It seems that Canada’s current political (and potential constitutional) crisis has caught the attention of pundits and bloggers in other areas of the world. Here are a few excerpts from some of the commentary.

Cameron of the U.S. based blog “The Crossed Pond” offers an insightful analysis of the crisis, noting, among other things, that

Canada is still technically under the thumb of the Queen of England. The Queen’s envoy is called the Governor General who has authority to call together portions of Parliament to form government and whatnot. The last time one was asked to exercise real authority in forming a government was back in the 1920s, making the current power struggle pretty rare.

James Joyner of the “Atlantic Council of the United States” in a piece entitled “Canada’s Conservative Government Nears Collapse” discusses the inherent instability of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition:

While seemingly an absurd result, Harper’s plurality is not a majority. It’s doubtful, however, that a Liberal-Quebecois-New Democrat coalition would be any more successful

Meanwhile, another American blogger spins the crisis as a coup with a post entitled:“Coup in Canada? Overthrowing the Conservatives?”.

Its also interesting how various media outlets world wide “spin” the story, whether as a crisis or a “power grab”:

Xinhua News Network of China reports:

Canada’s Conservative government on Sunday said it would deliver an early budget on Jan. 27, as it struggles to stave off the political crisis sparked by a major economic statement.

Australian News similarly reports

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has deferred an upcoming confidence vote that his Government was set to lose, to avoid a power grab or snap elections.

   Tagged: canada, crisis, Harper, politics, world   

The Globe’s Norman Spectre asks: is Canada heading toward a constitutional crisis? Harper’s Conservative Government, which has just recently been returned to power with minority status in October, has aroused the ire of the opposition parties in its proposed “economic update”. First, Harper has failed to offer many new ideas about how to deal with the global economic crisis as it has impacted on Canada. Second, the Conservatives have proposed to cut public funding for federal political parties. Essentially, each party gets a fixed amount of federal dollars for every vote earned in a federal election. By eliminating these subsidies, Harper would seriously weaken all three opposition parties, particularly his chief rivals, the Liberals.

The Prime Minister, however, has perhaps fatally misjudged the disposition of the opposition parties right now. Rather than showing leadership, critics say, he has opted for political games and brinkmanship. Now, there are talks between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to vote no confidence in the government and ask the Governor General to allow them to form a governing coalition, effectively ejecting the Conservatives from government without an election.

Of course, constitutional experts debate the appropriateness of such a course of action. Apparently, Canadian history offers some precedent. In 1926, then Gov. Gen. Lord Byng invited Conservative Arthur Meighen to form government after Prime Minister Mackenzie King lost a confidence vote soon after an election.

That may be precedent, but the Byng-King affair has not escaped sharp criticisms from historians, political scientists, and legal scholars. Many have suggested Lord Byng acted undemocratically. Indeed, the optics of an unelected figurehead such as Gov. Gen. Jean — a figurehead for our former colonial mother country — deciding the fate of our elected government is unsettling, to say the least.

So the stakes are high. The lines have been drawn. And the arguments familiar. But Canadians do not know yet where this all might take us. Yet, the question that the country must ask itself in the months ahead - if stability is restored - is how we can avoid this problem again? Will this finally be the time for further fundamental constitutional reform to change to a republican form of government? Or is something less significant warranted, like a few Parliamentary reforms? Is it now time to start looking elsewhere for guidance? Is it time to start engaging with other countries likewise searching for answers? Australia, for one, has at least asked these questions, despite no resolution so far.

Indeed, for what has always seemed to us to be a quaint vestige of our former colonial status - the need for the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament - now seems like the linchpin for our entire constitutional system.

   Tagged: canada, coalition, Conservative, crisis, Election, governor general, Harper, jean, layton, Liberal, NDP, politics, reform, Republican   

I write this post from Boston, where my dad has recently undergone serious heart surgery. There are few better places than a hospital in which to muse over inequality. Beyond U.S.-specific issues of butting heads with insurance companies and dealing with detached million-dollar doctors, my family has experienced first hand how social and economic inequality, racism, sexism, and structural violence is perfectly played out within medical systems across North America.

My dad had to demand his right to health care: it was not given to him, and it did not come easily. His social position allowed him to become his own greatest advocate: he’s a white, middle class man whose primary language is English, and he knows how to deal with bureaucratic BS. Because of his job title and my family’s relative economic stability, he was able to take off time from work in order to study his disorder and research the best doctors and surgeons. He negotiated for the best care by writing continuous e-mails and incessantly placing phone calls, ensuring that the operation happened, and happened soon. “Patient driven medicine,” the cardiologist here in Boston calls it, smiling. He’s become a star because of his self-lobbying efforts, an example of how the medical system can work, given that everything goes perfectly.

But what about a person who doesn’t have his experience, who doesn’t know how to deal with bureaucracy and the “higher ups,” who can’t take time off work, who doesn’t have command of the English language? What would they do? I think of single mothers who can’t get enough time away from their kids or job to make those phone calls or write those e-mails. I think of people who’s primary language is Spanish, Punjabi, or Cantonese; who can’t afford to fly across the continent to find the best care; who don’t have enough information or enough experience to understand the system and demand their rights.

The hurdles that my family encountered over the last several months are not only demonstrative of the downfalls of privatized medicine; more broadly, they are demonstrative of our society’s inequality. We cannot pretend that everyone has the same access to medicine, regardless of whether or not there is a national healthcare system. Simply having a system doesn’t ensure that it will work for everyone, and social, economic and language barriers continue to block millions of peoples’ paths to their greatest right: a long and healthy life.

   Tagged: Health care; inequality; structural violence; language, medicine   

The United Nations is calling on our government to investigate the deaths and disappearance of aboriginal women, citing “500 cases” in need of attention. The UN committee on the elimination of discrimination against women has not so far enlisted much popular support, judging from online commentary, particularly toward the idea reported in one CP story, that systemic racism is a factor in the way aboriginal women disappearances have been investigated across Canada.

Is popular disdain toward the U.N and perhaps toward First Nations issues, building in Canada? In a recent lecture, Carleton University’s James Milner gave a lecture about the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). For more than 50 years, Canada has been a strong supporter of the international refugee protection regime. Is that support now weakening?  Listen to any coffee shop discussion, venture into a boardroom, or participate in community sports at your local rec. centre: how are we Canadians talking about the U.N, about refugees? And First Nations issues?

Over the last decades, has there been an erosion not just of civility in discourse, but also in understanding  of systemic issues in our country? The U.N. perhaps somewhat justifiably, comes under some pretty heavy fire for bureaucratic bloat and un-endingly abstract pronouncements. Fair enough. But imagine a world without it, without international refugee protection, without an “outside” multi-country body, however flawed, to rap the knuckles, at least, of a generous, prosperous country  - Canada - not necessarily about refugees - our overall track record is pretty good - but on the historic and current crisis regarding our First Peoples.

No where better illustrated than in this past week’s news that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, laudably set up by the current government, is still stalled over who to appoint as chair, in the wake of Justice Harry LaForme’s resignation.

To the UN call for a Canadian government response into the disappearance of aboriginal women, no official federal response to date.

To the demand from some residential school survivors, that an Aboriginal should occupy the Truth Commission’s chair, a prepared statement from Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl. According to some media reports the Minister first denied that a new Commission chair would be “required to be Aboriginal” and then added, that such a position would be filled by “finding the best person for the…job.”

No reading of any of the wire reports available suggests that anyone was calling for an “undeserving” or “unqualified” aboriginal to be appointed.  Why shouldn’t the Chairperson for this Commission - with its sad, complex charge, its great moral demands, be chosen on the basis of both the “best” and as an Aboriginal?

   Tagged: Aboriginal Women, canada, disappearance of aboriginal women, Indian Affairs, James Milner, Minister Chuck Strahl, refugees, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, UNCHR, United Nations   

Last Thursday, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled that Bell Canada was not engaging in a discriminatory activity by shaping the traffic of its wholesale clients. The CRTC found that because heavy-usage residential customers were also having bandwidth throttled, commercial customers could not be said to have been discriminated against. The Commission found that there was, as Bell claimed, network congestion due to P2P traffic, and that traffic shaping was appropriate in this case.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), a group of businesses that purchase bandwidth for their reselling enterprises, stipulated in their suit that Bell discriminated against them, primarily because their services successfully compete with those of their provider’s. The CAIP, who launched their suit last April, stipulate in their CRTC application, that they were only using a service that they had already paid for, and that therefore, Bell was not honouring their contracts.Bell argued that increased use of torrent clients was choking bandwidth so much that they had to shape traffic to be able to keep the lines open. This is debatable, as the telcos could easily alleviate the congestion by adding more bandwidth to deliver the service that their clients have already paid for.

The CRTC’s conclusion, that one group is not being singled out because the same treatment has been applied to another, is specious logic at best, and it dodges a larger issue; when governments take a laissez-faire approach to something as essential as network neutrality with medium as ubiquitous as the Internet, the result is that the arbitration of national communications policies will effectively default to large cable companies rather than legislators. Presently, there is no law preserving network neutrality in North America. Though it was not addressed in this first round, the CRTC did recognize that the issue needs to be revisited, and so there will be dedicated hearings in 2009. This is in itself welcome news, as network neutrality was a low-profile issue in Canada until recently, despite its importance.

Though Canadian telecommunications companies have impeded web traffic before, Thursday’s decision is the first blow to network neutrality that has the blessing of an official regulatory body. The Conservative government has been hesitant to comment on network neutrality, and appear to be opposed to federal regulation of the Internet. What is troubling, is that the public is left without a concrete measure constituting what an ISP can say is too much usage. For the time being, the practice of network throttling has been legally sanctioned.

At this point, Canada appears to be going in the opposite direction than the US; President-elect Barack Obama, is an advocate of legislating network neutrality, which has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” It is easy to see why Obama backs network neutrality. His incredibly successful grassroots campaigns effectively utilized the innovative potential of the free net for awareness and fundraising. He recognized that the nature of the new media lends itself to a more direct and instant participation in democracy, an insight that mobilized voters in record numbers.

Network neutrality facilitates innovation and democratic representation in the media, and fosters healthy competition among Internet companies. These are important elements for Canada to retain if it would remain a leader in the communcations world.

   Tagged: Bell Canada, CAIP, Canadian Association of Internet Providers, CRTC, Network Neutrality