Having watched the televised debates over the last two nights, I have reached 3 conclusions.
1. Stephane Dion has to go.
2. Having a capable woman at the debating table has reinvigorated the debates is very positive ways.
3. I do not want Stephen Harper running this country and God forbid he get a majority.
I still have no idea how I am going to vote at this stage, but I, like many people, am firmly on board the ‘anyone but Harper’ bandwagon. Here are some of my reasons in no particular order.
1. Access to information –The Harper administration has made it increasingly difficult for citizens and journalists, who serve a critical role in holding the government accountable for its actions, to access information and clarify policies and issues at the departmental level. This, in my opinion is a very disturbing infringement on the democratic rights of all Canadian citizens.
2. Media Control – While acknowledging that Mr. Harper is very smart in his media tactics, I find his need to control his environment and his media coverage upsetting. He is the only party leader to refuse to participate in CBC's 'Your Turn' which gives citizens across the country the opportunity to ask questions to party leaders. Also, Harper plans all media access around the media cycle announcing new items in the morning and taking only 10-12 questions at that time. This means that any questions and clarifications on old issues are ignored. Furthermore, if one of the 10 (or 12) reporters who has asked a question then has the ‘audacity’ to ask a second follow-up question, the next journalists in line will have their question skipped, creating animosity between reporters. He is the only politician to use this tactic and I don't understand why journalists have played the game his way. There was, early on, some criticism, but journalists wanting to get heard are no longer standing up against such censoring tactics. Perhaps they have little choice.
3. Women in government – Women make up over 50% of Canada’s population yet the Conservative party is the only political party in Canada that does not have any clear program to recruit female candidates, nor does it appear to have any goals on this matter. The Conservatives have the lowest representation of female candidates running in this election at 18%, many of whom are in running in unwinnable ridings.
The UN, through the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) and Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), have put the onus on member state governments to involve women at all levels of decision-making, and have repeatedly held up the target 30% as the minimum required for critical mass for policy issues to have a gendered perspective. According to the IPU, 58 other countries around the world have better track-records on this matter than Canada
4. Elizabeth May – Stephen Harper’s open contempt for Elizabeth May during the debate was almost more disappointing than his attempt to exclude her from the debate in the first place. As the leader of a federal party, she deserves a seat at the table. I don't know why this was even a debated point or why the networks were willing to allow the Conservatives to bully into getting their way. While I recognize that it poses a challenge for the conduct of debates, that is a matter for those designing format to work out and is NOT an excuse to exclude a party from being at the table.
5. Platform (or lack thereof) – The Conservatives have yet to produce a platform, or for that matter, any clear policies on what we can expect, but have attacked relentlessly the platforms put forth by others. It begs the questions what is Harper planning and what is he hiding? (see PS below)
6. Canada in the world (or lack thereof, aside from Afghanistan) – Harper has made many changes that reduce Canada’s contribution in the world, including significant cuts to CIDA programs. He has also restricted the ability of officials and bureaucrats to maneuver. Repeatedly I hear form academics, former and current bureaucrats, and other practitioners and professionals how the current environment handcuffs the ability of individuals who have in the past been able to act in brave ways that make me proud to be Canadian. For example, Bob Fowlers efforts as the President of the Security Council in 2000 led to the development of the Kimberly Process which regulates the flow of conflict diamonds, and has been largely credited for the ending civil wars in both Sierra Leone and Angola. Or Lloyd Axworthy’s brave decision to invite world leaders back to Canada to sign a comprehensive ban of anti-personnel land mines. These acts require the support of government and are among the contributions that Canada has made to the world that make me proud to be Canadian. They are more diplomatic and peace oriented approached as opposed to Harper's focus on military strength. While there is a need for balance, and recognizing that is a philosophical debate for which there are no clear answers, the status quo is unacceptable. I sincerely doubt you can identify many people who feel that Bush's military tactic have instilled a stronger sense of security in the global community. There are alternatives to state and UN-sanctioned wars that can help bring about strong, sustainable peace solutions and which represent a fraction of the costs being incurred to fight wars. Just maybe it is time to give these alternatives serious consideration again.
Foreign Policy in general is sadly largely ignored by all parties in this campaign.
7. Policy Philosophy – For example, the Harper government has offered money back to parents who have their kids enrolled in sports. However there is little proof that it is changing behavior of families, but rather that it is subsidizing behavior that was taking place already to families who are unlikely to need it the most. This philosophy places ‘blame’ firmly on the shoulder of individuals, and ignores systemic issues such as availability of green space, bicycle lanes and other key infrastructure, programs, education, and the real costs of participating in sports, especially for single parents etc.
Another example is the Conservative Child Care plan. $100 a month is a tiny fraction of the cost of day care and does not enable real choice to families who previously did not have access. Furthermore, Harper’s policies have not resulted in the promised day care spaces so that even families who might be in a positions to take advantage often end up on waiting lists that are several years out. This impacts on the ability of parents, and especially women to re-enter the workforce, results in more families on welfare, and makes it even more difficult for these parents to find work once they can find care for their children. Furthermore, there no guarantee that this child benefit goes towards the children it is intended to benefit. (see PS below for updates)
8. Cuts to Arts – At one naive moment, I thought that just maybe in announcing such dramatic funding cuts to the arts which will have serious consequences for the livelihoods of thousands of artists nation-wide, he might rebound with alternative, albeit dramatically (no pun intended) reduced funding scheme. This does not appear to be the case, and many across the country will rightly be concerned about where their next paycheck are going to come from, putting an already underpaid segment of society that much closer, if not well below, the poverty level and needing to seek income through other means, reducing their professional opportunities and credentials.
9. Abortion - While Harper may have officially declared that he will not seek to legislate abortion, his previously state support for this movement has mobilized anti-abortion groups across the country who are endorsing candidates. While there are clearly ethical dilemmas associated with abortion, a woman’s right to choose should not be tampered with, and should certainly not be decided by a group of predominantly men who will not feel the full impact of the decisions they are making.
10. Negative Campaigning – While acknowledging that Conservatives were not the first to use negative campaigning, they have nonetheless taken it to a whole new level. I find it despicable that such tactics are becoming the norm of Canadian politics. They feel un-Canadian in my opinion.
I have many other reasons for not voting for Stephen Harper, including his climate change policies, and the youth crime bill that he has touted. These are but a few. I sincerely wish all the best to the candidates, including Conservatives some of whom campaigned for my father during his leadership bid. I sincerely regret not being able to support these fine candidates in their own bids, however support for Stephen Harper would be a betrayal to my own principles and pride as a Canadian.
PS. Since I have written this blog, a number of changes have occurred. First, the conservatives have announced an indexation of the Child Tax Benefit to correspond with inflation. This will raise the current tax benefit from $100 per child to $103 per child. Also, the Conservatives apparently will be announcing a platform tomorrow. It is being released after the debates so that he doesn't have to answer any questions about it that he doesn't control. Thirdly, given the current financial crisis, we can all see that the risks of less government which can have dire consequences. Harper's reassurance that he has plans without any details as to what those plans entail are not at all comforting to me. More than ever, transparency must be paramount in the policies and plans being developed to reassure Canadians and the rest of the world that the ground that we stand on is firm. Secrecy and control must not be the norm on which the future of this country moves forward.
