Features

Political parties as we know them today evolved in fits and starts. In England, they began as collections of what we would call today “interest groups”. Rather than defending a particular ideology or political theory, they defended the power of one social institution versus another. The Tories supported royal power and the Church of England, and drew their followers from the gentry. The Whigs favoured constitutional monarchy and limits on royal power, and drew their support from the upper aristocracy and “dissenters” (i.e. non-Anglican Protestants and Catholics).

With the Oscar nominations being announced recently I thought I’d offer a few thoughts on a little movie that’s suddenly captured a lot of attention — Slumdog Millionaire. When I saw this movie I enjoyed the cinematography and storytelling, but I also wrote it off as a bit of a superficial ‘feel good movie of the year’ type of film. To be honest, I didn’t give much thought until I ran into a commentary piece in the Ottawa Citizen written by a friend who’d recently immigrated to Canada from India.  

Without giving too much away, the movie is on the surface a tale about a child who grew up in the slums of Mumbai.Throughout his journey he faces persecution from police, organized crime, and violent religious factions. He lives hand-to-mouth whatever his surroundings — slums, garbage dumps, or call centres — but through a series of events finds himself as a contestant on an Indian version of ‘Who Wants To Be a Millionaire’.  

On Saturday, December 6, 2008, over a thousand people gathered at Nathan Phillips Square for a rally in support of the Liberal-NDP Coalition. Several PSB contributors attended and brought along a video camera. We interviewed over a dozen people — from rock stars to politicians to regular people — in order to find out why they came and what they hoped to achieve. Below are parts 1 and 2 of “Coalition for Change.”

As we wrote a few days after the event, our encounters releaved a profound frustration on the part of progressive Canadians that despite being predominant in Canadian society, their views were relegated to opposition status in the House of Commons. It also suggested that despite their high percentage of the popular vote, Canada’s progressive parties, particularly the Liberals, lack grassroots support.

This film was shot and edited by Milan Chotai. Special thanks to Tyler B. for taking photos and arranging interviews at the Rally.

Based on media reports, when it comes to the crisis in the auto sector, there are only two solutions: bailout or bankruptcy. Canadians have been offered a false choice in this debate; in reality, there’s a third way — a strategy that could create jobs while making Canada’s auto sector globally competitive again. 

We should seize the unique opportunity that the combination of the Big Three’s impending collapse and calls for government intervention presents to transform our economy, once and for all, by allowing all Canadian manufacturers — not just Chrysler, GM and Ford — to compete for public investment. 

On Saturday, a group of PSB contributors attended the Coalition Rally in Toronto. We wanted to find out what the crisis was all about by talking to the participants. So we brought along a video camera and conducted over a dozen interview with politicians, rock stars, and everyday people.

What we learned is that the rally and the Coalition represent a deep frustration on the part of progressive Canadians that their values are dominant in Canada, but not in Parliament. The composition of the crowd also revealed a lack of grassroots engagement which must be rectified if the Coalition stands a chance of succeeding. But the real lesson from this weekend, and the political crisis generally, is that Canada’s political system is antiquated.

(We’re in the process of editing our footage and hope to have PSB’s first video up this week. In the meantime, you can check out some photos on Flickr.)

Today the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in order to save himself from being defeated. If she grants his request, this will mean the end of responsible government in Canada as we know it. The core of our democracy is in peril and only the people can save it.

The principle of responsible government is a constitutional convention — an unwritten rule that has developed over time based on practice. But, just because it’s not in a document, doesn’t mean it’s not important. In fact, many of our political institutions aren’t written down; you won’t find the words “prime minister” in any of Canada’s constitutional documents.

Under responsible government, the executive (the prime minister and Cabinet) is accountable to the legislature. In other words, the government is accountable to the people through their elected representatives in the House of Commons. Therefore, once the executive, currently the Conservatives, loses the support of the majority of the House, it no longer has the authority to govern. It must step aside and allow the Governor General to either call an election or invite another group to take power.

If you’re upset about the political crisis going on in Ottawa, don’t blame Stephen Harper.

Well, who am I kidding, of course you should blame Stephen Harper; his inability to resist a chance to poke his adversaries in the eye, regardless of the costs to the country, precipitated this mess. But, Canada’s backward electoral system at the federal level should also be the subject of criticism this week.

The problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of electing Members of Parliament are well-known. In last month’s federal election, 62 per cent of Canadians voted against the party that ultimately formed government. As a result, the vast majority of voters, who undeniably lean progressive, ended up with a conservative prime minister.

The New York Times recently featured a story on the dilemma facing the United Kingdom with respect to private religious “courts” applying Sharia law in the UK’s Muslim communities. As is noted in the article, Ontario grappled with this issue in 2006 and decided to remove any possibility of legally binding arbitration based on religion. Ontario took this step because if it hadn’t it would be faced a dilemma: Give in to the public outcry against allowing “Islamic law” to be enforced in Ontario, or blatantly discriminate against Muslims (Christians and Jews were already permitted to use this type of arbitration in Ontario). 

Ontario’s decision was a fair one, but unnecessary. It is possible to allow this kind of arbitration while protecting Ontario law, Canadian values, and members of minority communities. However, doing so forces us to acknowledge that protecting personal freedom can mean allowing individuals to reject the rights offered by Canadian law.

The evening of November 4, my Facebook news feed read like a lament for a nation. My Canadian friends, inspired by the candidacy of Barack Obama, began to long for their own visionary and transformational leader.

Through their status messages, young Canadians expressed their envy of how engaging American politics had become. They too wanted to reclaim their government, but felt aimless without a compelling figure to call them to action. They wondered, “Where’s Canada’s Barack Obama?”

True, it often takes an inspiring figure to galvanize a critical mass of people. And Barack Obama’s charisma and inspiring message were certainly part of his stunning victory. But neither his candidacy nor his election would have been possible without the willingness of everyday Americans to believe in something greater than them and work tirelessly to change their country. Young Canadians looking for their own Barack Obama should start by looking at themselves.