I have never dealt in this space with the right of Canadian citizens to enter Canada. The simple reason for this is that the law on this point is crystal clear and rarely in dispute.

This right is considered a “fundamental” one and so it is entrenched in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was signed by Queen Elizabeth in 1982.

Our Charter describes this right as follows:

“Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”

…Pretty simple, huh?

Not when it comes to Omar Khadr.

This fundamental right seems to have somehow been ignored during most of the debate, and some of the rhetoric, that surrounds this Canadian citizen’s controversial set of circumstances.

…Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly stated that he will not allow Khadr back here unless the charges against him are dropped for good. Of course, Harper has not explained what legal authority he has to prevent Khadr, a Canadian citizen, from exercising his right to return to Canada.

Even the Canadian opposition has it wrong. Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae suggested that Harper appoint a panel of experts to advise the Canadian government on how to deal with Khadr. Any expert, in my view, would agree that Khadr has a constitutional right to return to Canadian soil. What happens to him after that is a matter of domestic criminal law which is unrelated to his right to enter Canada.

The thousand or so senior judges who together form the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association describe our justice system as follows: “We are said to be ruled by law, not by those who enforce the law or wield government power.”

President Obama’s actions have signaled a swift and firm return to the rule of law.

I hope that we will follow not only the American lead but also our own legal tradition.

Pretty serious stuff. Bob, on what grounds do you and the prime minister presume to be able to ignore the Charter?

Shana Tova, my friends.

I was in Ottawa yesterday, so I decided to take a stroll up to the Hill and see if things have changed. On the way I passed Jean Chrétien, smiling and greeting people on the Sparks Street Mall. I got the sense that he was out in public just to do a friendly meet and greet. Well done, Ottawa.

Once I’d gone uphill, however, everything else went downhill. It won’t surprise you to learn that not only has question period gotten worse, it’s no longer even suitable for children. (Nor is the Hill itself, unfortunately, where one protester has deemed it necessary to erect a large gory photo of a purportedly aborted fetus right beside the centennial flame. My friend’s six-year-old was profoundly disturbed.)

Past security and sitting in the diplomat’s gallery overlooking the House of Commons, it didn’t take me long to pick out my Member of Parliament, Bob Rae, sitting on the front bench to the right of Stéphane Dion. As the leader of the opposition began question period with a lame inquiry about someone’s ex-girlfriend, Bob looked bored. His head was down, focused on his blackberry.

Normally I’m disgusted with the prime minister’s dismissive and nasty tone, but I can’t fault him this time. He joked that while he always encourages his caucus to at least introduce him to their dates, the only thing he really cares about regarding their dating lives is that they show up on time for work in the morning. There may be a real issue here somewhere, but it’s hardly the most pressing thing for the opposition to be spending their time on.

Two or three questions in, Bob’s head was still down, now writing a note on a piece of paper. Once done he propped up his head with his hand. Maybe he just gives off unfortunately incorrect signals, but he really looked—as he often did during the campaign—like he wished he was somewhere else. As someone who campaigned to sit in the seat he now occupies, that seemed particularly uncool.

The low point of the hour was not as low as it could have been, but still totally unbecoming of a group of adults. Garth Turner rose to ask the Minister of Finance a question about what he was doing for the 1400 Canadians who had just lost their jobs in the auto sector. As always happens when Garth Turner asks a question, he was ignored by the intended recipient of the question and Peter Van Loan rose to answer instead. Van Loan dismissed Turner, saying that while he felt for the people who had lost their jobs, “there’s one job loss that’s outstanding, and that’s the job loss of the member from Halton who promised that if he ever crossed the floor he’d stand in a by-election.”

“Well speaker,” responded Turner, “I’m not afraid to stand on my feet unlike the Minister of Finance.” The Liberal caucus jumped to its feet to applaud what was admittedly a good comeback, but in so doing just legitimized the valuing of testosterone-fueled snipping over substantive debate. After Turner restated his question, Van Loan stood up again and said that he shouldn’t be asking them questions about work, since Conservative MPs were “a set of Canadians who understand what it is to work, cuz guess what, they show up for work, unlike the Liberal caucus. They don’t know what it is to show up for work, let alone work.” He then read out some statistics about how often Liberal MPs had shown up to vote recently.

The speaker of the house let him finish before rising to point out that referring to the presence or absence of other members is, in fact, out of order. The Conservative MPs responding by jeering and booing the speaker, who slunk back into his chair. These are the alleged adults running our government. If Canadians were forced to watch Question Period, voter turnout would drop below 25%.

Back in my hotel lobby, Elizabeth May was on the cover of The Hill Times. The article profiled Peter Russell, an author (and, judging by his appearance at one of my campaign events in 2006, a Toronto Centre resident) who argues in a new book that the Green Party’s presence as a “serious” party is “solidified,” and that that’s one of the reasons why we’re likely to see a lot of minority governments in the near future. Russell concludes that parties had better figure out how to work together and cooperate more. The alternative is an increasingly cynical electorate that becomes so sick and tired of going to the polls every two years that they, you know, stop going to the polls.

Of course I don’t disagree, but boy have we got a long way to go. Observing “answer period” would be a good start.

Yes, I said, there are. “No there aren’t,” Mr. Rae said again. “They’re part of our military exchange program,” I explained. (I’m paraphrasing from memory for now, but will be able to check the tape later and will post the video when I can. UPDATE [March 13th @ 10:21pm]: Video of this exchange is now available, in both full and shortened versions.) Strangely, Mr. Rae demanded I tell him where in Iraq our officers were stationed, as if my inability to do so would prove they weren’t there.

At that point, seeing no immediate resolution to our disagreement, I moved on with the rest of my answer. Today, however, having confirmed that I was correct, I’m quite taken aback that Mr. Rae could have been so misinformed about our military’s exchange program with the United States and our direct involvement in the war in Iraq. It’s made worse by the fact that Mr. Rae isn’t just any Liberal candidate: he’s the party’s foreign affairs critic.

Ironically, some of the first criticisms of Canadian involvement in Iraq were directed at the Liberal government in 2003, and came from then-opposition Alliance Leader Stephen Harper. At the time, CTV reported that “there are currently 31 Canadian military officers serving with U.S. forces in Iraq.”

Then on December 14, 2006, according to this US military website, Canadian Maj. Gen. Peter Devlin became the MNC-I (Multi National Corps – Iraq) Deputy Command General. He’s even photographed for the CENTCOM website wearing a Canadian uniform.

Finally, in January 19th 2008, just two months ago and during this election campaign, Canwest News Service reported that Canadian Forces Brig.-Gen. Nicolas Matern had “recently arrived in Baghdad” to take “a leading roll in Iraq.” The report also confirmed that “a number of high ranking Canadian officers have been involved in helping direct operations in the Iraq conflict,” and offered this summary:

In 2004 Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, then a major general, served as deputy commander of the Multi-National Corps during operation Iraqi Freedom.

At the time, he was in charge of 35,000 soldiers. Natynczyk oversaw planning and execution of all multi-national corps-level combat support operations.

For his service in Iraq, Governor General Michaelle Jean, presented him with the Meritorious Service Cross.

At the time, the press release noted Natynczyk’s pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations “resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

Canadian Maj.-Gen. Peter Devlin was also recently a deputy commander in the multi-national corps.

Other Canadian soldiers have served in front-line positions. In May 2003 a Canadian Forces exchange officer was wounded near Baghdad airport after a grenade exploded next to the convoy he was traveling in. At the time there were 16 Canadian military members serving on exchange programs with various foreign forces involved in the Iraq war.

So, Canadian officers have been serving in Iraq since at least 2003 as discussed in both the House of Commons and the mainstream media. Further, our soldiers have actually been in front-line positions and even been wounded.

How is it possible that the Liberal foreign affairs critic was not only unaware of these basic facts, but was so sure of the opposite that he forcefully interrupted to contradict me – not once, but repeatedly? Mr. Rae is a good orator and a good candidate, but this raises some serious questions regarding his knowledge of his own portfolio.

“The Harperite farm team is an offspring of the Republican Party of the United States. These guys will do whatever it takes to win themselves, and do whatever it takes to help their friends in the United States…they will do what is necessary to help Republicans. They’re a nasty, unprincipled bunch, who are incompetent to boot.” – Bob Rae, March 4th, 2008

Those of you who have been following my writing know that I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his party (particularly in its current incarnation), but the above shift in Bob’s rhetoric concerns me. Yesterday I gave him credit (and exposure) on this website for rightly advocating positive campaigning and condemning ad hominem attacks. Since Bob spoke those words last week, however, he has shifted to a discourse of fear. Just as our Conservative opponent has tried to exploit fear of crime for votes, Bob is increasingly trying to frighten people with the spectre of those “nasty” American Republicans and their “Harperite farm team.” Further, he has suggested that people should essentially settle for the Liberal party (mirroring the way the Liberals “settled” for a mediocre budget), and that if they vote NDP or Green they aren’t doing their part to stop this scary evil force.

There are two problems with this. One, using fear for votes is cynical and lowers the level of discourse, just as the Conservative attack literature does. Two, it’s completely irrelevant to this by-election. The Alliance/Conservative party is not a factor in Toronto Centre. In the last election they received only 18% of the vote, and in the election before that only 14%. One could reasonably conclude that their decision to fire their duly nominated candidate and parachute in someone who doesn’t live in the riding (or the city for that matter) will hurt them even more this time around. Even the Conservative candidate has said repeatedly that his election would be a “miracle.” So, barring divine intervention, everyone including Bob knows that in the context of this by-election his fear mongering is, well, just that.

The people I’ve talked to are tired of this kind of politics, and rightly so. They know that our political leaders should never tell Canadians to settle for less than what’s possible, or to act out of fear. And they know how to send that message with their vote.

Watch the following video, recorded during last Thursday’s debate at Rosedale United Church, to see how that’s working out for them. This is Bob Rae at his best, Don Meredith close to his worst, and me somewhere in the middle.

Further, here’s my opening statement from the same debate.

One of the first things Peter and I noticed was that this thing everyone is calling a budget—well—isn’t one. It’s a 400-page narrative (technically called a “budget plan”) that describes, using far more words than numbers, where our money is being spent. The result is that some details continue to be missing, though we do get a general sense of the direction: new spending in the wrong areas, no new spending in the right ones, and the wrong kinds of tax cuts and shelters that don’t benefit middle- or lower-income Canadians, nor do they offer the kind of economic security that’s needed right now.

Then word started to float in that Dion had announced the Liberals will support this government’s budget. They called this budget “watered down,” saying it was “a mile wide and an inch deep.” And now they’ll vote in favour of it.

In other words, they have officially taken the position that they will support mediocrity. This has many key Liberals understandably upset, including Warren Kinsella who called the Liberal response pathetic, and one of my favourite Liberal bloggers A BCer in Toronto (aka Jeff) who asked the same question I did several posts ago: “If not now, when?” (Actually, Jeff’s so upset that if you read his post to the end you’ll realize we may not be able to call him a “Liberal” blogger for much longer.)

I don’t blame Liberal supporters for being frustrated. Our country is in desperate need of strong economic leadership; we cannot afford an official opposition that accepts anything less in a time of emerging uncertainty and, conversely, great opportunity.

And here’s the thing. According to both the Globe and a Liberal MP, my by-election opponent Bob Rae is the key person who provided the “leadership” within the Liberal caucus that resulted in them voting in favour of something that, by their own admission, is nowhere near adequate. Meanwhile, economists and observers are very concerned that this budget brings us dangerously close to a deficit in the face of a looming economic slowdown, while others (including the Green Party) rightly point out that there’s almost no vision here for how we can take advantage of the economic opportunities presented by new green-collar jobs and green innovation, nor is there any vision to build stronger, more affordable, world-class cities.

Up until now I’ve been going pretty easy on Bob (he’s a well respected individual who I’ve believed would make a competent MP), but I’m not sure I can anymore. We cannot afford a Member of Parliament who’s willing to accept mediocrity. Especially when there’s the potential to amount to so much more. Especially when there’s reason to believe they did so for personal, rather than principled, reasons. Canada deserves better. Toronto Centre needs better.

And an answer about Affordable Housing:

And the Security and Prosperity Partnership:

And biofuels from food crops (see also this post):

A BCer in Toronto writes, in part:

Umm, how do you propose we wait Bob? I mean, everything else you and the caucus nervous nellies are saying makes sense. I’d love to get those by-elections done first too, get some momentum from hopefully having Bob and some other new Liberal MPs in the house. I’d love to wait until the economy has worsened. I’d love to wait until the Liberals are at 100 per cent in the polls, and Stephane Dion is more popular than The Beatles.

There’s a few roadblacks in the way though, besides Stephane’s lack of musical ability. First one: the budget. The first votes are going to be in a few weeks, well before the byelections. What does Bob propose we do on the budget. Does he want us to vote in favour of what’s going to be a minimalist budget that does nothing to address the worsening economic situation, and prop-up this government that stands for everything we don’t? Or would Bob rather we prop-up this government by abstaining, and look the laughing-stocks again?

…So, while I like Bob’s theory, it’s the practice I have some issues with. If he has some brilliant plan for getting us past the budget vote without looking like complete tools, I’d love to hear it. Maybe the leaker forgot to tell Jane Taber that part.

Nervous nellies, buck up. Find your cojones. The election train is moving out of the station. Get on board or get out of the way. We cannot prop-up this government any more.

And from Garth Turner:

Much has been made this week of an election call. If you believe the media, Liberals reacted by forming a coherent and fierce battle group around the leader. Then fired inwards.

True enough, some, a few, of my caucus colleagues just love to talk about how they fear going to the voters. I should know the refrain by heart, since I’ve heard it from a half-dozen of them for an entire year. Lately the Lib Pacifist Movement has even become a little organized, and found a champion in a former leadership contender. Miraculously, his words in our inner-most sessions have ended up on the front page of the next day’s daily.

Well, for us poor farm boys from Halton, this is all a little hard to understand. Seems to us you’re in politics for reasons of principle and passion, not just for partisanship. You know why you’re here. If you believe Stephen Harper is screwing up Canada, then you fight the guy. You take up arms for overtaxed middle class minivan moms, for laid-off auto workers, for aboriginals, for the suffering environment, for income trust investors, for those in poverty and those who thought by electing this guy they’d get a leader who would keep his promises.

You fight for those who believed his pledge of 125,000 new child care spaces a year. That he would honour the Atlantic Accord. That he’d treat First Nations with respect. That he cared about the environment. That he’d never tax income trusts. That he’d bring a new spirit of openness and accountability to Ottawa. That he’d treat everyone with equality. That voters mattered, and he’d bring them change.