L'après-midi du hockey

Vous ne le saviez peut-être pas, mais la deuxième partie de hockey de la série opposant les Sénateurs d’Ottawa aux Pingouins de Pittsburgh se jouera ce samedi à 15h et non pas à 19h.

Et la soirée du hockey???

Ah oui, c’est vrai, la soirée du hockey se déroulera un peu plus tôt que prévu, mais la ligue n’avait malheureusement pas le choix. Vous voyez, NBC n’acceptait de diffuser la partie que si elle se déroulait l’après-midi, et bien que la ligue lui offre les droits de diffusion gratuitement, NBC est implanté aux EU et ses désirs sont par conséquent des ordres.

On aurait pu penser que la CBC, qui vient de signer un contrat de 100 millions avec la ligue pour les droits de diffusion des équipes canadiennes, aurait son mot à dire, mais bien évidemment, comme elle est implantée au Canada, elle est totalement ignorée.

Hé, mais c’est pas juste.

Non, ce n’est pas juste, mais pour que la CBC se fasse écouter, il lui faudrait des moyens de pression, et malheureusement, elle n’en a pas. Elle n’en a pas car, quoi que fasse la ligue, les Canadiens continueront à aimer le hockey et elle continuera par conséquent à acheter les droits de diffusion. C’est bien malheureux, mais le jour où la ligue se souciera de l’intérêt des Canadiens, ces derniers l’auront oubliée.

Disgusting

I am disgusted.

Canada’s unelected Minister of Public Works, Michael Fortier, has just announced the hiring of an “independent adviser” to investigate the polling contracts of the previous Liberal government. This “independent adviser”, Mr. Daniel Paillé, happens to be a former Quebec cabinet minister in a separatist PQ government. But, although one can legitimately question the Conservative government’s motivations for hiring a separatist to investigate a matter that some call the last chapter of the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Paillé’s political affiliation is not what disgusts me. After all, he’s still a Canadian citizen with the right qualifications, which is enough.

What disgusts me is the very nature of the job. Mr. Paillé is being paid around $1000 a day (+office and staff) to conduct an investigation into a matter that has already been covered by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser (who’s name Paillé had to be reminded of by the media). Why would the Coservatives want to spend taxpayer dollars on an investigation which had already been undertaken by the Auditor-General?

Let me give you some clues:
-the report’s release is set to coincide with a possible autumn election.
-unlike Justice Gomery, Mr. Paillé has no legal obligations so his report can be partisan or manipulated by the government
-it re-creates the buzz of the sponsorship scandal

This scheme may or may not backfire, but at the moment, I sincerely hope it does.

Trust: the Bottom Line

In Canada, we have this wonderful document called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to all Canadians, regardless of race, age or sex. Over time, it has become the best recourse for minorities who feel unfairly treated by either public or private institutions. These minorities can count on a sound and impartial interpretation of the Charter, because that task falls to the courts, which are comprised of highly qualified judges, selected on the basis of merit.

Sometimes, the verdicts are surprising and controversial, to say the least, but they are always accepted by the Canadian public because it feels confident that the charter is properly and impartially interpreted.

Now, imagine what would happen if ordinary Canadians with no background in law started picking the judges, in other words, imagine what would happen if judges were elected.

One doesn’t have to look any further than the US for an answer: Judges (who might not even be fully qualified) would go on expensive election campaigns, make bold promises (which would often be in contradiction with the law itself) to their electorate and often end up breaking them. Hey, doesn’t that look like a familiar job description. Yes, it’s the job description of a politician!

Now here’s my question: Do most Canadians trust politicians? NO

As a matter of fact, a CTV poll showed that only 14 percent of Canadians trusted politicians. Contrast that with judges, who are trusted by 78 percent of Canadians.

This trust of judges usually means that even their most controversial decisions are accepted, thus keeping the justice system fair, and effective. Now imagine if only 14 percent of Canadians trusted judges. Would controversial verdicts still be accepted and enforced, and if not, would the judges still have the guts to make them?

We all know that if judges were elected, there would no doubt be some abuse of the justice system by the electorate, and the position would also become financially restrictive as they would be required to go on expensive campaigns. But some people would still prefer to those “drawbacks” to a system of unelected and thus unaccountable judges. The issue of trust however, is more than a drawback.

If the courts are not trusted by the public, their decisions will not always be accepted by most Canadians, which will lead to a loss of credibility and thus of power to enforce decisions. But a fair and strong court is both the foundation of a proper democracy and of a just society. If judges were to lose our trust and thus the power to enforce their decisions, like in developing countries, we would be opening the door to all sorts of corruption and terrible abuse.

Who Cares?

When I heard about the mistakes in the French text on the Vimy Ridge Memorial, my first reaction was not anger but mild annoyance. Were French spelling mistakes on national monuments a rare occurrence, I would no doubt have been extremely angry, but it happens so often that it was simply another news item on the Globe’s front page. After all, it wouldn’t have been the first time: a few days before the new War Museum’s official opening ceremony, syntax errors were discovered in the windows which were supposed to spell “n’oublions jamais” in Morse code.

This is a bad sign.

Basically, a francophone such as myself is so used to the government making spelling mistakes all over the map that he’s only mildly annoyed when some are discovered on the Vimy Ridge Memorial.

But now, after giving some though to the matter, I’m angry. I’m angry because the mistakes have been there for twenty years and have no doubt been signalled to the government, yet they had to wait until a Radio-Canada reporter made the story national news before acting. In other words, they knew about the situation, but were so cynical and unconcerned that they waited until the news made the front page before fixing things.

When a government is so indifferent about one of our official languages that it puts Anglophone volunteers in charge of translating and reviewing texts into French, and waits twenty years before fixing the mistakes, something is wrong.

Where's Canada's Harvard?

I have a few years ahead of me before I have to start worrying about picking a university, but as I am curious and somewhat apprehensive, I’ve already started doing some basic research.

Though my parents who are both academics often remind me that there is more to a university than its ranking, I still decided to check them out. After after a few minutes of sifting through various ones, the truth dawned upon me: Canadian Universities were not world class.

Sure, UofT and Université de Montréal usually got placed in the high twenties, but both institutions are notorious for being overcrowded and having a bad atmosphere. Why didn’t Canada have a Harvard of its own? After all, Britain is 60 million and has 2-3 top twenties, the US is 300 million and has 15-17 top twenties. Canada being 30 million, shouldn’t it have one?

I know that this is a grossly simplified picture which ignores the structure and historical background of the institutions. But we must remember that while an increasing number of countries are being able to offer basic education, globalization is making it possible for those new workers to compete for traditionally Canadian jobs. The only thing that will set Canadians apart is advanced training, which requires good universities resulting from governmental investment.

It's true that having no top twenty institutions isn't necessarily a symptom of a bad university network, but it's certainly a sign that there' s still room for improvement.

Long Live Westminster 2

This is just a quick follow-up on my Westminster vs. Proportional post. I wanted to quickly talk about the effectiveness of Westminster governments. The nature of the system –parties don’t need a majority of the popular vote to win- means that one party usually ends up with a majority of the seats in the house. This gives it nearly absolute power on decision making for the length of its mandate. In other words, for four years, it can pass nearly any piece of legislation.

Not everyone considers this to be a good thing, but it undeniably makes for a more effective government. In the ever changing world, the capacity for quick response and strong decision making is absolutely crucial. A government needs to be able to pass a bill without having to waste time securing the support of another party.

It also makes it possible for the government to pass unpopular necessary legislation. Sometimes, governments are ahead of the people. They know the necessity of a reform but the majority of voters want to keep things the way they are. A classic example would be Paul Martin’s fight against the national debt. At the time, the cuts he made were unpopular, but Canadians quickly changed their minds once the deficit ended. The government had been ahead.

It would have been a nearly impossible task for that Liberal government had they not had a majority of seats. If given a chance, the other parties would have blocked most reforms in an effort to regain popularity. It should come as no surprise that European countries under proportional representation such as France and Germany have had terrible difficulty getting their debt under control.

I agree that Westminster is fundamentally undemocratic because a party can be in power without the approval of a majority of voters, but I don’t think the objective of our electoral formula should be to create "fair" representation; it should be to create a good government.

Long Live Westminster

There’s a prominent Socialist Party member in France called Laurent Fabius. He was appointed France’s youngest Prime-Minister in 1984 by then President François Mitterrand, and was recently in the race for the Socialist Party presidential nomination. Not only is this man the epitome of sleaziness and dishonesty, he was also a bad Prime-Minister. During his tenure, both the Rainbow Warrior and tainted blood scandals took place.

Svend Robinson was an extremely successful MP. Elected six times to ridings in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, he was an advocate for a number of important issues and was the first Member of Parliament to admit his homosexuality. Unfortunately, in 2004 he stole a $21,500 ring from an auction house while he was serving in office. He immediately returned it, but the damage was done. He decided to take a medical leave of absence as he was suffering from bipolar disease, and also stepped aside as NDP candidate for the 2004 election.

In last year’s election, Robinson re-entered politics by running for the NDP in the riding of Vancouver Center. He lost by a large margin. Had he run before his theft, he would have stood an excellent chance, but Vancouver Center voters just weren’t prepared to vote in a man who had stolen an expensive ring.

If we had to compare the positive impact of Fabius and Robinson, the latter would certainly come out on top. Yet Fabius remains an influential politician while Robinson has had to quit public life.

This says a lot about Westminster vs. proportional representation. Had Robinson lived in France like Fabius, he would simply have completed his community service hours and gone on living his normal life, because he would have stayed among the first on the NDP’s list. Instead, he has had to quit politics and get a job working for the BC government.

This really speaks in favour of our current system. Though it is sad that a man like Robinson, who had given so much to his community, saw his political career end, it is still a much better outcome than a crook like Fabius staying in office despite numerous errors and scandals.
With the Westminster system, everyone is accountable, even the Leader (just ask Jean Charest who nearly lost his seat despite his party winning the election).

To have a fair democracy, you have to be able to get the crooks out, even if they are first on their party’s list.