develop a simple plan that would see your member designated to give the final statement before QP to switch to Plan B when more noble moments occur.  It doesn’t happen often, but when it does there should be those moments of respect and humanity.  Enjoy your summer, sir, but please consider this request in the spirit in which it is given.”

And my apologies to Don Newman on behalf of all of us for ruining a perfect moment.

Tribute To A Champion

The bluster vanished in the House of Commons in an instant yesterday.  When Irwin Cotler stood up in the fourth slot in Question Period and challenged the government once again to bring Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik home from years of exile in the Canadian embassy in Khartoum, we waited for the predictable response.  After all, this was old ground, covered repeatedly over the last months since both CSIS and the RCMP said they found no fault in the man.

Charged once again with responding, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stood in his place and said simply: “The government will comply with the court order,” and then sat down. For an instant it was almost like you could hear a whooshing sound in the place, then many of us stood up and applauded in total shock.

That incredulity was fully justified. Each time something new came out in the last few months about Mr. Abdelrazik’s case, it always landed in his favour: the RCMP and CSIS admissions, the government’s initial approval for allowing him to return (troublingly denied a short while later), Sudan’s admission that they had been asked by Canada to detain him but could find no charges to lay against him, and finally a couple of weeks ago when a judge ordered Nicholson to bring him home. Each and every time the Harper government denied the evidence and kept him in exile. In his simple statement yesterday, Nicholson had to acknowledge that the rule of law trumps suspicious morality and that the rights of citizenship do indeed carry beyond borders.

Mr. Abdelrazik’s return is due to so many individuals fighting what seemed to be a lost cause.  I can say that, in Parliament, Irwin Cotler was a lion in the exile’s defense, rising repeatedly in the house, faced by countless heckles from the Conservatives, and holding true to the belief that law is law and that you can’t keep a Canadian citizen interned when there is no evidentiary base for such a practice. I have a high respect for Irwin’s abilities and I believe that last night he slept like a baby – deservedly so.

Joanne Deschamps from the Bloc deserves full credit for marshaling her party’s response and reminding everyone in the House that the Bloc have been pathfinders in the realm of human rights and that they need not take a back seat to any party on that issue.

But the one person who stuck on this file and deserves full praise for the victory yesterday was the NDP’s Paul Dewar. Simply put, I found him indefatigable in the cause of justice for Abdelrazik. And I speak from personal experience, as we both sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee.  Against all odds, Dewar exhausted every parliamentarian option, time after time, not just in an attempt to exonerate an innocent citizen, but to prove that the Canadian parliament could be relevant in such a case. I watched as the government members of the committee fought him vociferously. But he worked the system  - very well. In key votes on the case, the three opposition parties worked together and won by one vote each time, Paul’s example being the key cause. I witnessed the discouragement on his face every time as the government refused to abide by the will of the committee on this. I would even text him on his Blackberry during committee in an attempt to keep him assured.  The hardest day came only three weeks ago, when the Foreign Affairs Minister pointed his finger in anger at Dewar over the issue, in a manner that was beneath the conduct of someone in such an exalted position.

Four very important things happened yesterday. Above all, a innocent exile is coming home to his family. Second, the opposition members weren’t so much a coalition as a combined group of individuals who believe in human rights, defending the ultimate rule of law over unprovable suspicion. Third, Parliament worked yesterday in a way that surprised all of us and ultimately prevailed. And finally, one man who believed in the system achieved his own freedom. A very able parliamentarian who had been plagued by rancor and repeated defeats proved to all of us, and himself, that a public servant dedicated to our freedoms can be shining light that leads us into a better future.  Well done Paul. I love this kind of politics and you deserve the kind of summer reserved for champions.

The Peoples’ Morality

This has been a week full of ironies. I had coffee with a national journalist who lamented the possibility of a summer election because he was just looking for a couple of months “escape” from the endless battling of this place.  ”But,” he admitted, “an election now that Liberals are key contenders would have been great to cover.”

On Tuesday I spoke with a woman applying for EI who admitted this summer would be difficult for her and her daughter if things didn’t work out. Then as we parted she said (in French), “Please, Mr. Pearson, no election. I want some quiet time with my daughter.”

As Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff held their first meeting this week, MPs in Question Period appeared to have lost their collective mind, spending the first 20 minutes in over-the-top catcalling that prompted me to leave the House for a few minutes to deal with my anger. Upon returning, I received a note from a Conservative MP who said he felt like doing the same thing.  ”What’s going on here?” he opined.  ”None of us want to go.”  Another sad irony.

Mr. Ignatieff took something of a drubbing in the media this week and it shows. He never did desire an election, yet there were many advisors around him constantly explaining the key strategic advantage for bringing the Harper government down. He has aged years in a week. He is not like many here, never having fed on meals of political machinations. The media accused him of “electioneering,” but there isn’t an opposition MP in the House who honestly believed anything could be negotiated out of Stephen Harper.  The PM’s way is hardball, 24-7, and he would crush you if you flinched. And so Michael Ignatieff attempted to stay in the game, believing he had the cards in his hand to finally make Harper himself back down. It seems to me he did, and that he got concessions that no one thought he would. Many question the substance of those concessions, but the truth is that at the beginning of the week nobody gave him much chance.  Now he is older, wiser and, I fear, wearied for his efforts. But he has always said to me that Canadian citizens didn’t want an election. Judging from the emails coming in, they did right by him and he can take some comfort in that.

And then there’s Layton and Duceppe. Both have been on record as stating that Harper doesn’t negotiate, and in the main they have be right. But because he held some trump cards, Ignatieff got something out of his meeting with the PM. Not able to contain himself, Jack Layton said he was able to negotiate far more from the Martin government in 2005. Media friends of mine burst out laughing at that because that was a Liberal prime minister, one that attempted to cooperate with the NDP in a minority government.  Jack was talking apples and oranges. The reality that he ran down another Liberal leader who was attempting to wrestle concessions out of Stephen Harper shows the shallowness of Jack’s morality.  Both the NDP and the Bloc know that the reins of government will unlikely come their way any time soon and so they preach from the stands because they don’t have to govern and manage numerous interests. So they can be white hot in their condemnations. Layton’s statement about 1995 only reveals that having the luxury of being pseudo-pure doesn’t necessarily make you very smart.

In the end, Stephen Harper showed the kind of cooperative nature the entire country has been calling for, and he should get credit for that. No one will trust it, but this is politics and you take what you can get. The group that really won are the people of Canada, who felt another $300 million for a summer election was as dumb as a bag of hammers. They have prevailed. Ignatieff has been hardened in battle and Harper has been softened in it, only for the moment. But this time the people have won and the two key parties showed some responsibility. Not a bad outcome. Happy summer!

The Great Land Grab

While Ottawa is consumed with talk of an election, a troubling development has been occurring in Africa that could witness the hollowing out of the entire continent.  If our Parliament functioned properly this would be big news, but, alas, it’s an overlooked tragedy.

Ignored for the last few years, wealthy nations who are running out of farmland are finding a convenient substitute in Africa.  Thirty billion dollars in value, already 20 million hectares of prime agricultural land is being bought up by rich nations.  Called “offshore farms,” they have become enough of a concern that the United Nations is calling for some kind of regulation to be established to keep affluent nations from removing food from the mouths of hungry African citizens.

Effectively, the foreign owners grow their needed food supplies miles away on the African continent and then ship them back to their home nation.  Community groups on the continent are beginning to organize as they witness what to them is the food required to feed their families heading out on ships to Europe and Asia.  Poor legal systems exist to protect local landowners and often deals are done with corrupt officials who pocket the money and leave their citizens in poverty.

But the main onus lies with those affluent nations who are now practicing a new colonialism.  They naturally seek to keep their enterprises quiet because the thought of taking food away from the mouths of hungry families is the kind of scandal nobody wants to endure.  And yet it’s happening more and more each year, with some nations even renting land in order to produce the food.

At first it was thought that offshore farms might well be a way of building up local economies, but many of these nations aren’t in it for Africans but for their own domestic needs and a bottom line serves their purpose.  That’s why the community groups are raising their collective voice.

At the G8 Development Ministers meeting in Italy last week, I listened as the German representative spoke about this troubling practice and the need to regulate it.  Sadly, it was the only time the subject was raised, thereby leaving the G8 nations talking about the need for more development funds for Africa while at the same time permitting other nations to hollow out the continent’s vast agricultural possibilities for the sake of endless consumption.

This is an area where Canada can take a leadership role in the world.  Our agricultural history and the regulatory guidelines that have kept it prosperous and protected equip us as world leaders on this file.  While our own CIDA takes development funds out of a number of nations in Africa, it is ironic that other wealthier nations take out the continent’s food supplies for their own use.  Oversight is clearly required and Canada could hold a key multi-lateral conference in one of our prairie regions to make plans for protecting Africa from losing its economic future crop by crop.  But then that would require all of us in Ottawa to turn away from our own self-created mayhem to listen to the sound of a continent being sucked dry.

Napalm In The Morning

My Blackberry crashed on my first day in Rome last week and I was woefully disconnected.  Arriving back in Ottawa last evening, the town was rife with election rumor.

I’m not politically savvy at all, but I know that Michael Ignatieff will say “no” to an election, if the PM will just answer some clear questions.  Most of the reasons are obvious.  The public doesn’t want one.  Liberals aren’t yet ready.  With the isotope crisis and a struggling economy, we should keep trying to make government work.

But I have learned from spending time with Mr. Ignatieff over the last two years that he grows frustrated with this “politics for the sake of politics” stuff.  The last time we spoke he ruminated on the emptiness of just having an election for an election’s sake.  But he also understood that many in the Liberal caucus are sincerely fearful of the effects of the bungled management of the isotope crisis or the inevitable foolishness of spending endless amounts of cash for the sake of looking like you’re doing something.  Death and taxes – these are things that will likely result from cancer patients denied treatment or the taxes Mr. Harper will eventually need to raise if he hopes to crawl out of repeated deficits.  His upcoming environmental plan will have to raise carbon taxes – he knows it, the media knows, and so do Canadians – but nobody wants to deal with that issue seriously right now.

But the swords are out; people are gaming for the Big One.  It all reminds me of Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now, standing astride his young soldiers as the helicopters fly into battle overhead.  Everyone is scared to death, but not this guy.  As a terrified and confused Martin Sheen looks up through the smoke at Duvall, he listens in astonishment as the General sniffs in the air and utters: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”  It was a moment filled with so much irony and stupidity that it became iconic in Hollywood.

There are people surrounding all the party leaders right now who are just like this, loving the smell of the fight and wanting to go just for the sake of the battle.  They whisper in their leader’s ear that now is the time to strike, lest they lose the opportunity.  Opportunity for what?  To work together on Chalk River?  To combine our efforts for the sake of the almost half-million who lost their jobs since the recession started?  To work out a solid piece of policy that will see us properly lead the way at the upcoming Copenhagen meetings on the environment?

Because of such influence, the characters in Apocalypse Now all went crazy in a war they ultimately lost for lack of clear and moral direction.  Michael Ignatieff knows that and distrusts this kind of rationale.  Canadians right now are smelling the lake at the cottage, the anger of lost EI benefits, or the fear of untreated cancer symptoms.  Politics in Canada at present hardly needs the “turks” standing amidst this chaos and overlooking the mayhem they are creating.  Napalm, schmapalm.  We need good governance and patience, not toy soldiers devoid of reality.  Michael Ignatieff will not go to war on such misguided advice, unless Stephen Harper fails to give an account this week.  For inspiration, Ignatieff looks to Lester Pearson, not Marlon Brando.  Count on it.

Oda on ODA

ROME, ITALY – In something of a rush, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda and her staff caught the plane in Ottawa en route to the Cooperation Minister’s run-up meeting to the G8, scheduled for Italy next month. I was fortunate to be asked along. From the outset, the minister’s staff were professional and inclusive. There was no keeping me at a distance owing to my role as CIDA critic and Ms. Oda herself kept me well in the loop as to what was transpiring at these meetings.

It’s odd you know, but when you get outside of Ottawa (especially these days), the person who was your opponent can suddenly become a friend. My difficulty with CIDA and the minister in these last months has become known enough and involves three areas: 1) the Agency’s cuts to development assistance in 8 African nations; 2) the lack of consultation surrounding the cuts; 3) the unknown way in which the Agency operates. All that being said, my relationship with Bev Oda has been a positive and helpful one.

Talks here in Italy have centered around Official Development Assistance (ODA) and the role of the G8 countries in ensuring that foreign aid and development funds don’t get pinched or overlooked by the worldwide economic crisis faced by the developed nations. Canada was praised for sucessfully “untying” its aid, meaning that supplies could be purchased in the countries in which the aid was being disbursed. Chaired by Italy, the sessions here have seen Bev Oda clearly raise her voice for accountability, targeted aid, and for a more cooperative approach among all the donor agencies. The other nations, appreciating her forthrightness, followed suit and promised cooperation.

It’s to Oda’s credit that the sessions remained as focused as they did. Observed in the palatial halls that housed the meetings, she seems sincere and quiet, almost diminutive. But when it comes Canada’s turn to make its presentation, she appears humbly confident – exactly what others here would expect a Canadian leader to act like. When she spoke today of the “youth tsunami” that was about the explode in the developing world, the minister was clearly offering a prescient warning: start targeting much of the aid towards children and youth or we could have a development fiasco on her hands. Furthermore, she was the only one to speak to the subject directly, and the prophetic way in which she delivered the challenge registered clearly with her counterparts.

These aren’t easy days politically in Ottawa; the constant sabre rattling does no real service to our country, nor to the world in which we are supposed to be an example. But in Bev Oda, Canada has a decent and capable public servant who refuses to let partisanship trump principle. I’ve always known that, but here in Italy she proves it repeatedly. The fate of the world’s poor could rest in the hands of someone much less capable or compassionate. Our differences are likely to remain, that’s fair enough. But in a political world of parry and thrust, she stands apart in a quiet humility that I think represents the best that’s in politics

A Poor Raitt Exchange

Let me be clear: I think Lisa Raitt has performed admirably since the sudden revelation that her briefing books had been left at a local media station. When the Prime Minister was urged to fire her, the Natural Resources minister was a picture of grace under pressure, stating that she offered to resign but the PM refused to accept.  From that moment the responsibility for what to do shifted to the Prime Minister himself.  Things haven’t let up for the beleaguered minister, but she has continued to hold her own, answering questions in an efficient manner.      

Up until today that is.  She attempted to keep herself above the fray previously, but when Michael Ignatieff queried her today about her handling of the Chalk River situation, she rounded on him, stating he wouldn’t have known much about it since he was never in the country anyway.  While Liberals booed, government members stood and roared in approval like she had suddenly scored a last minute touchdown.

I was disappointed because after days of showing real aplomb in a difficult time, she had suddenly arrived at the point of throwing mud. Some will say it is only understandable given the pounding she has been taking in the House and the media. Perhaps. But in that moment of rank partisanship she suddenly lost the respect of many who were quietly impressed with her response.

It reminded me of that time a week earlier, when Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, in response to a question asked by one of her own Conservative members in Question Period, shot out at the Liberals in a fashion that mildly stunned most of us in the House.  Prior to that occasion she had shown remarkable efficiency.  I had even blogged at the time about how professionally she had handled the swine flu crisis by bringing into her confidence her opposition counterparts.  Suddenly watching her lash out after she had been shown respect by all three opposition parties was disappointing.

But there’s the thing. The entire time the Health Minister was answering the question she seemed entirely uncomfortable, stumbling on her words and looking down as soon as she concluded. I, too, looked down, because in that moment I felt Parliament had lost one of its more respectful (and respected) voices.  And I think I know what happened. Her party had arranged the question from one of her colleagues and then had written her answer.  As she was reading someone else’s words, her well-earned reputation was slowly being washed away and I think she knew it.  But anything for the party, I guess.

Did the same happen to Lisa Raitt?  Who knows? But if the reaction to her partisan response today by a number from all opposition parties is any indication, the “street cred” she had earned over the past few days, and that she would require to weather the storm, suddenly waned.

It’s sad. Here are a couple of capable women who were thrown into the fire and emerged with a grudging respect from the House. But their party, understandably frustrated by opposition pressure, nevertheless used them for partisan purposes, undermining the admiration for them in the process. It would be the same if the another party was in government; it’s just a shame, that’s all. Their light and reasoning should have been permitted to shine. Instead they were tainted, just like the rest of us.

On A West Wing And A Prayer

My kids just couldn’t wait. I arrived back from Ottawa to be presented with my early Father’s Day present – the complete DVD set of the West Wing series. Like so many others, I watched most episodes over the years and it became my favorite TV show. My wife and I settled in for a couple of hours and watched some of the first season, commercial free. We were both surprised at the profound effect it had on us.

Years previous, I viewed the show in a kind of haze of idealism, understanding that politics probably was a lot messier. And yet I’m coming out of this weekend with a proven view, learned from the last two years in the House, that the kind of politics exemplified by the West Wing series is still alive in Ottawa but as a mere flicker of a flame.  Where the series was about smart, very smart, people combining their skills to better America, in our capital we have clever partisans whose job it is to win, regardless of the effect on the country. The President, played by Martin Sheen, was a flawed leader, but one whose instincts took him to those more refined places in political life that left room for compromise and understanding of different views.  In Canada, however – well, it doesn’t matter, you know what I’m about to say.

Lester Pearson used to say that the greatest effect of politics on a politician is that it actually helped that person to grow into their job, to become more of an understanding Canadian as a result. He might have added that it ought to make politicians more humble in that acquired knowledge as well. I think everyone reading these words right now will probably agree that we’ve moved away from that ideal. Something seedy or unseemly has taken root in our national political life – we sense it and our hopes, needed now more than ever, are diminished by it. In truth, we are diminished by it. As our nation is minimized in the world by our hyper-partisan politics, we ourselves are facing our own isolation, removed from our fellow Canadians and a once appreciative world by a political elite that endeavours to separate us into regions and from one another.

Have we lost the ability to speak to one another? Absolutely not. Each and every day we dialogue through our churches, schools, universities, service clubs, the Internet and even the media, and that conversation is the lifeblood of our society. It is when we turn to politics that we yell, scream and refuse to listen.  Churchill had it right when he stated: “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary.  It fulfills the same function as pain the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” But that’s just the thing: our present politics isn’t about healthy criticism but crippling blame, and we are the poorer for it.

I tucked my kids into bed tonight, prayed with them, and said I’d been gone to Ottawa before they woke up in the morning and that I’d miss them.  ”Do good, Daddy,” my daughter Abuk whispered. What could I say? I came down the stairs and put on another session of West Wing and I prayed for political healing in this land.

Refine the Madness

Maclean’s writer Paul Wells often provides ironic insights concerning Parliament and has created a large following as a result. A large article penned by him in the magazine this week titled “Stop the Madness” dug its talons in Question Period and took a clearheaded view of how that particular 45-minute period in the Parliamentary day could be improved. He made three good proposals:

1. Longer is better – lengthen the time for both questions and answers from the present 35 seconds. This would provide for better quality in the debate.
2. Stick to the question – opposition questions directed at certain ministers are often answered by others, thereby leaving an unsatisfactory conclusion. Wells suggests having questions for the PM on one day, the Foreign Affairs Ministers another, and so on.
3. Reduce Question Period’s importance – so much of the parliamentary day is taken up with preparation for QP itself that it leaves little time for other venues necessary for keeping the government honest.

These are all helpful suggestions but would involve a fundamental restructuring of how the present practice in Question Period works. This is not to say it isn’t worth it – anything is better than what we have. But before we reach that point, I would suggest two more actions that would provide their own positive influence but which involve a refining of what is now there instead of a wholesale restructuring.

The first suggestion was brought up repeatedly at the beginning of the present parliamentary session when MPs had to vote for a new Speaker. It was pointed out repeatedly that Peter Milliken, the previous occupant, had perhaps permitted things to get out of control. There emerged a strong demand for a Speaker who would limit personal slights, restore more discipline, and in essence get the House back to the practice of respect. Milliken won again and for a time exerted more serious control. But original habits have returned and the resulting chaos is debilitating. In both the House and the media, pressure should be exerted on the Speaker again to take up the original challenge and make it stick.

The second suggestion involves the power of the Speaker behind the scenes. On any given day you can see the various House leaders of the parties approach the Speaker, requesting certain indulgences that pursue there own partisan interest. Milliken has been particularly good at granted such requests and thus gains the support of the House leaders. Perhaps it’s time he put an end to this practice – for a time. He should bring all the House leaders into his office and say: “All right, things are getting out of hand again. Unless you get control of your own respective teams, don’t come to me asking that something be altered in procedure because I won’t grant it. Those of you who accede to my request can expect to continue having their requests granted, but for those who won’t abide, don’t even bother approaching my chair until you reign in your people.”

If something like this were to happen, it wouldn’t take too long for these leaders to understand that political advantage would be commensurate with proper and respectful behaviour.  And political advantage is what it’s all about in that place.  

Paul Wells wants to stop the madness and has put forward some concrete suggestions. I say, let’s see if we can refine it first with the structure that already exists. Between these two forms of ideas, perhaps we can get back to civility.

Banking on Disgust and Decline

I was sitting in a coffee shop this week with a Conservative friend when the television showed one of the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff. We both sat uncomfortably until about half way through when one of the patrons sitting at the counter said to the server: “For F*s% sake, shut that thing off.” Coarse language aside, it was just the kind of reaction the Conservative ad planners were bargaining for.

Let’s be clear: attack ads work, and these ones against Michael Ignatieff, despite initial condemnation, will eventually have their effect. While many wonder how much of this the public will endure, the real question should be what is the Conservative Party willing to accept. They know they are in trouble in the polls – no surprise there. They also know that similar ads against Stephane Dion were devastatingly effective. So why not again?

Here’s one good reason, the most important of all: they kill the democratic spirit and any meagre attention average citizens might pay to public policy. The last federal campaign (only eight months ago) resulted in the lowest voter turnout on record – 59%. Research undertaken only two weeks after that campaign discovered that one of the key reasons for the disappointing number was that voters in significant numbers were “turned off,” primarily by the negative Dion ads. The research also revealed that the average Canadian voter is tolerant, cosmopolitan in nature, and fair.  That being the case, when they viewed the attack ads of the last election, they did what most people like that do: turn away from the voting booth, thinking politics was disgusting.

This is what the Conservatives are willing to endure in their attempt for a third minority mandate. They are banking that most of you will hate this stuff and that you’ll cast a pox on all of our houses here in Parliament. In other words, their success will be measured by your failure to go to the polls – a Machiavellian exchange that says more about what politics is willing to do to win than what voters are willing to endure to stay engaged.

So far, Michael Ignatieff has told his caucus members just yesterday that he can handle it, that he knows he will be hit even harder. Some call on him to strike back in similar fashion, but he resists for two reasons. First, Liberals don’t have the money to fight this kind of negative war on attrition. That’s clear for anyone who can read a balance sheet. But the second reason is the deciding factor in the man’s insights on the Canadian condition: if in order to keep the negative ads from sticking to him he has to resort in kind, then the losers will be Canadians and the democratic validity of Canada. This kind of understanding, as displayed not only by Ignatieff, but by Layton and Duceppe as well, will be key to the restoration of political validity and citizen engagement in this country and it is to be commended – partisanship aside.

Lower voter turnout and a collective tuning out of the public space is what this government is willing to endure in order to stay afloat. It banks on your low tolerance level and your inability to stay engaged and its the reason for such ads. Their not counting on their own intelligence but your low threshold for disgust and they’re betting they’ll win. 

And my Conservative friend (an MP) at the coffee shop on Sparks Street? All he could do was look down at the table. Alas, the Conservative ads are turning off the good people in their own party. Some success there!

First, Aid

The movement has come in three different waves.

It began with the announcement over a month ago that CIDA would be pulling the majority of its development funds out of 8 African countries. Because no previous consultation or notice had been provided, the cuts shocked the NGO community, opposition parties and those African nations cut.  No doubt planned in such a way to blunt criticism, the manner in which it was done provided a clue that CIDA was making a change and it wasn’t about to ask Canadians what they thought.

The second wave washed upon the Canadian shore with the visit of the 19 African ambassadors to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week. They were attempting to change the game, sound the alarm, and sincerely ask why Canada was not only cutting development aid to the 8 countries but why a friend would do things in such a secretive fashion to other friends.

And now, with the results of a recent poll, we are witnessing the third wave.  The Innovative Research Group has discovered that the majority of respondents (1,383) didn’t believe linking foreign aid with self-serving trade interests was a good idea. In other words, the way the present Conservative government is headed by linking aid with trade flies in the face of what most Canadians desire.  This is what you get as a government when you don’t consult with voters before you make your move.

It might come as a surprise to some to find that the poll found that 61% of those responding believed that foreign aid does more good than harm, and that almost half (49%), support the idea of increasing aid to Lester Pearson’s goal of 0.7% of GDP.

Clearly the findings won’t bless the government.  Yet they shouldn’t be surprised – the number of those Canadians who participate in programs that assist developing nations is huge and they are savvy enough to understand that providing aid for the purpose of alleviating poverty is more altruistically effective than using our humanitarian dollars as a means of gaining more economic clout for ourselves.  The report concluded: “Given that extreme poverty can cause civil wars, epidemics and regional instability in the developing world, it is in the interest of wealthy nations to provide foreign aid.”  Some of the respondents concurred, feeling that aid the way the Conservatives are presently going about it could lead to commercial exploitation – a new colonialism.

So, if I get this straight, the first wave taught us that non-governmental organizations roundly condemn the federal government’s new thrust of aligning aid with commercial interests.  The second wave revealed that our partners in the developing world were concerned enough about the new direction that they came en masse to Parliament to express their disapproval.  And now, with this third wave, we have come to discover that Canadians in general disapprove of CIDA’s current agenda.  It’s not a tsunami, but it is a gathering storm and the government is ignoring the warnings.

The lesson is clear: ultimately, foreign aid is meant for the improvement of the lives of the most desperate, not for our own economic interest.  Civil society and our partners are saying it clearly: first, aid.  Now it is time for CIDA to start sailing with the wind.

Full Blown Retreat

Life at the London Food Bank hasn’t been easy by any measure.  With the numbers of families we assist up over 20% from this time last year (over 3,000), the challenges facing our staff and board are daunting. The raw emotions faced by staff, volunteers and especially by those coming for assistance fly under the radar screen of what most politicians talk about up here when they discuss the severe recession, they are nevertheless the kind of realities faced by thousands of NGOs, non-profit and charitable groups across this vast country. They are there and they are real.

With such pressures in mind, I suggested that the key staff from the London Food Bank come to Ottawa this past weekend for a special retreat focusing on teambuilding for the next difficult few months and also for some strategic planning for how we might deal with upcoming challenges. We began on Friday and finished up on Sunday at noon. They came to Question Period on Friday and wondered why development aid to Africa is being cut, why we as politicians behave as we do in the House, and is it always this cold in Ottawa?

I’ve stayed on as co-director of the London Food Bank (voluntary) and I know my staff well, but I could sense their apprehension at what the future might hold. London is near the centre of automotive parts and vehicle construction industry. The decline of the industry has brought on significant increases in food bank usage. If our numbers are elevated now, what will happen when Employment Insurance runs out for workers? Surely many of them will be at our doors.

One MP said to me three weeks ago that it seemed as though this current recession didn’t seem as bad as projections said it would be. I tried to patiently wait out his disconnected observations, but I couldn’t help wondering how he would feel if he actually volunteered at his own food bank for a time, or even if he was one of those workers now seeking employment in the midst of the worst economic time since World War Two.

These are the realities of our current time. Four hundred thousand people have lost their jobs just in the last six months, with many more to come. EI is hardly capable under its present construct to handle the burgeoning numbers seeking assistance. If politicians opt to ride this thing out in hopes of a better day without themselves seeking to understanding what these struggling Canadians are going through, then it’s no wonder we haven’t come to grips with proper solutions yet.

I was in a meeting with someone for the Secretary General’s office at the United Nations concerning the African development aid cuts when I saw the food bank staff checking out at the desk and loading up the van. Excusing myself for a few moments, I rushed up to them to thank them for their hard and important work. They moved forward as one, hugging me in gratitude that they had been asked to this important city and received some consolation and direction in the process. Would that the House of Commons had their same breadth of understanding and sympathy of spirit.