You’ve got to hand it to Ontario MPP Michael Prue. As Moira MacDonald of the Toronto Sun writes in her column today, Prue (who is getting ready to replace Howard Hampton as leader) is openly suggesting that Ontario have just one publicly funded school system. As MacDonald wrote:

“Instead of the news being that Prue was the first to throw his hat into the leadership ring, what rang out was Prue had suggested it might be time for a rethink on his party’s support for two school systems — Catholic and public.”

Frankly, as a supporter of the faith-based funding proposal brought forward in last October’s Ontario election by conservative leader John Tory, I am very surprised this topic is being brought up. Credit where credit is due for Prue having the guts to speak his mind. 

But, what exactly would one system look like and how would it be about equality? For example, MacDonald quotes Nelson Wiseman, a U of T political science professor, as saying: ”I suspect the majority sentiment in the party is to move toward equality, not on the basis of being anti-Catholic, but on the basis of not favouring any one religion.”

How is not favouring any one religion about equality? That notion is actually about inequality because it would force conformity on everyone — into the same melting pot.  How would that type of system be inclusive? Or, would it only be inclusive in certain “politically correct” instances?  

Would there be, for example, schools where Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist kids could go to school? Would there be schools where Aboriginal students could study, or where there was an Africentric emphasis? Would there be schools where kids would be able to study visual art, dance and drama?

Read the rest of this entry »

So the layers of the Elections Canada campaign spending issue are being peeled away and, along with those layers is the obvious hypocrisy in some federal political circles. Yesterday I wrote about Andrew Coyne’s article in Macleans with respect to opposition parties hyperventilating on the so-called “In and Out” scheme. Now, today, we are hearing about the Bloc Quebecois — the party who yesterday put forward a motion to support Elections Canada.  

Well, if you want further evidence of in and out schemes, read this piece by Elizabeth Thompson in the Montreal Gazette.  She writes:

When the controversy first erupted about the Conservative “in and out” transfers between their local and national campaigns, the term had a vaguely familiar ring to it. Listening today to one Bloc Québécois MP after another get up to denounce “in and out” financing and praise Elections Canada,  those bells started to ring even louder.

Finally it came to me. The term “in and out” in connection with election financing was first used by my former colleague and classmate Andrew McIntosh to describe a lucrative arrangement cooked up by the Bloc to take advantage of a loophole in election financing laws to extract the maximum amount of taxpayer-funded refunds from Elections Canada.

I seem to recall that the Bloc weren’t as great fans of Elections Canada then as they seem to be now. Who knows. Perhaps the Bloc is now denouncing a practice it inspired.

 While the hypocrisy is truly breathtaking, I am glad the truth is finally coming out.

* Update: Related. Tories blast Elections Canada.

[...]

I am certainly no fan of Michael Ignatieff, but Brian Flemming’s column in today’s Halifax Daily News reveals an incredible bias against anyone who displays his or her higher education.  The implicit messages in Fleming’s piece, apart from the obvious criticisms he makes about Ignatieff and his changing positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, is that former professors are: (1) too narcissistic; and (2) wet behind the ears as far as understanding active politics.

Well, anyone who has ever finished university, particularly professional schools like nursing, police and security, teacher’s college, law or medicine, or graduate school, will be hooting with laughter right about now. Doesn’t understand politics? In a university (or college) setting? That is, without a doubt, one of the most political environments on the face of this earth. And, yes there is a lot of narcissism on all sides of the teaching process. Most will agree that when you are standing in line on the night of convocation, it’s not the subject matter you will remember, it’s the relief that you “made it through the political process” and finished.  That is the reality.

Yet, Flemming says:

“[A] glaring omission is Ignatieff’s failure to recognize the animal side of politics. [That] good political judgment includes not just the exercise of the intellect, but a feel for what the electoral herd wants from its top elks.” 

And, his final put down: “We’re waiting with bated breath, Prof. Ignatieff.”

Too much the “intellectual” is also a criticism you hear about both Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  Yet, you rarely heard that view about former PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau, also a former professor, or Jean Chretien, who was a lawyer.  

We’ve got enough differences without trashing anyone’s background. I may not like Mr. Ignatieff but I would be the first to complain about this kind of nasty petty criticism if it was about Mr. Harper. In my view, having personally worked (taught) in both university and active political settings,  when it comes to talking to the electoral herd, contrary to what Flemming suggests, Ignatieff’s teaching DID prepare him for politics.

[...]