Right of Center Ice

The Candidate

2011-05-10T11:33:00.004-05:00

Like dipping a single toe into the lake from the dock before jumping in, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau robocalled her constituents yesterday. It was the first thing she has done to earn their trust as their MP since filling out (in whole or part) of her nomination papers.

For many on Pro Blogs, criticism of her election is beyond acceptable. At worst it's sexist. It's prejudice. It's ageist. At best, it is merely the actions indicative of sore losers. (To which I wonder whether or not shooting fish in a barrel confirms a claim that the shooter is naturally a bad shot.)

I sat at a poll on E-Day and scrutineered for the LPC. I watched as a man in his mid-40's approached the desk, took the ballot from the clerk, studied it momentarily and said, "My candidate is not on here." Confused, the clerk asked if he was in the right riding,and the man said yes and showed him his registration card. True, he was a voter of the riding. The man then said, "I thought we were voting for Prime Minister." I put my head in my hands and let out a sigh of exhaustion, disbelief, and total apathy.

I was stunned that he could vote even though he was clearly ill informed about our electoral system. I wondered whether or not a candidate showed up at his door and if so, whether he took the time to talk to them or if he just peered from his living room curtains and continued to watch TV or do something "more important" with his time. I wondered whether or not he picked up his mail and read the candidate's information, platforms, and experiences. I wonder whether at all he gave a shit about who represents him in parliament. Apparently not.

And so this is my critique of the election of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau for Berthier-Maskinongé. It is clear she didn't campaign, since she has never been to the riding. It is obvious that she was a "placeholder" candidate -- a throw away that the party used to make their books look good and to get that 308 number for the records. It is clear she doesn't know the concerns, cares or character of her riding. And moreover, the people of Berthier-Maskinongé don't care that she doesn't know them. Or tried. Or wanted to.

The people of Berthier-Maskinongé are getting what they deserve. Someone who lives 300km away that has never shown the slightest care for actually representing them beyond filling in (in whole or part) some nomination papers. The people of Berthier-Maskinongé saw a colour on the ballot, not a name. And if they did see a name it was not Ruth-Ellen Brosseau. It was Jack Layton.

Just like many people of Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar saw "Stephen Harper" rather than Kelly Block on the ballot. This was a factor in stopping Nettie Wiebe short from winning the seat. This is what has kept the people of Calgary-West in a CPC stasis and even the CPC party members of that riding from electing anyone other than Rob Anders who will represent them accordingly in the HoC. This is what keeps dozens of CPC ridings in a stranglehold despite objections from ordinary people about the views of their MP, their hypocritical actions, and general misrepresentation. But, Harper has done a "good job" with the economy. And so, 'X' away!

Will Berthier-Maskinongé be misrepresented by Brosseau? Maybe not. She could be a fine MP. COULD. If she cares. If she works hard. If she basically does the exact opposite of what earned her those 22,000 some votes. Right now Jack is playing peek-a-boo with her because he has to. Otherwise she'll get eaten alive.

Let me be clear, she'll get torn apart NOT because she is a woman. NOT because she is a single mother. NOT because she worked at a restaurant.

But because she did not campaign.

To which many Progressive Bloggers are hearing a collective "SO?" from New Democrats. This is a shame.

To justify The Great "SO?" a strategy is devised: Ruth-Ellen will earn their votes after the fact. First, send a robocall. Second, visit the riding and maybe knock on some doors. Third, hold a town hall and meet with municipal and provincial public officials. Fourth, MOVE to the riding (she can afford it) and fifth, stand up in parliament and let their voices be heard.

2015 is a long time away. Long enough to get to know the people who elected you. Use it wisely, Ruth-Ellen. And good luck, cause you'll need it.

* UPDATE *

Apparently things must get worse before they get better for The Candidate.

Confessions of an Election Hawk and Red Tory

2011-05-04T09:27:00.007-05:00

I'll confess it. I'll admit it and put it on my sleeve. I was one of the election hawks in March. I did not get the government I voted for, nor the representative, but I got the men and women I deserve. A right wing neoconservative majority that effectively and efficiently turned down the volume on policy debate and our core values as Canadians by ducking and dodging anything that resembled taking a principled stand.

As a self described Red Tory the defeat of the Liberal Party looked a lot like my former party of choice, the Progressive Conservatives. A party that was declared "irrelevant" by the media and thereafter accepted as such with no shred of criticism or reflection by the Canadian public. What came of that was a radical Reform party and even crazier Canadian Alliance. A take over and an election later the Canadian public nodded along with their conservative overlords as each time they were asked to select a parliament returned greater gains for the "centrist" Harper.

Two nights ago Jack dodged the ultimate bullet that could destroy the luster and attractiveness of the NDP -- the chance to govern a minority parliament and the inevitable loss of confidence which would stamp the party with a big #Fail. But, thank God, Jack does not have to fail at doing his job of incessantly opposing without actually being able to propose and execute his platform.

In his victory speech Jack talked a lot about protecting pensions. Protecting health care. Protecting Canadian families and jobs. He said nothing about merging. He said nothing about cooperation with the LPC. He said he would "propose" to the CPC rather than "oppose" anything and everything. Well, that's convenient seeing as how he has no choice but to accept the will of Stephen Harper which he is perfectly comfortable with as it keeps the mystery of what an NDP government would look like alive for another election.

I'm only hearing rumblings of an NDP-LPC merger from Liberals. No New Democrat has even contemplated such an act. After all, they are now the govenrment-in-waiting. And I suspect the possibility of said merger would only become viable if in 2015 the Conservatives are given another majority mandate: extending their streak in power to a sickeningly long 13 years. Moreover, even if the NDP did muse about a merger during this parliamentary session in preparation for the 42nd CDN Election, why should the LPC do it? What is to gain?

I know what real Canadian conservatives -- the Red Tories -- thought and hoped for when the Canadian Alliance aggressively over took the party. Big promises of a Red Tory Council! Big leadership hopefuls and party leaders like Belinda Stronach, Tony Clement, Jim Prentice and Peter MacKay. Where are they now? Under Harper, there is no Deputy PM. Sorry Peter. Under Harper there is no progressive policy on the environment or social issues. Sorry Belinda, sorry Jim. Under Harper politics trumps ideology and best practice. Sorry Tony.

And so it would be within a "merged" NDP-LPC. Only a Harper supermajority of Mulroney proportions would make things so bleak that both parties would look at each other and reconsider their options. Today, tomorrow, and the days after that; the attractiveness of a merger is 1-sided and only the weakest and most desperate Liberals will advocate for it. Only those who think that there is nothing left. If that is the case, join the NDP yourselves and get out of the way of change.

I took three calls last night from friends. Friends who said they were proud of the work that I did despite a devastating loss at the local and national level. Friends that told me that they were stunned with the election results and that they have never been ones for party politics, but they are close and extremely interested in joining the Liberal Party and being a part of a new beginning. These are the people who the party brass should welcome with open arms. We can embrace one another and be champions of our values; or we can get in line and knock on the door of Stornoway. I choose to fight for my values.

There will be no Liberal-Democrat party, it would be the Democratic party. And centrists would find themselves in deep conflict with the vast majority of a left-wing party. Out of fear centrists would be marginalized because to speak out against the "united" message would mean even greater weakness than if we had been on our own and one more defeat would be "unbearable" to "the country." I didn't buy that when the Alliance shoved a sock in the mouth of centrist PCs in late 2003 and early 2004 and I won't buy it now.

I'm not a party man. I'm a principled Canadian. And as such, I have been wandering the political landscape for most of my life. I am not against cooperation. I am not opposed to a coalition. I am not unwilling to compromise in a merger. But the conditions have to be right. And today they are not. We must stand up. We must dust ourselves off and get to work. I did it once before and as a result came this blog. I'll do it again and the result will be not words floating in cyberspace, but shoes on the ground.

Will you join me?

He'd throw Canada under the bus too

2011-04-15T12:33:00.006-05:00

He ordered the ejection of Bill Casey. Garth Turner. Helena Guergis.

He sent Shelly Glover to throw Tom Flanagan under the bus.

Pat Strogan, fired. Munir Sheikh, resigned on principle.

Students ejected by the RCMP on CPC orders from Harper rallies after being Facebook checked.

***

If you thought for a moment that this is your Canada, you're wrong. On May 2, vote for your opposition candidate to fire Harper!

G&M on Ignatieff: Energy and urgency. He was hot.

2011-04-12T21:46:00.004-05:00

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was fiery on tonight's national leaders debate. He covered every topic under the sun and reminded Canadians exactly why we are having this election. There were a few stumbles, these debates are never perfect. But he was on point when he needed to be and nailed Harper and his neo-Conservatives on everything that mattered: health care, spending, public safety, democracy.

Harper was the most polished of the bunch; but then again, what else would you expect from a career politician? Harper's favourite line of the night: "that's not true." His defence of poor public policy choices, circumventing parliamentary procedure, covering up the costs of billions in spending was, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?" And let me tell you something. It. Was. Effective.

Smirking throughout the debate, Harper shrugged off of everything. He even suggested that the debate was wasting his time from working "on the economy." Wow. Harper acted as if the event was below him. But then again, he's been that way about the whole election. In fact, he has run his government that way ever since coming into power by employing a "My way or the highway" attitude. To be sure, most of the business the government has been "getting done" was either by making every bill before the house a government bill, and therefore a motion of confidence, or by pork-barreling.

Harper said that cops support killing the long-gun registry, and cited former OPP Chief Julian Fantino, CPC incumbent for Vaughan, as one of Canada's trusted police officers who believes the registry makes "duck hunters" into "criminals." Harper didn't mention (neither did Ignatieff) that Fantino supported the registry while he was OPP Chief -- before he was against it as a Conservative MP. Harper said that he's been in support of multiculturalism and immigration. And yet, his minister for immigration has been making it more and more difficult for family reunification between permanent residents and their families overseas. Harper said spending billions on jets was a purchase far, far away in the future. But neglected to mention that the contract is on the table for today.

At the end of the day, watching Harper was like watching someone before a court they feel is illegitimate. Harper doesn't have to defend anything that he doesn't think he is guilty of. And that is his election strategy from day 1: this thing is a waste of time. A kangaroo court. A charade taking him out of his office and away from "important" work. It permeates his campaign as he ejects students and veterans out of his rallies filled with card-carrying partisans. And his response to removing undecided voters from his rallies: it's not my fault; a staffer did it.

Admit nothing. Don't address your opponents or critics in the eye. Repeat the party lines that we should stay the course. This is how Harper will creep into majority territory.

Unless we act.

Unless you call up your Opposition candidate and volunteer an evening, a weekend, E-Day. I'm doing it in Winnipeg. It's time, especially after tonight, to put our money where our mouths are.

A Letter to Mr. Ignatieff: It's time to get personal against attack ads

2011-04-08T16:14:00.010-05:00

Mr. Ignatieff,

On the Liberal campaign trail in Winnipeg there is one thing that we are hearing consistently: Canadians are sick and tired of attack ads. They hate them.

It disrupts governance, creates an atmosphere of constant electioneering, and is just plain un-Canadian. And yet, they persist through this election. An election that is being held because the governing party was found to be committing perjury in the House of Commons. A party that has proven to be ^NOT concerned with formal rules, conventions, or courtesy.

No one knows this more than you, Mr. Ignatieff. Stephane Dion surely knows it. And to a certain extent, Stephen Harper himself. (But hey, Steve's motto has got to be "If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em.") Kim Campbell did it. Chretien did it. Martin and Mulroney. They all have! And we are tired of it.

My question to you, sir, is this: will you propose reform to pre-writ election advertising? Put a ceiling on what parties can spend during session on partisan ads on radio, TV, and internet.

Moreover, will you propose instituting a US-style "I endorse this message" closing line on each and every political ad on the radio or television, so voters can hear from the mouth of the party leader that they are willing to stand behind their personal attacks?

In essence, I'm asking you to make Canada aware of Senator Dennis Dawson's bill S-227 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses) and to put it at the top of your party's list of parliamentary reforms.

The only reason Harper can shrug off ALL of these attacks against you is because he doesn't really have to get up there and say them himself. A voice on a TV or radio will do that for him and he can act like "the party" is doing something that the "prime minister" is not.

I believe that proposing these kinds of reforms would be extremely popular with everyday Canadians. I believe people could go to the polls and vote for you because you're willing to put up or shut up. Canadians want some peace and quiet during parliament. They don't want to hear attack ads and party messages every other week! Granted, most of it comes from the Conservatives. And guess what -- even CONSERVATIVES are sick of it! It's exhausting. And the party that proposes to give Canadians some relief will be rewarded.

It's time to get personal against attack ads and propose legislation to curb this dreadful behavior that no one likes. It could very well be the game-changer progressives need.

Signed,
Dylan

Harper Party announces 2011 platform release date

2011-04-03T13:03:00.003-05:00

For 2015-2016 if the budget is balanced. Maybe.

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff and his Liberal team have put together a platform for families that aims to strengthen Canada through investment, education, and responsible government.

Meanwhile in Winnipeg South Centre, Harper Party candidate Joyce Bateman has decided to bite the hand that has fed her for several municipal elections by turning on her provincial and federal LPC friends and running for the CPC. Bateman, who decided to come out of a two-week hiding since rumours of her nomination were wild in WPG, has finally spoken about her apparent change of values.

"I'm not running as a Liberal because their whole agenda right now is reckless spending. I see a very responsible approach to paying down the debt by the Conservative government."

I've heard this before. Bateman's dissappearence from the public over the better half of last month (ironic, seeing as how she IS a public servant) was clearly necessary so she could be thoroughly coached and programmed to speak all of the popular talking points without gagging or laughing -- as she surely would have last October when she ran on the following platform for School Trustee:

Forget fear, Canada. Forget deficit bulging F-35 jets. Forget empty promises from an out-of-touch "Harper Government". Harper said it himself -- it's Majority or Bust. On May 2, let's BUST the Conservative party and their opportunist candidates who are in this race for themselves.

I cannot choose my coworkers...

2011-03-25T19:57:00.004-05:00

And neither could Stephen Harper when the polls closed back in 2008. The parliament that was elected in 08 was the group he was given to work with. Many Conservatives joined him, but not so many that he didn't need a little help from the other parties to get anything accomplished. Ergo, cooperation had to happen.

What about you? What about in your job? Can you choose your coworkers and decide to write them off whenever it suits you? Can you declare in your workplace that some things are nonnegotiable and expect them to fold like paper airplanes?

If you're mad about the election I want you to think about who you should be mad at. The Prime Minister who said the budget - the very same budget that NEEDED 1 other party to accept it - was "nonnegotiable"? Or the Liberal leader that gave his suggestions on what should be in the budget for their party to support it?

Should you be mad at the Harper Government who refused to tell their coworkers the price of prisons and airplanes that they wanted to buy? Or the Liberal leader for asking what the cost of those planes and prisons are before supporting those initiatives?

Should you be mad at the Conservative party that overspent election money and is being taken to court over electoral fraud? Or the Liberal leader who won't put up with crooks?

I wish so dearly that I could sit in a room with 3 of my coworkers and demand that things to "my way or the highway" and have everybody do what I want all the time.

But that's not the way the real world works.

And if it doesn't work like that at your office why should we put up with anything less than that in our government?

10 headlines capturing the "work" of the Harper Regime

2011-03-23T11:58:00.007-05:00

The Globe and Mail has released a photo slide show titled "A look back at the biggest headlines from Canada's 40th parliament" with 8 of the 10 headlines either critiquing or outright slamming the Harper Regime's path of governance.

The two exceptions? The first was the state of Jack Layton's health. The other was the notable retirements of Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl. As shocking and tight-lipped as their departures will be from the House, one has to wonder whether or not they exit politics because of Harper's style of 24/7 electioneering and strongman governance. Considering the countdown of headlines, it is a bloody miracle that 75% of the country has not turned it's back on Harper.

10. Prorogation
9. G8 & G20 Summits - costs and police presence
8. Long-form census debacle
7. Jaffer and Guergis Affair
6. Security council loss
5. Afghanistan withdrawal date and shift in mission
4. Layton's health
3. Harper Party Retirements
2. Fighter Jets
1. Contempt

Today we hear a number of stanzas from the usual CPC choir ("COALITION!!!!", "no one cares", "we're too fragile for instability", "face it (LPC/NDP) you lost the election", etc, etc.) and the ever familiar chorus everyone knows so well: "we (the Harper Party) do not want an election."

And yet they release election-style attack ad, after attack ad, after EAP ads, and so on. They go on wildly expensive EAP promotional tours and pitch new money and new plans and chatter like squirrels in trees about all the good the "Harper Government" of Canada is doing for Canadians. And we're not supposed to believe we (as in the entire country and our political economy) are not in election mode?

When Harper moved the Opposition Day from two weeks ago to Friday he did it exactly because he wants to fall on his budget. The Harper Regime message is clear: we do not need an unnecessary election to "disturb" our economic "fragility"- which is an odd thing to say considering those CPC ads that claim our economy is one of the strongest in the world... but not SO strong that we can "weather the storm" of political debate and democracy.

But Ignatieff has a counter. A good one that I like. Economics, democracy and politics are all interrelated. And they cannot trust Harper and his party with the economic management of the country if they are found to be in contempt of parliament. If they lie in the House, withhold documents about the costs of projects, and manipulate the bureaucracy then how can we possibly begin to trust them to put us back on track?

Flip-flop Flaherty said that there would be "no new spending" -- but as we saw yesterday there is 2 billion worth of new spending. And how much new revenue is being brought in by closing loop holes? Hundreds of millions. Not bad. Oh wait, that's over several years. Meanwhile, we'll spend 6 billion on corporate tax cuts, 20 billion on fighter jets, and hundreds of millions on prisons -- effectively TAXING AND SPENDING well into the 21st century.

I know Canadians will not sleep away the election campaign, yawning to themselves that this is a waste of time. I know Canadians will pay attention. I believe Canadians will come out and vote. And I know that when each one of us really searches within themselves they'll elect representatives that respect our democracy and put this country back on the right track.

Would Harper prorogue parliament again?

2011-03-22T15:37:00.008-05:00

A thought for progressives to discuss:

Layton has two votes this week with one potentially mattering significantly more than the other. If Layton supports the budget on Thursday can he really vote alongside the expected Liberal non-confidence motion on Friday? He could certainly vote against an Opposition Day non-confidence motion, that's for sure, but what motivation would the NDP have unless there's a lot of wheeling and dealing done prior to today's tabling of the budget.

Should Layton and the NDP vote against the budget on Thursday it is likely that Harper will go to Rideau Hall on Friday and speak with the GG about dissolving parliament - stopping the Liberal Opposition Day in it's tracks.

But if the NDP support the budget on Thursday and vote against the government on Friday should a Liberal motion of non-confidence be tabled, will Harper go to Rideau Hall and ask the GG to dissolve parliament? Or will he ask for another prorogation?

Yeah, I said it. Prorogue parliament for a third time.

Why? Why not. Is there not some precedent for "cooler heads to prevail" and to let the government "carry out it's mandate" as outlined in the budget - supported by a majority of parliamentarians (i.e. the NDP)? (Then again, if the NDP supports the budget Ignatieff may not table a motion of non-confidence anyways since it could be fruitless and confusing to Canadians that the House is for, and yet at the same time, against, the government.)

It might not be the stupidest thing to do if you are a government arguing day and night that "now is not the time for an election" and, in fact, may possibly bolster support with the anti-election Canadian population. Moreover, it could entice some hawkish Liberals to start clamoring for a coalition proposal -- playing into the Harper Party narrative that everyone is against them.

That said, I am by no means an expert on our constitution or anything like that and this is all based on hypotheticals and an active imagination. I now turn to my colleagues in the progressive blogosphere to weigh in.

Prorogue "Yea" or Prorogue "Nay"?

UPDATE

Nevermind.

Attn Peter McKay: It's too late to hype your "morals"

2011-03-21T16:21:00.002-05:00

From the CBC -- "Libyan mission a 'moral duty,' McKay says."

Well, that's a relief. Just when I thought the Harper Government was devoid of morals, they put a mic in front of Progressive Conservative turncoat, Peter McKay, to talk about the morality of Canada's decision to help enforce the UN no-fly zone over Libya.

To clarify: I support the no-fly zone mission. I support Obama's view that this mission should be about protecting Libyan civilians -- not regime change. Unlike some others.

In short, thanks for the memo Peter. And while everybody should be clear on where leadership on R2P came from; it's ironic that you are the "morality messenger" for a government found twice over to be in contempt of parliament; to say nothing of your backstabbing of David Orchard and the sacrificing of a Canadian political tradition just to sit on the lap of Harper and the Canadian Alliance.

If there was a shred of credibility left in this government, nay, this Harper Regime, to lead the country on the grounds of some sort of moral authority -- it has been thoroughly vaporized.

Will the LPC respond?

2011-02-28T15:48:00.007-06:00

Parliament resumes and the "we don't want an election" rhetoric seems to have been dialed down as the NDP and CPC both release campaign-style ads aimed at convincing Canadians they have what it takes to lead this country.

Meanwhile at Stornoway, crickets chirp. I'd like to think that the LPC will jump in within the week with their own set of positive ads, but something inside of me says that I will be disappointed.

Impolitical posted a great video a few weeks ago of James Carville speaking during the 1992 Clinton campaign; and I think it is relevant to this topic. Every time the CPC and NDP release a set of ads, the LPC needs to respond if they want to remain at the forefront of the voter's minds. And I understand that television ad space and production costs money. But it inaction costs something too. Except those expenses get paid on election day.

We saw it with Dion and we saw it with Ignatieff - the CPC will run negative advertising against the LPC at any chance they get. If the Liberals do not respond with a counter-message the CPC narrative will go unchallenged, making the LPC not only look passive but also apathetic. How can Liberal Party organizers expect their grassroots to get energized when HQ doesn't jump to defend their leader, policies or values?

However, silence isn't the worst option in this case. Not when you log onto BCer in Toronto and read Jeff Jedras' abysmal and pathetic critique of the Jack Layton's appeal to Canadians. I hope the LPC doesn't pick up on Jeff's petty angle. In all honesty, I thought the NDP ads were all right. While they lacked any real policy information they were not nearly as cliched as the latest round of "Here for Canada" slop thrown to the masses by the Harper Party.

The bottom line: everybody's doing it! As much as the "we do not want an election" line is standard operating procedure, it's about as opaque as an x-ray. Will the Canadian people "reward" that LPC talking point come E-Day? It's probably wise to start putting your props on the stage as it's being set.

But what do I know. You don't have to listen to me, just take Carville's advice.

Gun registry, bad. Kayak registry, good?

2011-02-26T12:38:00.010-06:00

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Harper Party.

The Transport Canada regulations, brought in last fall, will require everyone from professional outfitters to people leading recreational boat trips to fill out five separate forms, measure their boat and pay a $50 fee.

Wow. If the long gun registry is rarely used, a waste of money, and an infringement on our "rights" to do whatever we want; what would that make the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system?

But just before you are going to write an angry letter to Chuck Strahl, Minister of Transportation, telling him he's the worst kind of hypocrite; it should be known that he has a parry for your thrust:

It's unclear how the policy came into place. Strahl's office blamed a Liberal Party policy put in place around 10 years ago.

Oh no, you di'int!

Oh yes, he di'id. You see, while all this red tape might be bad, or ideologically inconsistent, or stupid or whatever you want to call it -- it's not the Harper Party's fault! The Liberals put all this in place so you should be mad at them. Chucky is just the policy messenger. He's just doing his job. After all, who has heard of a government reversing policies enacted by their predecessor because it didn't jive with their ideological framework? His hands, along with Harper's, are tied to implementing the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system for the safety of Canadians.

The kind of safety that assures you -- the taxpayer -- can go to sleep easy knowing that the government knows exactly where every boat floats. Just look at the list of procedures a kayaker needs to complete in order to register and license their recreational water vehicle.

Complete the Application for Registry and submit it along with the other completed documentation to the Registrar at the Vessel Registration Office at the address below.
Produce evidence of ownership/title to the Registrar of Vessels. If the original document of title (e.g. Bill of Sale/receipt, Builder's Certificate or other documentation) that proves you own the vessel cannot be produced, you must complete a declaration. You must also complete the Declaration of Ownership form.
Complete a Statement of Qualification for Vessel Registration to prove your eligibility to be registered as owner of the canoe or kayak.
Complete the Authorized Representative form. It lets Transport Canada know who to contact if the canoe/kayak is owned by a business or multiple owners. If you are the sole owner you must still complete this form.
Complete the Simplified Method of Tonnage Measurement form. We have provided two sample documents to help figure out the tonnage measurement for canoes and kayaks. Adjust the measurement numbers for your particular boat. Sample document A - Sample Document B .
Pay the fee of $50.00 for the issuance or renewal of a registration or a $50.00 flat fee for a “fleet” of vessels. Fees are payable by Visa, Mastercard or AMEX. A Certificate of Registry (Small Vessel Register) is valid for five (5) years from the date of issue.
If you are choosing to pay by cheque/money order, it is to be made payable to the RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA.

They know the size of your boat. The depth of it's hull. They know if you are registered to operate that boat. They know if anyone else in your family is registered to operate that boat. And lastly, they know exactly where you live. So at any time, day or night, a federal agent or a cop can show up at your door with reasonable cause and ask you to provide proof that you are in fact the owner and operator of said water craft. And you have to comply!

They make you pay a fee. And fill out forms. And all of this is done for your safety, Canada. And all of this is being implemented by Chuck Strahl and the Harper Party. Believe them when they say that the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system is a useful tool for emergency response and your well being.

Unlike that other registry. Whom Chuck Strahl stood up and voted to kill on September 22, 2010 on the grounds that it doesn't save lives.

Corking popped CPC Champagne: EKOS reports reality

2011-02-23T21:52:00.004-06:00

A week ago CPC drones were celebrating tantalizing poll numbers that put the Harper Party close to majority territory. Today, EKOS reports what I believe to be the reality on the ground.

How does one party go from a 13 point lead to just under 5? Was it the shameful display of Bev Oda and a crumbling moral authority to govern? Or was it, as Frank Graves ponders, a kick-back in soft-support for the current government as they reached terrifying majority-like numbers?

While we do not have the regional results of the Feb. 10-22 poll where over 2800 Canadians were questioned, the thesis that the Harper Party has been "Oda-sized" seems to be the best fit for the dip. It is worth noting that this latest news from EKOS has more than 1,150 more responses and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 compared to their pre-Oda poll earlier this month. (Imagine that, the more Canadians you talk to the more come out in support of the Opposition parties.) All things considered, progressives can breathe easy as it has become normal to see Harper around 33%-32% to the LPC 28%-27%.

Graves hits on a number of other issues while on Power and Politics. Every time that Harper reaches majority territory there is a recoil effect; and second, every time there is some sort of stability in the government and things are going swimmingly for the Harper Party, they end up committing a massive public faux pas.

Which is good for us and bad for them. Leaving the only one question left: what's the best way to cork popped CPC champagne?

How convenient...

2011-02-16T23:10:00.008-06:00

Foreign hackers attack Canadian government websites.

I seriously question the timing of this piece and the ReformaTory spokespeople who are at the forefront of this breaking news. A cyber attack on the very department that is "hard at work" on the up coming budget. If we go into a spring election $10 bucks says Harper will blame the coalition between the Liberals, Socialists and their "Foreign Operatives."

Liberal Party of Canada: it's not about him

2011-02-12T18:16:00.008-06:00

For all intents and purposes, my Saturday was supposed to be about relaxation. And it started out that way. I went out for breakfast, read the paper, got a haircut, came home around noon only to have it all go to hell. What happened? I logged onto Far and Wide.

Steve's analysis of the latest EKOS poll had me flabbergasted. Disillusioned. I wouldn't say heartbroken, but my balloon was seriously deflated. Things were going so well for the Liberals since the new year began. Now, it wasn't like they were at 40% and Harper's kingdom was on the verge of total collapse, but gains were being made. Policy was pushed. Messages were being heard. The 20/11 Listening Tour was considered, by all accounts, a success. Then EKOS goes a head and blows it all up. And now the familiar verses I've heard so many times by the CPC and their flying-monkeys is being uttered in the progressive blogosphere.

Ignatieff is not a leader.

It is time for Ignatieff to leave.

Go back to Harvard.

I don't like Harper but I can't stand Mike.

During the 2008 Parliamentary Crisis the Harper Party said that the people may not have voted for a CPC majority but they certainly did not vote for Dion to be Prime Minister. And the public ate it up. Only the politically engaged stood up and said, "wait a minute... no one voted for Harper to be Prime Minister either." We vote for our representatives who belong to a party of values led by a person who has the vision and abilities to articulate those values to the electorate. Stephen Harper is the man who does this for the Conservative Party. Elizabeth May, the Greens. Jack for the NDP and Michael Ignatieff for the Liberal Party of Canada. Behind these men and women are their candidates, some of whom will go to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons. Their team.

When I ask the question, who is most fit to be Prime Minister? Ignatieff ranks in the top 5. But there are others on this list who are MPs from a variety of the parties. Some have yet to be elected.

When I think about the incompetence of Bev Oda regarding KAIROS funding; I wonder whether or not Harper is a good leader. Then I think, is Lisa Riatt a good Minister? Or Maxime Bernier? Or Vic Toews? Or Tony Clement?

Behind Ignatieff is, what I believe, an extraordinary team of people. Ralph Goodale, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall Findlay, and Scott Brison to name a few. Is there an exceptional CPC MP fit to be a minister? I can think of only one. Chuck Strahl. Other than that, the pickings are slim.

I may not be in love with Michael Ignatieff. Some may not think that he is any different from Harper. That's fine. I can cope with that. What I cannot deal with is placing the entire party on his shoulders. If we want a strong man to lead us - we already have it in Harper. When I think of the Liberal party I see a team and every time I have heard Ignatieff speak I am left with the impression that he has what it takes to lead that team to build a more prosperous Canada.

I wasn't an advocate for Ignatieff in the 2006 leadership race. He might not be the man I believe is best suited to lead the Liberals in a future leadership race. But I know, with good certainty, that we cannot go wrong with a Liberal government given the MPs who are in the LPC caucus right now -- with or without Ignatieff.

So the idea that the LPC should throw Ignatieff out completely boggles my mind. The party is so much more than him. In talking with friends and coworkers who don't think Ignatieff is that great of a guy, I like to say, "You might think that he's the same as Harper, but when was the last time Harper came through Winnipeg and had an open mic night where you could ask him any question you wanted?" or "I think Michael has more talent behind him than Harper. Anita Neville is a great representative for Winnipeg. The best Harper has is Shelly Glover and Rod Bruinooge."

That gets people thinking. Liberal supporters need to get their friends and family who are less that luke warm towards Ignatieff to see the bigger picture. We spend day and night arguing that the CPC attack ads are poisonous to democracy and then we go ahead and make the entire Liberal Party about Michael Ignatieff. Even though it never is, or ever will be, all about him.

Mr. Speaker, a question for the honourable member...

2011-02-11T19:45:00.003-06:00

...What does it cost?

The Harper Party rebuttal: law and order is priceless!

The logical follow up: Is knowing the price-tag on policies to incarcerate people for non-violent offences too much to ask for these days?

The Harper Party rejoinder: YOU'RE SOFT ON CRIME!

Private Bills from the gov't that are not Government bills

2011-02-11T11:23:00.006-06:00

We saw this tactic months ago when Candice Hoeppner tried to kill the long-gun registry through her "private member's bill." Since it worked so well, Harper is going to try it again. This time, with the Canadian Wheat Board.

Bruce Stanton, MP for Simcoe North in southern Ontario, introduced a private members' bill Thursday which would allow prairie farmers to opt out of selling their wheat and barley through the wheat board for periods of two years at a time.
Part of the legislative difficulty facing the Tories [is] the fact the government knows it has no support for the issue from any of the opposition parties and cannot get such a bill through in a minority Parliament. But private members' bills are free votes which could mean the government could seek the votes it needs from individual MPs who would not be necessarily required to vote along party lines.

Stanton acknowledged his position in the line-up for private members' bills is one of the reasons he is bringing the bill forward rather than one of the MPs from the three prairie provinces.

A free vote should be rejected by Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe on the grounds that there is no secret that this bill seeks to advance neo-conservative ideology that goes all the way back to the Reform Party in the 1980s.

Moreover, the question for the Opposition leaders should be: who speaks for the grain farmers of Western Canada? The CWB directors who are elected directly by the membership? Or Bruce from Ontario?

For me, there is no ambiguity as to whether or not the majority of Western grain farmers support the board given paradox of representation: while one may interpret the fact that nearly 100% of these farms fall within federal CPC ridings as a sign of displeasure with the Board; I believe that if anti-Board numbers were truly as strong as their MPs claim then farmers would stop electing pro-Board candidates as directors. In fact, the instant-runoff voting system used in CWB director elections is a more democratic process than how our MPs are currently selected.

Trying to cloak party ideology in a private member's bill is the latest tactic Harper is using to split the opposition and drive wedge issues into the HoC. The opposition parties ought to get together and vehemently oppose private members bills that are taken directly from CPC party platform - 100% of the time.

To be sure, the bill itself does not aim to eliminate the CWB, it certainly aims to cut a leg from underneath it. And I do not have real qualms with the bill's proposition -- I feel strongly about the way it is presented in parliament and the signals this sends to farmers and the general public, namely, that the federal government runs the CWB and MPs are the voice of farmers regarding the direction of the Board. If I were to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Stanton, I would say that this approach is ignorant to the way the Board is governed. However, given past actions from this government and our PM, I would bet that this angle intends to mislead a casual public as to how the Board operates.

Oppose it, opposition. Oppose away.

Of what value is Bernier to Harper?

2011-02-06T10:38:00.004-06:00

Maybe Harper really is the master tactician that Flanagan and Levant swoon about. Maybe. After all, I cannot for the life of me figure out the value Bernier has to Harper and the CPC caucus in Quebec. Well, that's not true, I have a loose hypothesis but I'm not really seriously considering it. Sorta.

My at-a-distance-analysis suggests that Bernier's new found libertarian approach to everything under the sun, in combination with his opposition to Bill 101, is a ploy designed to woo Anglophone Quebeckers over to the Conservative ranks. As an anglophone with deep prairie roots, some of the garble he spits out makes sense to me on a philosophical level but is quickly rejected out of sensibility. Perhaps foolishly, I assume that most anglophones feel the same way about libertarianism, especially those from provinces that have a "victim narrative" in federal politics -- such as Alberta and Quebec. Then again, I think that the only people who continue to remain in opposition to bilingualism in Canada today are hard-core Reformers who are active in federal politics under the cozy guise of a "national" CPC; and that surely even the majority of anglophones in Quebec see the value of national bilingualism and with it the ability for provinces to protect minority languages in the name of a national institution.

But that's not all, ladies and gentlemen. It seems as if Bernier is pretty much free to say and do whatever he wants without reprieve from the PMO. When have we ever seen this from Harper's leadership? I mean, Helena Guergis was a candidate in a safe, socially conservative riding in Ontario, whose only crime was marrying an idiot. She was dropped long before there was any verdict on her alleged criminal activity because the PM needed to "maintain the confidence of all the people work in for him." And if there was any more loyal a foot-soldier than Guergis in Ontario, let them speak now!

Is Bernier that reliable? Does Harper have more confidence in Bernier than in Guergis -- who practically begged to be kept in the party in front of the entire nation? To be sure Guergis was unqualified as a minister to do anything. And I am not sure the Canadian public would be any more at ease if Bernier was tapped to take over any file that Guergis could not handle. But that said...

The ultimate question for me isn't, does Bernier actually believe this crap he's saying? Rather, it is, why is he allowed to speak his mind so openly on non-issues (at least we can hope) for the federal party? The last two times he has opened his mouth he has stirred some pot. I wouldn't call them gaffes but his increasing comfortableness with proselytizing his libertarian views to Quebeckers with no recourse from the PM makes me uneasy.

You know the kind I'm talking about -- that "it's too quiet in here" type of feeling.

The kind of uneasiness that does not know whether to be happy that Bernier seems to be setting the party up for bad press; or nervous because after the dust has settled all remains quiet from the Western front.

You win this round, Bernier...

He actually did what?!: Energizing politics and other unacceptable antics

2011-01-25T16:49:00.010-06:00

Do not adjust your television set. We are firmly in pre-election mode. The majority of CPC talking-boxes may reject this claim (even though their own fund raising material say otherwise) but Peter MacKay isn't going to dance to the party tune. Today while speaking to the media in Winnipeg, MacKay admitted that the CPC has talked about the "possibility" of an election.

Meanwhile, Ignatieff spoke to party faithful in Ottawa today and delivered a focused, driven and energized speech. Jane Taber and Roger Smith drew a poor comparison to Howard Dean which just goes to show how little the MSM cares to truly analyze issues driving (what seems to be) an imminent federal election. To Taber's surprise (along with the collective shock of the nation, I'm sure) Ignatieff became excited and passionate about what his party offers to Canadians during his address.

To quote Taber's astonishment:

There was that Howard Dean moment early in the speech in which he actually screamed “yes, yes, yes,” in answer to his own question about whether his party was ready to govern and fight for Canadian families.

The CPC talking-box translation:

"There was that Howard Dean moment early in the speech in which he literally went insane - foaming at the mouth, screaming and ranting into the microphone to the horror of 300 Liberal supporters."

What comparison is Taber trying to make? That his behavior during the speech is the beginning of the end of Ignatieff's election chances? Does Taber really believe that his presence on stage was so embarrassing that voters will turn on the Liberals and vote Conservative? The word "actually" infers dismay at his behaviour and to call his tone "screaming" is being pretty loose with the definition of the word. The audience shouted, "YES!" to his questions and he joined in with them to hammer his points home.

What a lunatic.

To bolster Taber's and Smith's lack of analysis - only the NDP and LPC were targeted as drumming up support for an election. The hypocrisy of the PM and his cabinet ministers as they fanned out across the country, making announcements, denouncing coalitions, and attacking the personalities of Jack and Michael - were mentioned in passing. As if this these types of activities are "all in a days work" for a government representative. I guess who can blame them, that kind of tripe almost is considered "normal" after the last 5 wasted years.

I saw Michael Ignatieff when he was in Saint-Boniface in Winnipeg and he spoke to a much more subdued crowed. Watching today's rally was much more the sort of thing I think we should expect from the leader of the opposition. If the Liberals want to be seen as the government in waiting they ought to act like they are ready to govern - and enthusiastically so!

The gloves are off and the Liberals are ready to talk about the issues that matter to Canadians. What is Harper afraid of?

Perhaps if he was not there wouldn't be the need to instruct and organize the character assassination of his opponents via talking-heads like Taber.

Jack saw the high road and said, "Nah."

2011-01-21T18:55:00.007-06:00

Today's Winnipeg Free Press continued to follow the latest insanity rising from the Bloc Quebecois.

Sidenote: Someone should pass a memo to Gilles reminding him that he represents the majority of Quebecois about as much as Harper represents the rest of Canada (38.1% and 37.6% respectively).

My favourite part of the Free Press article was how it highlighted the latest NDP press release on the issue.

In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.

A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.

The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.

"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.

Nice. This is exactly the kind of partisan bull dink that people want to get rid of in parliament. To be honest, I would expect more out of the NDP. I would have thought the New Democrats would take the higher ground and win over voters by being collaborative with the Liberals and hammering the CPC to support the Sikh community.

Instead they pulled a Gary Doer.

Four years ago during the 2007 Manitoba election, PC leader Hugh McFadyen announced that if they were elected they would be more active in bringing back the Winnipeg Jets professional hockey team to improve the province's "cool factor." Just when you thought it was the most ridiculous thing anyone could say, New Democrat leader Gary Doer announced that increasing the provinces "coolness" by bringing back the Jets was their idea first. It was the most partisan thing Doer could do because it didn't offer any vision or plan that was an alternative to the PC's announcement - the thrust of their rebuttal was, "we said it first!" And so, anyone gullible enough to believe these two were left with deciding between the party who says they're going to do it now or the party that said they thought of doing it before the other guys. Fantastic.

Yesterday, Jack Layton could have stood up and said that the NDP have been ardent supporters of Sikh civil and political rights and that the Bloc motion is dangerous to Canada. But he had to sneak a jab in at the Liberals.

If anyone was to posit that a federal NDP government would be some sort of shining light of parliamentary civility and cooperation, as opposed to the CPC and LPC, they should note that the press release beings with the sentence: It’s time to stop playing divisive, political games with Canadian’s religious beliefs. And then the party goes on to play political games and skewer their colleagues on a fundamental issue such as human rights.

Was this done because they don't want to be accused of being in cahoots with the LPC? I doubt it. Was it to remind soft-NDP Sikh voters that the NDP is the party for them in the next election? On the surface, this is the most obvious reason. But how big of a voting block can that be in vulnerable NDP ridings like those in Northern Ontario?

Quite simply, what Jack Layton demonstrated - as all the parties are demonstrate day in and day out - is that hyper-partisan rhetoric is not just an necessary evil in the House but it is entirely appropriate behaviour for elected officials. This poisonous behavior - from all parties - is what turns off so many Canadians. It's why all the parties are stalled in the polls. More importantly, it's why I think we need the Greens in the House. I genuinely believe they'll be a breath of fresh air... well, at least for a week or so and then no one will be surprised if they disappoint everyone and mimic the Bloc, NDP, CPC, and LPC. (But what a week that would be, eh?)

I'm disappointed Jack, you saw the high road and you said, "Nah." But lucky for you no one really pays attention to the politicking in Ottawa these days. And with press releases like these you have no one else to blame for the disengagement but yourself.

Scarier of Two Evils

2011-01-07T16:32:00.004-06:00

What's worse than a "tax and spend" liberal? How about a tax-cut and spend Conservative!

Prisons, Planes, and Post-signs - these are the things the Canadian taxpayer is going to be paying for in the next budget. And, as usual, there's got to be a tax out there that needs to be cut. While in the US, Obama is having a heck of a time getting rid of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans; the Canadian government is eager to allow the Chretien-era corporate taxes expire in order to "keep Canada competitive." It is our spirit of competition that the CPC is keen on promoting because that's what makes Canada economically sound - that is, unless you're a Australian potash company.

We'll hear a lot about "the coalition" and those "tax and spend" Liberals. But let's keep in mind that we have one of the largest governments ever (at 38 ministers - only Mulroney had more, 40, but then again he also had a majority) that cuts consumption taxes, spends down surplus', rejects foreign investment for political expediency, and has racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history.

Never mind that Chretien and finance minister Paul Martin eliminated a $40 billion dollar deficit and organized a $13 billion dollar surplus in 10 years. Never mind that that surplus was eliminated in two years by Harper because Canadians were "overtaxed." Now we're being taxed the proper amount (save for corporations, but that adjustment is coming soon) and we're spending billions on prisons while our crime rate is falling and new fighter jets right after we've decided not to conduct combat missions overseas anymore. And, go figure, after all their tax adjustments and spending initiatives, we're in the red.

Tax-cut and Spend Conservatives: we knew after the PC/CA merger that the "socially progressive" wing would be suffocated to death; but who thought that they would also terminate any hint of fiscal conservatism too?

On promoting consumer culture and demeaning Canadian citizenship

2010-12-22T14:09:00.012-06:00

Believe it or not, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney took the opportunity to affirm the Canadian citizenship of fictional character, Santa Claus, at a citizenship ceremony of 100 new Canadians in Calgary.

By swearing in a man dressed up as Santa Claus the Minister has manged to:

Demean the symbolism of the Canadian citizenship ceremony,
Promote and advance Western consumer culture as that actively erodes and suppresses the religious importance of the holiday season to Christians and person's of the Jewish faith.

It's insanity, really, to be so inappropriate and politically opportunistic. If I was a new Canadian being sworn in, I would find the ceremony cheapened as the Minister preaches the importance of Santa Claus' citizenship as promotional piece for Canadian arctic sovereignty. I would ask the question: how important and serious can this ceremony be when fictional characters, created by a multinational corporation for the purposes of pushing its products, is symbolically sworn in as a citizen right after me? I have to commend these new Canadians for putting up with this public slighting.

However, I suppose I am most surprised at the overt promotion of secularism by a Conservative Member of Parliament during one of the holiest times of the year for Christians and Jews. I mean, if a Liberal or New Democrat had done this, I would expect nothing less than seething conservatives calling for the heads of politicians who act as footsoliders in the War on Christmas.

And while I find the right-wing "War on Christmas" declaration extremely problematic for describing what's going on in much of Western society, I do take a radical position on the integrity of Christmas and I lament the rise of consumerism as the only acceptable public display of celebration during the December holiday season. I am unapologetic for wishing people "Merry Christmas" and am uneasy in the suppression of religious symbols in public spaces.

Perhaps Santa Claus was paraded around at the citizenship ceremony to promote the supremacy of Canadian sovereignty over the North Pole. Alright, I get that. But I have to wonder if there is a more hokey and ridiculous way to make that statement. It's politically opportunistic at the expense of the integrity of the holiness of the Christmas and Hanukkah celebrations; which is to say nothing of the cheapening of the achievements accomplished of these new Canadians in becoming citizens. Moreover, it promotes the false idea that Christmas in Canada is a secular holiday for spending money and pretending that you are Santa Claus to others. It ignores and suppresses the holiday traditions of these new Canadians and it speaks volumes as to what symbols are socially acceptable to display.

The press release did not provide information on whether or not there was a balance of traditions and symbols along with the swearing in of Santa Claus but I would be surprised if there was.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, making a charade of achieving Canadian citizenship all the while subverting religious expression and observance of faith in the promotion of a consumer Canada. This is the "conservatism" Calgarians elected. I hope they are happy.

Wikileaks: It's not free speech

2010-12-10T13:39:00.007-06:00

Part 1: An issue of semantics?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't necessarily view the Wikileaks drama as being an exercise of acting on a person's right to free speech. My question: how is it a person's right to be able to view a confidential document, pass judgment on it, and leak it to the public, via the World Wide Web, under the blanket of anonymity? I am not convinced that that action is one of a person's civil and political rights.

However, I may be persuaded that Wikileaks is a matter of freedom of information, particularly government documents. Private documents, on the other hand, are another matter. Do I as a member of the general public, the Canadian citizenry, have a right to know what's going on in the boardrooms of TD Canada Trust? Or Bell Mobility? Or Nexen? Perhaps I do given that we are all interconnected via the economy and their poor management could affect my bottom line; but that kind of justification is really stretching it.

Moreover, we have to look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to be able to even claim such global rights. From which we can measure whether or not Wikileaks has anything to do with the right to free speech or freedom of information.

On free speech, the UDHR is clear in its preamble,

...Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...

And that's it for free speech. As we all know, as Canadians we are free to speak our mind. Except if we want to express beliefs that invoke hatred of others or intend to put others in harms way. In this respect, we have accepted that there are reasonable limitations to free speech. You cannot yell "BOMB!" on an airplane because you wish to say the word bomb at the top of your lungs. That doesn't cut it. Likewise, if you knew that by announcing sensative information in a crowd of people that may contain a population would use said information to harm others, is it not reasonable to limit that speech on behalf of the lives that may come under threat?

On a person's freedom to information the UDHR is more concrete. Article 19 states,

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Here we have a rights-based justification for Wikileaks and the information posted to the Internet. Using the "bomb on an airplane" analogy; it is my right as an individual to be told that there is a bomb on the plane if there is reason to believe that information is correct. Notice that in Article 19 the word "expression" is used. We are free to express our opinions, which is different than being free to speak whatever words come into our heads. Our opinions ought to be informed, thought out, and considered carefully. If it is your "opinion" that there is a bomb on the plane just because you saw bags you did not recognize as your own being loaded into the cargo hold, then you're a moron. Moreover, expressing that opinion is not the same as being free to speak "BOMB!" on the plane without reprisal. Or is it?

What we can glean from the UDHR is that we, as the global citizenry, are free to speak our minds - with some legal limitations based on societal norms and customs - and that we are free to hold opinions. Those opinions are formed based on the information we are presented and that which we seek. Additionally, we are free to seek information from the media (and in this day and age that would include social-media) regardless of frontier, meaning all forms of media being considered equal.

Part II: "When you control the mail, you control... information!" - Newman, from Seinfeld

Information is the key to the success and failure of Wikileaks. Information that is readily available is no good. A recipe on a soup-can label is not as valuable as the one that is used to make the soup inside the can.

I have already touched on whether or not everyone in the world is privy to any piece of information - whether it effects them directly or not. I am tempted to use a "global public good" argument for the value of "information" in a very general sense. But I hesitate because I can hear some of my former economics professors blood pressure rising at the very thought. Perhaps one of my readers who is more versed in global public goods and/or has thought this thing through for more than an hour and a half may help me out here.

The bottom line is that while we are free, as citizens of the world, to have access to information regardless of frontier there are reasonable limits to what information is acceptable for me to know. For example, is it my right to have the blueprints to a nuclear facility? Is it my right to know how much money my boss makes? On the flip side, would I defend my co-workers right to know how much money I make?

I'm not saying, "what we do not know cannot hurt us" - what I am trying to say is that as a collective society we need to develop a better understanding of what we deem is crucial information to the public and what is not. Is it crucial to know how much money the manager of a car dealership makes and how would we pass that information along? Is that more or less important that how much money the Prime Minister makes? Should we choose between the two? Not necessarily, but we need a framework for which we include or exclude information based on the priorities of our society for it's well-being and enrichment.

Part II: The hammer is coming down whether we like it or not

Lastly, I am not going to run to the defense of Wikileaks because it hides the identities of whistle-blowers. I am one who believes that you ought to own what you say. If you feel that by leaking to the internet the cables of your boss, say Hilary Clinton, then maybe you should put your name on the bottom of it. If your information is genuine and will lead to a more just and fair Secretary of State, then fantastic! If your information is meant to slander and cast doubt upon the Secretary of State... then perhaps it's good for the water cooler but not good for the country. Leaking secret, embarrassing information and expressing radical dissent is not new. Take the original whistle-blower himself: Martin Luther.

If Martin Luther had not put his name on the bottom of his 95 Thesis, where do you think we would be today? Would the reformation and counter-reformation movements have never taken place? I doubt it, but what I could probably guarantee is that the Catholic Church would have come down pretty hard on the inhabitants of Wittenberg; forestalling the (hopefully) inevitable.

Today's Wikileaks is the modern day Wittenberg Door - except the part of Martin Luther is being played by everyone who submits documents and represented collectively by the odd Mr. Juilan Assange. Oh, and except for the part that Luther didn't really want to break up the Catholic Church he just wanted to reform it. On that note, Assange's goals are far less clear beyond a general "accountability" he hopes to bring to the world's largest corporations and governments; which is to surely blow up in our collective faces about as much as criticism of the Catholic Church did in the 16th century.

I agree with many op-ed pieces that believe the Wikileaks drama will only lead to greater security. We'll have a counter-access-to-information age whereby companies and governments will become more secretive and, possibly, more nefarious in their intentions. In an non-zero sum situation, as in life, actors (employers/employees, civil servants/public, etc.) generally have a choice to cooperate with one another for the benefit of both parties or to defect on their cooperation to benefit themselves individually. This is the "tit for tat" strategy of game theory. When two players are competing it is best for each player to cooperate or defect based on the last move of their opponent. If your opponent cooperates and you both benefit, then you should reciprocate and cooperate to keep the good times rolling. The strategy goes that as soon as one cheats (or defects) to gain at the others expense, then the other should defect at their very next opportunity. Defections will continue until someone cooperates and cooperation will continue until one defects.

Thinking of governments, the bureaucracy and the public; playing a three-way dance, Wikileaks is the ultimate form of defection. It is probably not the first defection, perhaps the government "defected" first by withholding critical information from the public. But that be the case, we can only expect governments to retaliate with another defection - making information more classified, more secretive, and concentrating power within the executive branches. The public would then have the choice to defect again, i.e. boycott an election. As you can see, the slope only gets steeper unless one party decides to cooperate (i.e. the public accepts more secrecy; the government enacts genuine reform).

Part IV: Cooperation or Defection?

When Martin Luther defected the Catholic Church responded appropriately. To be fair, the Church grossly misinterpreted Luther's criticism. But then again, the powers that be were interested in preserving the status quo. Much the same as today's liberal democracies, to say nothing of authoritarian regimes, and multinational corporations. "The people" have had their say, if we can trust those anonymous sources, and the ball is now in "the powers" court.

The Tea Party Strikes Back

2010-12-04T11:54:00.007-06:00

How dare President Obama attempt to the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich expire, adding a whopping 4.6% to an already "overtaxed" population! But America shouldn't worry, 'cause the Tea Party has got their backs. And I don't mean "America" in the collective sense, I mean those Americans who came out in droves to support the Tea Party movement and spend their hard earned dollars on Sarah Palin's book. These aren't the Wall Street elites or Washington Fat Cats. These are the kind of ordinary Joes that go to work, do their jobs, and need that 4.6% tax cut to go to their boss because what kind of a country has America become when the guys at the meatpacking plant cannot count on their government to favour the wealthiest people in the nation?

Stephen Colbert used the word "nothingness" to describe the justification of letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. And I believe it's the best look inside the ridiculous justification to feed the unemployed, underemployed and disillusioned lower-middle and middle class who vote Republican.

Enjoy.

Adding the Commissioner's Award to my resume

2010-11-26T09:24:00.007-06:00

Yesterday during the Gibson's Canadian Footaball League Players Awards, CFL commissioner Mark Cohon presented the Commissioner's Award to the Rider Nation.

"Each year, I have the privilege of handing out the Commissioner's Award to a person or group that has made an outstanding contribution to the development of Canadian football," he said.

"This year, the one hundredth year of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I decided to pay tribute to a group that epitomizes the way CFL fans love our league: the Rider Nation, which collectively does so much to make our league vibrant and strong and fun."

"I really believe our league is home to some of the best fans in the world, including passionate supporters of the Lions, Stamps, Eskimos, Bombers, Cats, Argos and Alouettes," Cohon said.

"But few would dispute, especially in the Roughriders' centennial year, that there is something special about Rider Pride."

The award was accepted on behalf of the Rider Nation by three generations of a family of devoted Saskatchewan fans: Randy Goulden of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, a Rider shareholder and a season's ticket holder since 1979, her son Tom Goulden, 35, her grandson Jonathan McLeod, 8, and granddaughters Kathryn Goulden-Maddin, 14, and Calen Goulden, 9, and Amarah Goulden, 7.

On behalf of Rider expats like myself, I'd like to thank Mark Cohon and the CFL for the award.

My family and I have been fans for three generations and across four provinces. We've been season ticket holders in Regina; loyal followers when the Green and White come to Calgary; Banjo Bowl survivors; and SkyDome seat-fillers. We watched as American teams strolled into town and we're proud of this league long after they've left. We know when to boast and when to keep our mouths shut - and usually the silence that fills the room after a boisterous Stampeder fan talks a big game for 3 quarters says more than any rebuttal I could ever think up.

During this year's Banjo Bowl I was booed. I was laughed at. I had beer poured on me. I read a sign that said "100 Years of Suck" and noticed a Bomber jersey with the name "Twelve" and the number #13. If I was called any of the names that were shouted to me outside of CanadInns Stadium, I'd sue the person for defamation of character. But today, our character stands tall.

Fans of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, celebrating 80 years of losing football this year, weren't commended on their spirit. Neither were the fair-weather fans of Calgary who tune in to Stampeder football in-between Flames' seasons. The Ti-Cat crowd might deserve a posthumous Commissioner's award - same with Edmonton. (And speaking of days of old, do the Argos even have fans anymore?) If you can find the 19,000 Alouette fans they might be deserving of a thumbs up (although, it's easy to build a fan base when a Grey Cup winning franchise is moved to your city...). The Lions would be the next deserving fan base for recognition. They always come out in droves and credit where credit is due, they made their Empire Stadium look fantastic.

Thanks Mark. We're glad to have this award. But it's not quite the one we want. We're after one, very special, award. And that's the Cup itself.

We can do it Rider Nation.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

Rougriders do it again!

2010-11-21T20:18:00.003-06:00

The 2010 Grey Cup is set: a rematch between the Montreal Alouettes and the Saskatchewan Roughriders. More thoughts and analysis on the historic match-up to come this week.

Senator Hugh Segal... you're all right...

2010-11-20T10:18:00.005-06:00

This week the progressive blogosphere exploded over the CPC Senate hypocrisy on bill C-311. Too many of us sat and watched Senate leader Marjory LeBreton, who was as giddy as a schoolgirl, snicker and smirk her way through interviews as she justified throwing out her responsibility to act as "sober second thought" to Canadians. But believe it or not - not all CPC Senators are hypocritical snakes in the grass. I know, I know. Hear me out folks.

The front page of today's Globe and Mail explores the idea of guaranteed income for low-income Canadians. The headline is absolutely atrocious: "To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. But are you willing to trust the poor?" If the point of the article was to debunk the myth that all Canadians in poverty are able-bodied, 20-somethings who thought it was better to stay home and play X-Box than finish high school and get a job - then the G&M didn't do a very good job. The article did feature a young single Canadian mother who had, despite many challenges, got a professional diploma in a growing field but because of the recession was not able to keep employment. However, I suspect the G&M chose that title because underlying the idea of guaranteed income, is the view of many "pick myself up by my bootstraps" Canadians who think that the poor and homeless are lazy and if you give them money they'll just abuse the system. And then who is left holding the bill? ME/US!

But one figure stood out. And that was CPC Senator Hugh Segal who didn't shake down the arguments with "real Canadians work for their money" but came to the issue with a refreshing approach for a conservative.

Senator Hugh Segal, one of the more vocal proponents of no-strings-attached aid for the poor, points out that the guaranteed-income program for seniors has greatly reduced poverty, especially among women.
“There's a bias that when given the chance people will be lazy,” he says. “That's not my sense of reality.”

Mr. Segal argues that giving money with no conditions removes the stigma and shame around poverty, allowing people to focus instead on how to improve their lot.

Requiring the poor to prove continually that they are deserving of assistance or threatening to pull help away without notice only discourages the risk-taking and confidence required to get out of poverty.

“It's dehumanizing,” Mr. Segal says. “Think of a mother having to negotiate though Plexiglas for enough money to feed her family.”

Or the mom who goes back to school to improve her prospects and loses her welfare payments because she is not seeking jobs.

It also costs people their privacy. Candace Witkowskyj, a legal advocate for welfare recipients in British Columbia, tells stories of people forced to take pictures of the contents of their drawers to prove that they lived alone or to get a doctor's note to justify a $20 emergency food voucher.

“If you think of the core premise of charity, it is not to treat people as lesser,” Mr. Segal says. “[It] is to give people a leg-up so they can have some measure of independence and can make some of their own choices.”

To do that effectively, he argues, we need to let them decide the steps they take to get there. Or – as Ms. Gray in Victoria puts it, saying she would go back to school for more training if she could count on covering rent and daycare – give some autonomy back to “people who are trying to be somebody in this world.”

A few weeks ago I blogged that there wasn't a progressive conservative left on the Hill. I may have to think twice about what I typed.

For once a conservative is arguing for more "freedom" and "liberty" for a population of the country and I can say with them, "Amen!" Of course, if you made above a certain % a year you would not qualify for guaranteed income, so it is not as if I would be able to imagine another 20G's in my pockets and what I would do with it. And even if it did come to me, I'll tell you where it would go: university debt. And after that? I'd put the remaining 3/4 into savings and with the rest I would pad my monthly allowance. And while that's good for me, it's not really the best thing for the economy.

The idea of this guaranteed income is that it is being spent back into the economy. Through rent, heating, electricity, food, clothing, transit tickets, daycare, school supplies, etc. It's not going into a bank account where it isn't touched for another 20 years. And what many opponents do not realize is that this money is going straight back into the economy and generating new jobs whether or not those getting GI are picking them up. Someone is! And that's good for the economy. To be sure, our current welfare system does do that. But not to the same extent and whatever is pumped back into the economy is surely eaten up by the bureaucratic costs that are spent implementing the system.

Hugh Segal is on the right track. Now he is a Senator who I could vote for (maybe). I have some reservations with what he thinks is best for CIDA and DFAIT. But on this issue, I wholeheartedly agree. And progressives should back him up.

Nanos blows up Harper's coalition straw man, sort of.

2010-11-18T09:29:00.006-06:00

These results could not have come at a better time.

Despite the Tory foreboding about a possible coalition government, nearly 51 per cent of respondents believe a change in government would have no effect on the stability of our economy. In comparison, about 30 per cent believe change would be risky.
“In the past, one of the key messages of the Conservatives has been that changing a government in time of economic instability would be risky,” pollster Nik Nanos told The Globe. “This messaging is not likely to resonate in a significant fashion because the narrative for the past number of years has been political instability and Canada has generally weathered the Great Recession.”

Now, to be fair, the question asked in the poll was not, "Thinking of our current national political scene, some people think that a coalition government would be risky to our economic stability while others think that a coalition would have no impact on the stability of the economy. Which of these two views, if either, best reflects your personal opinion?"

That being said, it would take a pretty thick brick to not to see where the question was leading given the "current national political scene." There is no indication that when the writ is dropped, either the Liberal or Conservative parties would form a majority government. Now, a hypothetical change in government spells out a Liberal minority. But by what avenue will this minority be formed? By taking 36-38% of the popular vote? By joining with the NDP in a UK-esque coalition?

What would make said coalition palatable for Canadians? If the Liberals grabbed more seats than the CPC? Would a First-Past-The-Post "losers coalition" acceptable to the 60%+ voters who do NOT vote Conservative? It wouldn't fly with anyone who voted CPC, unless said voter wanted change just to get rid of Harper and prime their position for a return to 24 Sussex in the following election. We saw back in 2008 that the issue was not the Liberal and New Democratic parties working together per-se, but rather leadership at the top was the chief concern. If Ignatieff has a good election campaign, even a "loss" to the CPC (while gaining seats and popular support) could turn into post-election victory.

Unsurprisingly, 30% of those polled by Nanos thought that a change in government would be bad for the economy. And, lookie there! The Nanos poll shows Harper's support at 33.8% - which means we can all expect the same old spin from the right. Which really amounts to preaching to the choir. But hey, when you've sold your soul for a couple of cracks at putting together a two flimsy, policy-absent minorities that are devoid of real leadership, accountability and democracy - what else is there to do to pass the time than chirp talking points?

BloggingCon reactions: Typical and Predictable

2010-11-17T14:31:00.003-06:00

The reactions of the Conservative blogosphere on today's Senate brouhaha is typical and predictable. As I suspected, they largely ignore the promises and principles of their favourite PM and view the defeat of Bill C-311 as a "spoonful of medicine" for Liberals.

Comments from Blogging Cons range from, "boo-yah suckas!" to "until we have an elected Senate we will play with the cards we are dealt."

Methinks there is a campaign slogan in all of this...

Chamber of sober second thought? Think again.

2010-11-17T13:01:00.011-06:00

“Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation.” - Stephen Harper, 1996.

One of the Prime Minister's favourite pass times when he was a young, idealistic boy, was screeching about the Senate. It was easy to do back in the 90's when the LPC controlled both the House of Commons and the Senate. Today, however, things have become quite complicated for the member of parliament from Calgary Southwest. Or so it seems. You think it would bother someone to go back on their principles so easily? But clearly, it doesn't.

Today, unelected Conservative Senators took the opportunity to pull a fast one on the country and defeat an environment bill that had support from the majority of elected members of parliament. How could this happen? All because 15 Liberal senators were absent and the Prime Minister's unelected Senate Squadron (save for 1 Bert Brown) called a snap vote - knowing they had a majority on the issue in the Red Chamber.

Ah, so this is how it is going to be in a minority parliament. If you cannot break the will of the majority of Canadians in the House of Commons, just stack the Senate with people who will do what you tell them and voila! Problem solved! Simply wait until a piece of pesky legislation makes its way to the Senate, pray that a few Liberals are absent, and then strike it down. (The moral of the story for Ignatieff: never let your Senators leave the Senate when it is in session. Ever. I'm talking setting up cots in the Chamber and supplying them with 4 months of canned goods and bottled water.)

To be sure, this kind of behaviour is far more nefarious than the rubber-stamping that went on in the Senate during the days of Liberal majorities. This kind of behaviour is, to say the least, the height of hypocrisy for the PMO. The rationale? Bert Brown wrote a handy little piece designed to cover the ass of the Prime Minister. In it he basically gives Harper a pass on following through with any of his Senate bitching since puberty.

Prime Minister Harper was faced with growing Senate vacancies after more than a year in power. That brings me back to (the) Senatorial Selection Act, the bill I speak to today, honourable colleagues.

This bill is not constitutionally challengeable because it is an “offer” from the Prime Minister to the provinces to hold Senatorial elections. It is in no way a legislative command. Provinces will not be forced to hold such elections. There will be no threats, no pressure, and no penalty – only the will of the Canadian voters.
This Bill is but the first step to a reformed Senate. The next two steps can only be done when elected Senators prove their worth to their provinces and when elected Senators are close to a majority in the Senate.
Within a decade that is possible. At some future point, the provincial governments and/or Parliament will need to draft a stand-alone constitutional amendment to agree on the future representation in the Senate and retain the supremacy of the House of Commons without crippling the powers of the Senate. Faced with a confirmed constitutional reform of the Senate, the Senate chamber has only a 180 day suspensive veto.

It is a perfect smokescreen! And to think, I, at one time, actually bought all of Harper's "elected senate" mumbojumbo. What Bert Brown describes is the downloading of federal representation to the provinces - an act that will only be accomplished by the most staunchly ideological conservative governments and their populist premiers (read: Ralph Klein). Instead of leaving Senate vacancies, as a way of prodding the provinces to hold Senate elections alongside provincial elections, Harper - and every prime minister after him - will continue to stack the Senate until people "wake up." (Now that's insulting to the Canadian people.) And instead of approving monies from the federal government to cover the costs of a Senate election during provincial elections, Harper is going to leave that up to the provinces because executing the "will of the people" ought to be paid for out of the pockets of the people.

As a supposed "economist" Harper ignores the power of incentives when it comes to Senate reform that could be achieved, well, any time now. His will to fulfill his own promises to his own electorate is hampered by his inability to persuasively incentivize Senate reform until his constituents muster up their own will to harass their provincial governments.

And that's how you sidestep responsibility for a 23 year old pillar of Western Canadian conservative federal politics.

I can hear him now: "People of Canada! I implore you to increase the costs of your provincial elections so you can elect Senators-in-Waiting for me to potentially appoint to the Senate as long as they are Conservatives and don't mind being told what to do. Until you wake up and realize the tyranny of government, but not MY government, you will be ruled by an authoritarian Senate, although at the moment things are pretty good right now but they'll get worse if you do not do something."

Harper's favourite motto used to be "Reeeeeefoooorm!" when asked about the Senate. Now , when governing times are tough, his motto is "If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em."

Harper makes the rules: Afghanistan Edition

2010-11-12T08:56:00.008-06:00

I can see the rationale. The PM does not believe he has to seek the approval of parliament to extend the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan since the new post-2011 non-combatant role will consist of training the Afghan police and military forces. In other words: we're not getting into harms way, so what is there to discuss?

And while I would hesitantly agree that the Canadian military has a non-combatant role to play in the civil, political, economic and structural "reconstruction" of Afghanistan - when the PM circumvents parliament because he doesn't think the consequences of his decision are a matter of life and death, he is forgetting that the PMO answers to the Canadian people. Not the other way around.

While executive decisions are my favourite types of decisions to make, it is with extreme caution that I would simply write-off the long-term consequences of Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan - be it combatant or non-combatant. Peace, as I have said before, is not merely the absence of violence. The message that is sent when Canada keeps our military engaged in Afghanistan to do military and police training, is that we value the service of the military and civilian police forces to fight the outright forms of violence, namely, terrorism; over more systemic forms of violence that are part of Afghan society, such as the subjugation of women and girls. What if you were to put this question to the Canadian people, what answer would you get?

Would you rather see the Canadian government engaged in Afghanistan in non-combatant military presence; or through CIDA focused on women's education and human rights?

You could substitute the latter option for any number of issues that are plaguing Afghanistan's economic and social development. The point being: military engagement only builds so many inroads into a society. If Canadians want to work along side the Afghan people to build peace in their country and the region, it will take more than training police and military personnel. It will take MUCH more. If Canadians want to see the seedlings of peace and security in Afghanistan then we should be doing more to promote literacy among women and girls. We have to end cycles of domestic violence by raising a generation of children who are secure in their rights as human beings. It is not an easy task, and many War Hawks will state that military security is the first step to development.

In a post Cold War world, I am not so easily convinced of this argument since we have seen how civil war, economic growth, and development are linked together, acting as a set of dominoes. Economic growth is painfully slow for economies of post-conflict zones. And as such, development is set back. Moreover, governments make poor economic choices when they emerge from a period of civil conflict, spending even more money on defense than in pre-conflict times to protect the status quo from another uprising. This, in turn, depletes what ever money is available for public services that have been disrupted, if not destroyed, by conflict. To which foreign aid can step in and provide some relief, but that doesn't change the fact that government military spending usually, and predictably, increases as foreign countries take responsibility for domestic services.

Is there a place for Canada in a post-conflict Afghanistan? Yes. Should it fall on the military to be that role? Maybe. Whatever we decide, we must decide it together in democratic fashion. Leadership should come from parliament and decisions should be made by a vote - preferably consensus. Afghans, if we can trust what their government is saying and the reports from the international press, want Canadians and foreign states to help them rebuild their country. There is a need for our expertise and our skills. Are we putting our best foot forward? Is this new non-combat 2011-2014 mission the thing that will have the most impact on peace and development in the country? I don't know. But what I do know is that without debate, without consultation, without open analysis we will never know if we are on the right path.

Paul Martin stands up for Waterloo

2010-11-09T14:21:00.004-06:00

“If we continue like this, we’re going to become a small, close-minded country,” - PM Paul Martin on the direction of Canada under Stephen Harper.

You have to admit, he's still got it.

If potash is "strategic" then what is uranium?

2010-11-09T12:07:00.010-06:00

These are some ballsy and gutsy moves coming out of the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus.

A Saskatchewan Conservative Member of Parliament wants to see legislation that could make it easier for foreign investors to buy Canadian uranium mines.

Say what?

Didn't we just do this? Didn't this government just say to their constituents, "Hey! To hell with your $40 billion dollars! We're going to stand up for Canada and protect our strategic natural resources!" I wonder, if Potash is considered a "strategic" resource (of which 95% is exported) then what would you classify uranium? You know what I'm talking about. Uranium: the stuff that you make atomic weapons out of.

Apparently, or I should say, astonishingly, uranium is exactly the kind of resource some Conservative MPs think we should be selling off to foreign investors.

Trost said the rule changes proposed in the uranium mine ownership act could boost the economy.

"There's been Asian interest not only in Saskatchewan but also in Nunavut to expand the mines," Trost said. "When you have more players, more senior mining companies, bidding to develop mines it helps the junior mining sector."

Trost said Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and three former Saskatchewan premiers support the move.

However, Regina Liberal MP Ralph Goodale says he's opposed to the bill.

"It removes some very important elements in terms of national policy with respect to the development of Canada's uranium resources and that's especially important to a province like Saskatchewan."

So, competition for uranium would boost the economy but competition in potash would not result in a net benefit to the country? This kind of flip-floppery makes my head want to explode. But since it has been 10 years since I have left my native province, the real question remains: will anyone in Saskatchewan notice this double standard? To which I would reply: that depends on when the news is broken. More specifically, when you make such an announcement, are the Roughriders playing well, or are they playing poorly? Cause if they are playing well, I highly doubt anyone would care.

At least there is 1 MP from the Land of Living Skies that is walking the walk he has been talking. And that's Ralph Goodale.

"[Trost's proposal] removes some very important elements in terms of national policy with respect to the development of Canada's uranium resources and that's especially important to a province like Saskatchewan."

If I'm reading correctly, Goodale is talking about the importance of national resource management policy. Some might call the role uranium plays in said policy as "strategic." In response, Trost tells all those Communists in opposition to his proposal to hold their horses.

Trost said his private member's bill is unlikely to pass any time soon because the government has other priorities.

Which include sole-sourced fighter jet contracts; cutting funding to Aboriginal women's groups; and telling other states to abide by international human rights declarations while we fund businesses who exploit sub-standard working conditions and environmental law overseas.

Ironically, when you stack up Trost's private-member's bill against all that other stuff, it actually doesn't look that half bad.

BHP Fallout: Jim Prentice resigns

2010-11-04T14:33:00.003-05:00

Wow. This has got to have been the craziest 24 hours for Canadian conservatives. First, BC Premier Gordon Campbell resigns. Next, BHP Billiton's $40 billion dollar bid is rejected. Today, Jim Prentice announces he's done with federal politics, with CTV citing his displeasure from being taken out of the role of Industry Minister and handed the assignment of being the Environment Punching Bag.

And who is the Industry Minister at the moment? Tony Clement. And who rejected the BHP deal? Tony. And who wishes he was Industry Minister (if we are to trust the MSM), Jimmy. Do you catch my drift?

The question is obvious: why leave now? Why, after the rejection of what would have been the largest foreign acquisition of a Canadian company (only by defacto since the majority of shareholders are Canadian since it is not a crown corporation), would Prentice choose today to be the day he announces he's leaving politics? Why not, last week? Or in a week from now?

Is it coincidence that Prentice is resigning at this particular moment? Maybe. Is this just bad timing? Did he circle this date in his calendar and forget that the BHP decision was going to happen the day before? We'll never know. Unless he lets the proverbial cat out of the bag.

C'mon Jim. We all know you want to dish the dirt. But do not worry, we're not going anywhere.

Take a number Inky Mark

2010-11-03T09:07:00.005-05:00

It's the same old story progressives hear in almost every single election or by-election season. Somewhere out there, there are citizens that want to run for the Conservative party, and if they are not on Stephen Harper's speed dial, the likelihood of winning the nomination process (if there is one at all) is slim to none. And not for lack of trying or organization. Rather, because there is usually someone else that has been pre-selected for reasons the party never divulges (obviously).

This time it is happening in Dauphin-Swan River in rural Manitoba. A riding which was held by CPC MP Inky Mark, who began as a Reformer - turned Canadian Alliance - turned Conservative. He stepped down to run for Mayor of Dauphin and was unsuccessful. Now, with the Dauphin-Swan River byelection called, he's coming out of the woodwork to express his displeasure at the nomination process, or lack thereof to be more specific. He even goes so far as to call the process "unfair."

Mark said in an interview that he purposely announced he was leaving a year early so the party would have time to hold a competitive nomination process.

Instead, only nomination contestant Robert Sopuck was recognized by the party, despite other local Tories wanting to run.

Mark said he complained about irregularities in the process to his Manitoba caucus colleagues at least twice.

"After spending over 13 years in the riding, not allowing the membership base to have a say in who should replace me is just not right, and not one of [my fellow MPs] … would utter one single response," he said.

"If you believe in democracy of any kind, it's just not right."

I apologize for not being too sympathetic. I mean, are these tactics not endemic to the style of Stephen Harper's governance?

Just read his words again: after spending 13 years in the riding, not allowing the membership base to have a say in who should replace me is just not right, and not one of (his fellow MPs) would utter one single response. If you believe in democracy of any kind, it's just not right.

Does Mark actually believe that one of his colleagues is going to go to the press and call out the party? I ask Mark this question: why were you not at the door of the Globe and Mail, National Post, CBC, CTV, etc. when Helena Guergis was dumped? Or when Rob Anders' riding is manipulated from top to bottom to ensure that he remains the CPC candidate, despite overwhelming calls from his constituency to hold a fair, transparent, and democratic nomination race? If you ask me, Inky Mark is starting to looking like the Little Red Hen.

Moreover, he's been working for a prime minister that has no ethical qualms with misinforming the public as to our parliamentary democracy! And lest we forget the control the PMO places on every single soundbite, interview, spending announcement, or policy recommendation that comes from the mouth of the lowliest of Harper's MPs. Are we to be shocked when a nomination contest for a guaranteed Conservative win in a rural byelection is shut down and the candidate is hand selected by the party? I am not.

My advice to Inky Mark: if you have more complaints of this nature, take a number and get to the back of the line. This is not headline news you're bringing to the table, buddy. We've seen this movie before and we know how it ends.

Roughriders have "nothing at stake"

2010-11-02T09:55:00.008-05:00

For Halloween this year the Saskatchewan Roughriders decided to dress up like the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and crapped the bed against the BC Lions. Losing 23-17 in Vancouver, the Riders are on a four game losing streak. Let me say that again: four game losing streak. And all I read in the papers and online is "boy, they sure haven't played well, at least they have a home playoff game." And isn't that something to be proud of? A 10 and 8 season - at best - hosting a playoff game. The last time a 9 and 9 team hosted a Western playoff game was in 2004 when the Riders (9-9) went to Edmonton (9-9).

Let me say this: the Saskatchewan Roughriders only have a home playoff game by the grace of God. It is only because we jumped out of the gate quickly that we are going to play the Western semi-final at Mosaic Stadium at Taylor Field. If we finish 9 and 9, which is a very real possibility, we'll be "hosting" an Edmonton team at 8-10 - neither of which deserves to host a playoff game on paper.

Am I jumping off the bandwagon? No. My seat is permanently fixed and has been since 1984. But am I writing off this season? Absolutely. I mean, has the team given me any reason to be hopeful that we'll win the Western Semi-Final, let alone think about going to Edmonton for the Grey Cup. Nope. They haven't given their fans a glimpse at a championship team in 5 weeks going on 6.

What I dread is not an embarrassing loss at Taylor Field two weeks from now. What I dread is next season. What I dread is another year with Taman at the helm. What I am preparing to mourn, is the era of winning football. And no, 9 and 9 is not "winning" football. Since 2004, 0.500 doesn't cut it. Making the playoffs doesn't cut it. A home playoff game, doesn't cut it. Championships. That's what counts.

And last time I checked, Taman has never built a championship team. He has been a part of winning organizations, but riding the pine isn't the way anyone wants to get a ring.

The last time the Riders were 9-9 was in 2006 which was subsequently Danny Barrett and Roy Shiver's last year with the team, ending an era of so-so football. Let us not go down that path again. Even finishing at 10 and 8, it seems clear to me that Taman the only thing our GM has the capability of managing is an early departure from the club. Ken will retire (which should be a hint to Daly and Etcheverry) and our sights should be set on bringing in a new, fresh, coaching staff.

I'll take whatever these Riders are going to give us in the last two games of the 2010 season. I hope it will be two wins. Which I hope will lead to a third win and a birth into the Grey Cup. A four game win streak isn't impossible. After all, we've seen much, much worse.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

THIS JUST IN...

Practice has gone out of style for the Saskatchewan Roughriders. According to Rod Pedersen's blog, the Riders are not taking the field today and will hit the turf tomorrow, instead. Comments on the news range from "WTF?!" to "This decision is good going into the playoffs." My take? What's left to practice for?

The psyche of the Rider organization is sickeningly transparent: we've already earned a coveted home playoff game; does it matter if we win it? Perhaps for Christmas, Rider Nation should boycott purchasing Rider gear to send a message to the Board: give us something to be proud of in 2011.

EKOS tells the tale: Am I still safe at Starbucks?

2010-10-28T09:12:00.006-05:00

I'd like to begin this post with a hat-tip. I'd like to hat-tip Steve V of Far n Wide. I read his blog often, and always on days when a new poll comes out. Because I think Steve is pretty much bang-on with his summaries and analysis.

To quote, Steve blogged a while ago that when there is scandal, support for the government goes down. But when everything is normal on the Hill (defining normal as the shenanigans and partisanship that have become acceptable for parliament) popular opinion swings to to support the status quo (ie. the Conservatives).

As a progressive, this is outraging. Because I have a memory and principles. Both of which can be (admittedly) flexible at times, but never absent from my engagement with politics.

Today, EKOS tells Steve V's tale. Government support is up. Well, that's not entirely true. Harper has managed to pad his base. The Liberals have not. Their "horse race" support has either gone back to the NDP or have decided that things are not as bad as they seem and are content with the government. This poll isn't as frightening as the one Ipsos put out the other day, but it nonetheless keeps progressives frustrated.

The Globe and Mail is saying that the poll shows a post-Ford election, anti-elite "euphoria" in the GTA and other parts of the country that have recently conducted municipal elections. If this is true, my question is: am I still safe at Starbucks?

Jokes aside, we all saw the damage Rob Ford did to the Toronto civic election. He brought Tea Party politics to Canada and in a big way. The "left" was split and that's all it took folks. I imagine we'd see Christine O'Donnell in the House of Commons if she was Canadian. Why? Because we have a "united" band of right wingers who are ready to say, do, and promote anyone that will stand the chance of winning a seat. Imagine if you had O'Donnell facing off against two Democrats. One liberal and one liberaler. O'Donnell wins that state.

Who would O'Donnell be facing if she was in Canada? An incumbent Liberal who has probably been in the House for 15 years; a sensible New Democrat with an MA; and an environmental engineer running for the Green party. And maybe an independent who works out of their home selling knives. What's a voter to do when they think they're getting screwed? When they don't understand the workings of government? When the implications of our actions abroad are seemingly unimportant to their daily lives? They vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear: Stop the Gravy Train.

Lest the voter forgets (or remembers?) that said Tea Partier thinks masturbation is wrong. Or that homosexuality is an identity disorder. Or openly states that the Western world is at the edge of Armageddon with Islam. Or any of the other crap that comes from the pick-and-choose libertarian, anti-establishment, religiously fundamental republican playbook. I'll give credit where credit is due: this brand of politics has a way of articulating to people what they want to hear. They can narrate the lives of just enough voters to make a split-vote deadly.

Should Pantalone have left the race? Maybe. At first, I thought it was a good thing he was in it all the way. It stopped the Toronto mayoral race from looking like an American primary. It was a display of democracy. And I can't hate on that. Was it wise to stay? Probably not. It was principled, but not wise. And now here we are.

Think long and hard Layton. Think long and hard Ignatieff. If Harper is going to bark day and night about the Coalition - why not go for it? If the chances of forming a government live between "barely possible" and "no chance in hell" then maybe the two parties should sit down together and put together a list of 5 objectives that they are going to get done in this parliamentary session and DO THEM. They got the votes to keep the gun registry. They had the votes to pass C-300 and blew it. It can be done. So why not do it? You make up the majority in parliament! I'm not saying give up on winning an election, but while we're in this painful minority why not pass a few bills that would get progressives excited about voting for you? Now there's idea I could vote for.

The "problem" with bill C-300

2010-10-27T09:46:00.005-05:00

It is like clockwork, ladies and gentlemen of the progressive blogosphere. As soon as I start to trust the Liberal Party; as soon as I speak good things about Ignatieff to my friends and colleagues; as soon as I start to think, "Hey, I could fit under this big red tent" - WHAM! - I am hit with some bologna like this: Will Michael Igantieff Bury his own MP's Mining Bill?

A Liberal private member’s bill is the buzz of Parliament Hill as the Tories tries to score political points on its back, Michael Ignatieff distances himself from it and Liberal Whip Marcel Proulx tells caucus members to stay away from the vote on Wednesday.

Great! Just when you almost had me, you pull a stunt like this! Attracting guys like me who would actually get involved in the party and work their tails off to see LPC candidates elected in an election, is like trying to get a little squirrel into your hands. Right when we're at your fingertips you do not make big sudden movements!

Now, where was I? Yes. Bill C-300 apparently has some "problems" according to Ignatieff and Harper. (The only problem for Harper is that it will make him look like a giant hypocrite if he doesn't support it, oh wait, that's never a problem for the Prime Minister.) The bill is intended to, and I quote: is to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada's commitments to international human rights standards.

The bill would give considerable power to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of International Trade, along with the Governor in Council, to make the call as to whether or not a complaint received about a Canadian company in a developing country has committed human rights abuses (explicitly or implicitly) and whether or not their activities follow international standards on environmental care. Their power goes so far as to reject any complaint (submitted in writing by anyone involved in the corporation's activities, be they an employee, concerned Canadian at home, or a citizen of the developing country) outright, needing, at the very least, to consult only their personal opinion and a couple of phone calls.

Would this burden the aforementioned Minister's so much that they would be inundated with false complaints - taking up their time day and night? I doubt it. Would the bill implicitly make the claim against all Canadian companies operating abroad that they are committing human rights and environmental violations? Not at all. Would it help distance the public's MONEY from being used to support a corporation that may commit human rights violations (by taking advantage of lax domestic policies of foreign states for profit)? Yes. And that's the point!

The bill does not prohibit Canadian companies who ignore international best practices and international human rights law from doing business overseas - it protects the Canadian taxpayers from being accessories to human rights violations.

Would Canadians be proud of any company - whether we are in a recession or not - that knowingly goes into a developing country, spills toxins into the water system, strip mines the land making it useless for any other purpose, clear cuts trees, and puts human lives in danger with abhorrent working conditions? Moreover, would Canadians want their taxes to be given to this company, as a subsidy or grant? I wouldn't.

There is only one snag I can see with the bill: it gives too much power to the Ministers in question. The Minister should have the power to make a recommendation on whether or not the human rights/environmental claim has merit or is false, but the decision should ultimately go to committee where it is debated and a ruling made by consensus. The criteria for decision making should be clear: what evidence supports the claim; does the claim have legal merit; and is the evidence sufficient given the size of the project and the scope of the violations?

People may balk at the "international environmental best practices" portion of the bill and think that is too open to debate. But you would be surprised at the amount of best practice and standardization literature there is out there (not to mention entire international organizations dedicated to the topic).

I'd like to know what Ignatieff's problems with the bill are? Harper doesn't like it because the "Coalition" likes it. Oh, and it would (apparently) put Canadians out of jobs. And it would make the recession even worse. According to Harper, our economy is run on giving government handouts to companies that commit human rights and environmental abuses in the developing world.

Ignatieff's stance, however, is more aloof. He probably doesn't like the attention it's drawing from the government. And since this is a private member's bill, all the parties will tell their MPs to vote with their conscious. Which in the case of CPC MPs means, "your conscious tells you it's bad;" and in the case of the LPC, "your conscious tells some of you to go pick up your dry-cleaning when the vote takes place."

It's a shame. It's a shame the Canadians will buy the "coalition" narrative if the NDP, LPC and Bloc actually support a private member's bill that asks nothing more of our government,than to not give our taxes to companies who exploit people in the developing world.

CGY & TO: A tale of two cities

2010-10-26T10:52:00.007-05:00

It's time to calm down. Does Rob Ford's victory mean a sweep of CPC candidates in Toronto EDAs in the next federal election? That's about as likely as Naheed Nenshi's victory in Calgary setting up the tent polls for Ignatieff's LPC in Alberta.

Everyone outside of Calgary asked the question: how could Nenshi have won?!

"I thought the city was full of tabbaki chewin', honky-tonk listenin', dungaree-wearin' rednecks?"

That's all I heard from friends in Southern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC. Lest they forget that Calgary has elected a Liberal mayor (the previous two were big L liberals at that...) since Al Duerr's reign beginning in 1989.

Is it surprising that Ford won? Yeah, I guess. Is it shocking that a Tea Partier found appeal in Toronto? A little. Where there are big cities, big politics is not far behind. And that's exactly what Ford did. He ran a campaign big on politics, small on substance. For a city that needs substance, Ford's victory may turn out to be a very embarrassing turn of events for Conservatives in Ontario should he royally screw things up. And I'm not talking about having difficulty with council - a difficult council could bode well for Ford and his Tea Party brethren at the provincial and federal levels. A council that won't cooperate only advances the narrative that more of the elitist bums need to be thrown out. That the "establishment" cannot see the forest for the trees and we need to continue the overhaul of every level of government.

While that is a difficult narrative for Harper to embrace, seeing as he currently represents the establishment, concentrated pockets of candidates in long-time Liberal ridings could be at risk. The long-serving CPC candidates in Western Canada - they're at no risk of losing their seat given their geography and vacuum of voter engagement. (Perhaps a couple of CPC incumbents BC and Winnipeg may be the exceptions.)

Will "Stop the Gravy Train" be the new slogan for the Ignatieff Liberals in Ontario? It could catch on. But it's a dangerous game to play. Energizing that kind of enraged, one-issue, voter is as likely to sweep you into power one election as it is to throw you out the next.

Could it get any worse?

2010-10-23T20:43:00.005-05:00

If it was not already clear that there needs to be some coaching changes in Saskatchewan - it should be blatantly obvious after tonight's embarrassing loss to Edmonton.

Is a 9 and 9 season possible? Who knows. The worst part of ending our season in this fashion, is that I believe that Rider Nation is getting a preview of the 2011 season.

If Taman won't fire Berry then Hopson and the Board should fire Taman.

Haven't you done enough, Kory?

2010-10-21T16:23:00.003-05:00

God love him! He never gives up. Well, almos t.

UN to Canada: Were Art Thou?

2010-10-20T09:31:00.004-05:00

Today's Globe and Mail describes a situation that is common to many UN peacekeeping missions in the global south: there's not enough equipment to get the job done.

This time, it's in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The hardware: helicopters.

With about 18,000 peacekeepers and an annual $1.3-billion budget, the UN mission in Congo is the biggest peacekeeping mission in the world. But the mission – known as MONUSCO – still lacks the resources to control the violence, especially in the war-torn eastern provinces, Mr. Meece said.

“In this vast area – larger than the size of Afghanistan – it is not possible for MONUSCO to ensure full protection for all civilians,” Mr. Meece told the UN Security Council last week. “To approach this goal would require vastly greater force levels and resources.”

If the Harper government was not hell-bent on the single engine F-35s, there could be a two-birds-one-stone rationale for putting that $16 billion towards drones and helicopters - stuff that can survey the Arctic and bolster our peacekeeping status in the international community. Hell, we might even earn a little bit of our respect back at the UN.

Those who think that Canada has no business being in the Congo have short memories. In 1963 Canadian Brigadier-General Jacques Dextraze (top left) was part of the UNs Operation in the Congo. He led missions to rescue group of NGO personnel, who were hostages of Katangan rebel forces. Nicknamed "Mad" Jimmy Dextraze for his daring and heroic rescues of women, children and clergy (nuns and priests), the Brigadier-General put Canada's peacekeepers on the map for being true humanitarians and defenders of freedom. He went on to serve Canada as Chief of Defense staff from 1972-1977.

If "freedom" and "democracy" are the key goals of Harper's foreign policy, then there is no doubt in my mind that we need another "Mad" Jimmy to do some of the heavy lifting in the world's conflict zones where women and children are oppressed; free speech absent; and senseless violence abundant.

The UN isn't asking for F-35s to level Kigali or Kinshasa or Mogadishu. We're not at the doorstep of war with Pakistan, or India, or Russia. The F-35s may be good politics for NATO - which we are already irritating with our 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal - but they ultimately are not going to serve the greatest need in the global south today: development and humanitarian assistance. If we are going to take a human security approach (which I would approach with extreme caution) then more practical military equipment is what the policy prescribes. And when you talk about advancing principles like "freedom," "democracy," human rights," "rule of law, "justice," etc., etc., you need to walk the walk.

But as we know, if there is one thing that this government is short on doing, it's walking the walk they talk.

Naheed Nenshi goes to City Hall

2010-10-19T08:57:00.004-05:00

Harvard educated mayoral candidate, Naheed Nenshi, officially becomes Calgary's 36th mayor elect after last night's stunning come-from-behind victory over his opponents Rick McIver and Barb Higgins.

McIver had parked his rear at City Hall as a councilor since 2001 earning himself the title of "Mr. No" before jumping into the mayoral race; a step up from his job as a meat salesmen in Woodstock, Ontario. Barb Higgins was all the star-power in this campaign as a former CTV television news anchor for over 20 years. Nenshi, a Mount Royal University professor (no, you're not dreaming - the mayor elect is a professor) won the election with 40% of the vote (read: more than Harper's government will ever get).

"Elites": 1 / Meat-selling, teleprompter reading conservatives: 0.

It's time to do this at the federal level Calgary!

The Albany Club hosts a Tea Party

2010-10-13T14:05:00.004-05:00

And invites Maxime Bernier to speak. His speech was laced with words like "intrusion" and "fiscal" and "responsibility" and "federal control" with very little said of "equality."

In essentially calling equalization payments unconstitutional Bernier must not consider the Constitution Act of 1982 part of the constitution.

36. (2) Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services and reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Huh... isn't that constitution the damnedest thing?

But wait... that was written by those fruity Trudeau Liberals in 82 and isn't really what Sir John A. ever had intended! Or was it....

Constitution Act of 1867 section 114 and 118, footnotes 57 and 58:

(57) The obligations imposed by this section, sections 115 and 116, and similar obligations under the instruments creating or admitting other provinces, have been carried into legislation of the Parliament and are now to be found in the Provincial Subsidies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-26.
(58) Repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1950, 14 Geo. VI, c. 6 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:

The following Sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several Provinces for the Support of their Governments and Legislatures:
                    Dollars
Ontario..........Eighty Thousand.
Quebec...........Seventy Thousand.
Nova Scotia......Sixty Thousand.
New Brunswick....Fifty Thousand.
--------------------
                Two hundred and sixty thousand;
and an annual Grant in aid of each Province shall be made, equal to Eighty Cents per Head of the Population as ascertained by the Census of One thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the Case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by each subsequent Decennial Census until the Population of each of those two Provinces amounts to Four hundred thousand Souls, at which Rate such Grant shall thereafter remain. Such Grants shall be in full Settlement of all Future Demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall deduct from such Grants, as against any Province, all Sums chargeable as Interest on the Public Debt of that Province in excess of the several Amounts stipulated in this Act.

DAMN!

As we can see, clearly the founding fathers of Conferderation had envisioned a role for the federal government in providing the provinces with capital for essential services from the national tax revenue. Since the 50's equalization payments have been granted as an articulation of Canadian and good ol' BNA conservative egalitarianism.

Dismantling equalization is not the way to "fix" provincial disparities, nor will it solve the "problems" of conflicting interests between the provinces and the feds on issues such as health care and education. It is a problem when someone from Lloydminster would rather go to Calgary or Edmonton for medical treatment than Saskatoon; or when a family from Manitoba moves to PEI and finds the quality of education below their experience in Winnipeg. Slashing equalization and setting the provinces "free" will not solve these issues - which transcend the provinces.

But, it's jump on the "Libertarian Bandwagon" now while confidence in Harper's leadership is low and the leadership positioning (otherwise known as knife sharpening) is tolerated, eh Maxime?

Blame HARPER!

2010-10-12T11:26:00.004-05:00

For the first time in UN history, Canada has withdrawn it's bid to sit on the Security Council. We lost to Portugal. Portugal ranks 36th in the world according to nominal GDP - the lowest of Western European nations by far.

Harper and his RoboCons will try to blame the Liberals. But clearly, Ignatieff has his hand on the pulse of the international community better than Harper (no real surprise there). Ignatieff just called it like he sees it.

This government has done nothing to justify being elevated to the powerful Security Council. The first step would be to actually have a foreign policy. Paul Martin was the architect of the G20 - a move which broadened representation to the BRIC countries. Chretien's greatest contributions came in the form of signing the Kyoto Protocol and siding with the UN to keep Canada out of the US-invasion of Iraq. Brian Mulroney was active in ending apartheid in South Africa through sanctions and was one of the first to open it's diplomatic doors to Russia and former Soviet satellite states after the collapse of the USSR. Trudeau reached out to China. Pearson was instrumental in the Suez Canal crisis. Diefenbaker committed peacekeeping troops to Cyprus and was very active in the Commonwealth Conference, who orchestrated a communique that blocked the application of Apartheid South Africa to the group. The question prior to the vote was, "What has Harper done?" and the answer is striking, "Nothing."

Harper has no one to blame but himself for this. If there was any doubt that this government has an air of entitlement to it, one has to look no further than their recent UN Security Council bid. Harper expected no less of the world than to select Canada for one of the non-permanent seats because we're Canada. This is arrogance, simply put.

Never mind the fact that this government has done everything it can to derail international climate change agreements since 2006. Never mind that Harper is justifying a $16 billion in F-35 purchase because the Russians are "at our doorstep." Never mind that this government has gutted our foreign aid department, CIDA. Never mind that diplomatic ties with the Mid-East and Two-State solution supporters has evaporated thanks to Harper's hawkish pro-Israeli foreign policy in the region. Never mind that Harper uses the UN, the World Economic Forum and other international talk-shops as soapboxes to smear his domestic opponents.

The international community doesn't trust us with a vote on the Security Council. Think about that. The world does not trust a Harper led Canada to be a voice for the international community. Ultimately, the UN doesn't want Canada on the UN Security Council because they know what they will get - and they don't want any of it.

No one is more to blame for this embarrassing slap than our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

Toews: There's only 1 way to skin a cat

2010-10-06T14:41:00.003-05:00

Here we are, Canada. Staring down the barrel of a $155 million price tag for more jail cells. 60% of that money will go to building new cells in existing prisons. The other 40% will be spent on new beds for our overcrowded minimum security correctional facilities.

And while the crime rate has been steadily falling, Vic Toews believes that the current crime rate is unacceptably high Canadians. The solution? More jails! The rationale being, people aren't safe in their homes. The proverbial mongol hordes are at the edges of society and the solution is to lock 'em up and throw away the key. Then, and only then, can we enjoy our lives in peace.

But if public safety is at the heart of this issue, wouldn't putting more people in jail only sweep the issue under the rug while ignoring the root causes of crime?

A survey conducted by Kovandzic and Vieraitis (2006), is based on county-level data from Florida for the years 1980 through 2000. They argue that while state-level studies of the relationship between changing prison populations and crime are a vast improvement over national-level studies, an even closer analysis at the local level is needed to really understand the impact of incarceration rates on crime. Removing selected offenders from a community should maximize the influence on that community's crime rate, an effect that may be greatly diminished (or even lost) using a larger geographic perspective. Additionally, at the local level, research can better control changes in other factors that influence crime rates, such as trends in community demographics, unemployment, income, poverty and the proportion of female-headed households.
On the basis of that logic, Kovandzic and Vieraitis used data from Florida to determine how changes in the number of county residents sentenced to prison affected the county's violent and property crime rates. They came to the somewhat startling conclusion that their study found "no support for the 'more prisoners, less crime' thesis." That is not to say that prison growth never reduces crime. They conceded that there may be some effect of prison population growth on crime, but "counties that relied most heavily on imprisonment as a tool of crime control did not as a result experience greater reductions in crime." In essence, there appears to be a point of diminishing returns on prison investments. The crime-control benefits of prison growth declined as a community relied more and more heavily on incarceration.

And if there was the need to put an exclamation point on this information Liedka et al. will suffice;

Liedka et al. (2006) found that, surprisingly, the effect of prison growth on crime diminishes as the scale of imprisonment increases. In fact, they determined that when the incarceration rate reaches a certain point (the inflection point), a further increase in prison population actually produces an increase in crime.

I cannot say that I am surprised. Nor am I particularly moved by Toews' insistence that there is only 1 way to skin a cat.

Harper's War on Information is becoming quite transparent. Yesterday Bernier confirmed it, today Vic Toews mans the cannon.

Now and Then with Jim Flaherty

2010-10-04T15:02:00.007-05:00

Wait a minute... I've seen this movie before. And as I recall, it doesn't end well for Canada.

Now: "Budget forecasts still on track," - Flaherty, October 2010

Then: "No global recession," - Flaherty, April 2008

Meanwhile, the myth of fiscal conservatism persists in the Canadian political economy...

Stuff Blogging Dippers aren't about to copy and paste...

2010-09-30T13:24:00.006-05:00

Two weeks ago all you would read from the Dipper contingency on Pro Blogs was the democratic superiority of Jack Layton and imminent collapse of the Liberal Party (at least morally). Today, EKOS debunks this punditry with their latest round of nation-wide polling.

The electorate is 'mildly polarizing.' Canadians are squeezing out Jack Layton’s New Democrats as the gap widens between his party and the two front-running parties, according to a new EKOS poll.
The latest survey, released Thursday morning, supports what other recent polls have shown – a worrisome decline for the NDP, which faces the possibility of slipping behind the Green Party.
The NDP is now at 13.5 per cent support compared to the 16.6 per cent support they enjoyed in the EKOS poll two weeks ago. Mr. Layton’s position on the long-gun registry – in which he refused to demand his MPs support it – may, in part, explain the decline.

Elizabeth May and her Greens, meanwhile, are within spitting distance of the NDP with 10.9 per cent, up slightly from the 10.7 per cent support they polled two weeks ago.

And the poll also shows that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have a huge lead over the NDP and Greens, polling at 33.1 per cent for the Tories compared to 29.9 per cent for the Grits. Both parties experienced slight gains from the last EKOS poll (32.4 per cent compared to 28.9 per cen two weeks agot), apparently at the expense of the NDP.

“The NDP and [Green Party] both seem to be being squeezed as the electorate is mildly polarizing with the front runners,” pollster Frank Graves says. “I don’t think [the electorate] has written off the NDP; it’s too soon to say that.”

However, Mr. Graves says if the New Democrats slip further the Greens could inherit the third party role. “As time goes on, their core issue and appeal to a younger constituency may tilt things in favour of the Greens.”

The pollster cautions, however, that these are still early days and the landscape could easily change. “I think the defecting NDP vote were highly-educated who have gone Liberal over concerns about guns, census, and related issues. The Liberals may be seem as a better bet to depose Harper. This may also explain downward drift of [the Green Party].”

The latest poll also shows a recent surge in support for the Tories in Quebec has come to a screeching halt.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Graves credited the Prime Minister’s musings about putting money into a new hockey arena in Quebec City for pumping up his party’s fortunes (the Tories enjoyed 21.1 per cent support in Quebec at that time).

But how quickly things change. Conservatives are now polling at 14.7 per cent in Quebec compared to 23.5 per cent for the Liberals, 40.1 per cent for the Bloc and 10 per cent for the NDP.

“It is plausible to speculate that their steep fall in Quebec may be linked to the gun registry debate,” Mr. Graves says. “Or perhaps the disappointment of seeing dreams of NHL franchises dashed so quickly.”

Meanwhile, it’s game-on in Ontario. The Conservatives and Liberals are in an extremely tight race in the vote rich province, with 36.7 per cent support for the Tories compared to 35.8 per cent for the Liberals.

The poll of 2,267 Canadians was conducted between Sept. 22 and Sept. 28. It has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Shooting himself in the foot: Stephen Harper not only lost his fight to kill the long-gun registry, it now appears the registry could cost him 20 seats and his dream of a majority government, according to new seat projections based on the EKOS poll released Thursday morning.

“The gun registry battle has not set the table for an ingenious stealth majority,” pollster Frank Graves says.

“Whatever possible gains that might occur in rural opposition areas would be woefully inadequate to get the CPC the 30-plus seats they would need under these numbers to secure a majority – and this is without even considering the possibility of losses in urban conservative seats now held by narrow margins.”

Mr. Graves’ seat projections give the Tories 123 seats, down sharply from the 143 they currently hold in the Commons. Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals would earn 26 more seats, up to 102 from the 76 they have now. The NDP, which only has 36 seats now, would see their representation in the House decline to 28. The Bloc would see its fortunes increase to 54 seats from 48 in Quebec, and there would be one independent MP.

“In fact, the clear conclusion is that the Conservatives have steered away from the brink of majority at the last election,” Mr. Graves says. “The current voter intention numbers would now place them numerically closer to the opposition than majority.”

Yikes! You know, it's not that I hate the band - it's the fans I have some trouble with. During the Dion Era, I blogged how Liberals would march behind their leader, no matter who he/she was and where they took the party. And while this is true to a certain extent of all political parties, the New Democratic Party of Canada was a strange animal these last two weeks.

First, they defended anti-registry MPs vehemently through with the "private member's bill" argument.

When pressed, there wasn't a single Blogging Dipper that would admit that letting the registry die was good politics for NDP rural seats. Quite simply, the registry was become collateral damage in their quest to form the Government-in-Waiting.

But, low and behold, their glorious leader Jack Layton flew in and saved the day by talking with his MPs and noticed that, hey, Stephen Harper was insulting them and their rural constituents! The registry is one kind of evil... but the Conservative government's approach to the registry is a greater threat to rural Canada.

At each step Jack and the NDP took in wading through the mess that became Hoeppner's quest to kill the long-gun registry, Blogging Dippers thunderously applauded while taking any chance they could to smear Ignatieff for whipping his caucus. There was no higher ground, no path too narrow, than the one taken by Jack.

And today, Canadians showed them their appreciation. Thanks.

If the long-gun registry is a waste of money...

2010-09-24T15:38:00.009-05:00

... then what words are CPC MP's using to describe the 1.2 billion dollar G8/20 Summits?

John Baird described the summits as "unprecedented" and that he is "proud" of them. Vic Toews echoed Baird saying that, "As host nation of unprecedented back-to-back G8 and G20 summits, we are proud of their success. As we have said all along, the majority of the costs for the summits were security-related.” Eventually, Rona flew into the discussion on her broom to add to the defense of the security costs.

And with that, I officially give up! The rationale of the 'fiscal conservative' is mind boggling in this country, and especially in Parliament.

Let me get this straight: the safety of police officers in Toronto for four days justifies $1.2 billion dollars, but the safety created by $4 million dollar/year long-gun registry is a "waste" of public spending? And concerning social policy, it's even more ridiculous. If the long-gun registry, by it's very existence, makes all duck hunters criminals; then what did the G8/20 security make the citizens of Muskoka and Toronto? Serial Killers?

For all the pundits out there that believe Harper is going to win the next election on his fiscal record and that the recent registry is just another victory notch in his pre-elections strategy belt; give your head a shake! At least, that's what I'm doing. Because I do not believe the public, after all that has gone on past 2008, are going to give this guy a majority due to anti-registry rhetoric and coalition fear-mongering all the while the economy is sputtering and he has not been able to keep his hand out of the public purse since he opened up the doors of 24 Sussex!

To quote Mugatu: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The battle was won

2010-09-22T18:04:00.004-05:00

But the War is not over. Harper's War on Information will rage throughout this next parliamentary session and set the stage for the final fight (a clash, some might say) in the next election.

Today's 153-151 vote was not only crucial for progressives all across Canada, but for our law enforcement officers. Today, the data needed for these men and women to do their jobs safely was saved. On a political level, this was a huge win for the Liberal party - Ignatieff especially. They've got to be going home tonight feeling confidant in themselves. They met Harper head-on. They did not betray their principles when they threw down. And you know what? They won.

In short: today's vote was a big deal for the Liberals as they prepare for a volatile session in the HoC. And good on the 6 NDP MPs who sided with the Liberals and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to keep this life-saving information at arms length of our law enforcement.

You know, the last vote I can think of that had this much riding on it (both in terms of party moral and social direction of the country) was Paul Martin's bill C-38 - an amendment to Canada's Marriage Act to recognize same-sex marriages, in 2005. That vote was decided 158-133 with 15 abstentions, which doesn't sound so dramatic unless you recall that the bill needed 154 votes to pass.

All in all, today has been a great day for progressives in the Canadian House of Commons!

Talking points and Base Issues

2010-09-22T16:29:00.006-05:00

A couple of thoughts just moments from Candice Hoeppner's (not so) private member's bill goes (hopefully) down in flames.

Concerning the CPC and former-NDP talking points: since when has the act of "registration" been equated with a declaration of criminal activity?

Manitoba Tory (Hoeppner) came out swinging against the oppositionp arties on Wednesday, calling the behavior of NDP MPs on the issue "bizzare" and saying the Liberals are content to criminalize "law-abiding citizens" who own guns.

I wonder if Hoeppner feels the same way about car registration? Or pee-week hockey registration? Or voter registration?

Anyone willing to learn about the facts and the sides of this debate will know: the Liberals are in favour of eliminating heavy fines and jail-terms for those who refuse to register their long-gun. They said that in April, they repeated in August, and they're saying it now. To characterize the Liberal position as "criminalizing" gun owners is being willfully ignorant to the LPC stance on the issue for the sake of scoring political points with the most uninformed of society.

Concerning base-issues and elections: do the Liberals already know the CPC strategy?

The Tories are warning opposition MPs the issue will be front and centre in the next election. Hoeppner says politicians who pledged to end the program — and then changed their minds — have lost the trust of their constituents. “Any time that we run for office, credibility is an issue,” she said Wednesday.

Is the gun-registry really going to be at the forefront of the Conservative platform? If we take Hoeppner and Harper at face value, then this could be an election issue. Maybe not a platform defining issue, but one that is certain to come up in key ridings. Perhaps all those "free vote" Dippers should pick up a pen and jot this down: scrapping the long-gun registry is a pillar of the Reform/CA/CPC philosophy.

One thing is for certain: this vote will define the strength of the Opposition. I've never been one to call for a party leader to have an iron grip on their MPs, but I really hope Ignatieff has all the votes locked down. The NDP sound very confidant and the Bloc, well, they've been in support of the registry since day-one.

And with that: let the voting begin!

I agree with Ed

2010-09-16T16:04:00.005-05:00

Ed Broadbent summed it up best when describing the state of Question Period in Canadian politics today:

THE PROBLEM – The real problem with the relevance of the House of Commons is that most Canadians don’t see themselves reflected there. Mr. Harper’s party obtained hundreds of thousands of votes in our three largest cities: Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. He has not a single seat in the House of Commons from the cities. Where is the voice of urban Canada in the heart of the government? The Green Party got almost a million votes, no seat whatsoever. So do those Canadians who voted that way see themselves?

THE SOLUTION – If you look at the experience in continental Europe, the parties do co-operate more, there is more civility, because they know that there is not going to be something called a majority government, nor is there likely to be in the rest of this century. They know they are going to have to collaborate more, negotiations aren’t a bad thing, and after elections they sometimes take weeks to put together a government. But there are either coalitions or signed agreements and people get more civility and more stability.

The other three former MPs interviewed by the Globe and Mail agreed that the Speaker has to get a whole lot tougher on MPs who try to score points rather than ask questions. Former Liberal John Godfry blamed the government for letting things get out of hand; and former Conservative Jay Hill placed part of his blame on the media.

Meanwhile, John Baird is singing the "Elitist" chorus of the CPC's anthem while at the same time telling Canadians that the Harper government is fixing their attention on the economy - not an election. I'll believe that when I see it. Because as we all know, Harper is using the economy to set the stage for an election. The economic in-action plan has as much to do with stimulating the electorate's interest in Harper as it does the economy.

Lastly, another Dipper comes to their senses and does the right thing: supports the existence long-gun registry. Apparently they have the votes. I'll also believe that when I see it.

Heads to roll in Saskatchewan

2010-09-12T18:06:00.008-05:00

What a disgraceful performance this afternoon at CanadInns Stadium in Winnipeg by the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Disgusting. Pathetic.

I was there. I paid my money. I showed up and wore green. And all the points the Roughriders could muster up for their fans was a big, fat, goose egg. That's right: 0. As in, NONE. Two safety's were the only points the Blue Bombers gave to the Riders.

Where to start?

Dominique Dorsey.

What the hell! This man's only job, his ONLY duty on the team, is to catch the football on a punt or kick off. Running some distance after the catch is always nice, but before that can happen you have to actually secure possession of the ball. Weston Dressler can do it. Stu Foord can do it. Hell, even JASON ARMSTEAD can do it! Dorsey, for whatever reason, seems inept in this position. He's the first person who should be handed a pink slip on Tuesday morning.

Doug Berry.

For a guy who cannot figure out the defensive schemes of his former team I bet he has no problem concocting ways to spend his pay cheque every week. To sum up Berry's calls: they're unimaginative. No clever tricks. No special plays. No "when the shit hits the fan and we've gotta pick it up" creativity. Nothing. Of course, it doesn't help when your O-Line is useless. Well, not useless, but completely SOFT against an opposing defense.

I'll give credit where credit is due, the Bombers played one hell of a game today. You know, they played one hell of a game last week too. They were due for a win.

You know, I remember the Roughriders' third win of the season like it was yesterday. Well, it wasn't yesterday but that's how it feels to recall the third week of the 2010 CFL season. So savor this win, obnoxious Bomber fans, cause the Blue and Gold are on a course for a 6 and 12 year. But no matter, reality will set in for the Bombers and their brand of "sophisticated" fans (unlike the "hicks" and "rednecks" from Saskatchewan - says the 1970's mustached, mullet donning, Labatt Blue double fisting father of three from North of Portage) travel to Toronto and then host Montreal.

As for the Riders; God help them. The next four games are played at home against Calgary, away at Hamilton, and then a back-to-back against Toronto. To go 3 and 1 in those games is a best case scenario after the way this team has played the last four games. And by "best case" I mean it is the record they'll probably have if they are firing on all cylinders.

Calgary is a must win. Hands down. And if it isn't a victory, they have to slaughter the Ti-Cats and put up real attempts against the Arogs to get some swag back. Cause after that they're looking at Calgary (home), Edmonton (away), BC (away), and finally Edmonton (home).

Is a 10 and 8 season possible? I hope, nay, I pray that it is. Four more wins. Can we eek those out? Can we possibly win FIVE more games? Our last three we have to go 2 and 1. We have to beat Toronto and Calgary once. Ideally, we'd take the season series against the Stamps, but that's looking to be unlikely (much to the shagrin of my friends from Alberta's real capital).

It's hard to type these last words I always end my usual Rider rants with. But if I can suffer today's loss, if I can sleep in my jersey after the Grey Cup debacle, then I can walk around this ridiculous town and say that I'm a Rider fan. And if I am feeling particularly depressed, I'll always remember better days.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

I'm not happy with the Roughriders

2010-09-06T13:17:00.005-05:00

Ah, Labour Day. When times were tough for the Green and White, we'd use to say, "If we're only going to win one game this year, it better be against the Blue Bombers on Labour Day!" Well, we won yesterday. Barely. And the worst part of it all, it actually looked like they were trying to win.

It is not as if the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are a bad team. They've had some bad luck. Some bad management. But I believe their coach Paul LaPolice is one of the best. If only there were a few more good bounces coming Winnipeg's way, the Bombers could be 6 and 3.

I've said it on other blogs and I'll say it officially now: something has to be done with the Saskatchewan play-calling. I was never a fan of Doug Berry when he was part of the Bomber squad and I'm not a fan of him now. If the Riders cannot sustain drives then, especially given their talent on paper, then I'm going to have to pin some of the blame on the offensive coordinator for not being able to access the opponent's D and exploit their weaknesses. Last year, with LaPolice at the helm, the offence was able to make incredible changes for the second half of games.

Yesterday, the Rider D made big plays when they needed to. Same with last week against Edmonton. And yet, the Special Teams play continues to be atrocious. Dorsey's fumble in the third was nearly the dagger for his team if it were not for Durant's fourth quarter heroics.

I would ideally like to see more production from Dressler and Cates as I think both of them are being underutilized. Cates only had 7 touches yesterday for a total of 15 yards. When Dorsey came back to Sask, I thought for sure the Riders would use both of them in the backfield every now and then. But, alas, we've seen very little of that. It is almost like there is too much talent on the Roughrider roster. A problem that is shared by Calgary, and yet, they somehow manage to blow out games and sit atop the CFL at 7-1.

The first half of the season was okay. There were some games we probably should have lost (our first to Edmonton) and some that we could have won (our second against Montreal). In between were moments of pure frustration and utter elation. Cates is poised to run 1200 yards and at least 15 TDs while Durant's TD/INT ratio is only getting worse. The ball will continue to be spread around between the Canadian Air Force and our star imports Dressler and Rodriguez, and the Special Teams play will most likely continue to be abysmal barring our blocking gets hit by inspirational lightening.

I hate to say it, but the Riders probably won't end the season at 12 and 6 or better. I'm predicting a 10 and 8 record to end the season with a Western semi-final win against Edmonton in Regina. Nine games ago I would have said that the Riders are poised to go back to the Grey Cup, but I think Calgary will represent the West this year and take it. Of course, that won't happen if Sask wins the next two games against Calgary. In that case, I might be so bold as to wager that the Riders will eek their way back to the Cup (since Henry Burris cannot beat the Green and White in the playoffs) with a regular season record of 11 and 7.

But I hope I'm wrong. I hope they go 13 and 5 and clean up in the playoffs. If Durant and his O-Line get a little sharper, if our receivers manage to get one more step on their opponents, and the D continues to be aggressive - we can do it.

GO! RIDERS! GO

Omnivore's Frustration

2010-08-30T15:59:00.008-05:00

I like to think of myself as a foodie. It's the posh thing for the urban, 20-something, academic to be. But in all seriousness, I've grown up in an ethno-religious culture that places faith, family and food all in the same circle. So it's not like I parade around as if I am some sort of connoisseur. Rather, my relationship with food is built around the tables I eat my meals on and who is sitting with me. Food, as an expression of who we are and how we relate to our family and the community, is the perfect expression of who we are as a people and the timeless avenue for growing relationships. Which brings me to the title of my post, the omnivore's frustration.

I dislike it greatly when vegetarians regard me as a "meat-eater" or "carnivore" when addressing which dishes were brought for them and which were prepared for everyone. Usually, it goes something like this,

Meat Eaters! Remember that the grilled vegetables and the rice casserole are for the vegetarians and if there are any leftovers once we have all had 'firsts' then help yourselves in moderation.

Ok, ok. I can hear your comments already. And, yes, I am going to make a big deal out of a "technicality." I am not strictly a "meat-eater" and I would, believe it or not, enjoy some grilled vegetables and the rice casserole, because when you think about it; the hot dogs and boiled corn do not constitute a balanced, well-rounded supper. In fact, corn is a grain and the hot dogs can only really be considered "meat" in the loosest of terms. I have no vegetables in my meal unless we count the sauerkraut. And yeah, the vegetarians do not have meat either. But then again, that's their choice to fore go that part of their diet.

My response goes something like this:

Vegetarians! Should you host a potluck or attend one, you ought to be prepared that all the omnivores in the room will want some of your vegetables because, guess what, we eat them. And if that means you have to make triple the recipe, then that's what you should probably do if you want to eat all you want. To call all omnivore's "meat eaters" really isn't the correct term. I know, you probably just singling out those who eat meat like you've been singled out all your choice-driven life but it doesn't feel nice. It goes beyond being rude and is straddling the realm of ignorant. And for a people that claim to be "all up" on the food "scene" you really ought to recognize your omnivore brothers and sisters as who they really are: vegetarians who eat nuts, fish, dairy, and meats.

Like any good host, one needs to be aware of their guests. I have a friend who is Muslim and does not eat pork, a distinction which I ought to keep in mind when having a party. If I had a friend who was vegetarian, I'd provide more than a garden salad and a bottle of Kraft's Ranch dressing. In fact, the majority of the food we eat should be nuts, fruits and vegetables. The best thing a vegetarian who is hosting a party can do, is serve a modest portion of meat for each omnivore to accompany a wide spread of vegetables, fruits, and dairy products. If you're serving meat explicitly, like a chicken breast or a pork chop, most omnivores will skip taking a generous helping of lentil soup or chickpea curry. And for good measure, just label those dishes as the "vegetarian option" on a card beside the pot or bowl and omnivores will get it. We don't live in caves (well, not all of us).

And that's my rant. To end, here's a variety of links that I found when Googling "omnivore's frustration" and other fun food related things.

Cheers!

Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan - Brought to you by The Sun Chaser.

Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals - Food from a factory farm point of view.

A response to Omnivore's Delusion - Brought to you by Food dot Change dot Org.

Where have all the Red Tories gone?

2010-08-27T13:41:00.010-05:00

It is not so much controversial being a member of Progressive Bloggers to claim Red Tory status, but I'll put it this way: it isn't praised.

Lawrence Martin asked the question "Is there an old-style Tory in the House?" in today's Globe and Mail. And I'm here to answer it: no, Lawrence. There isn't. And who is to blame? Unfortunately, Red Tories themselves, it seems. Well, some of us anyways.

The old Tories have few but themselves to blame for their demise, starting with the 1993 election when they reduced themselves to two seats. Another critical moment came in 2003 when they staged a disastrous leadership convention, electing Peter MacKay by way of a backroom deal with David Orchard. The party left that convention in no shape to continue on its own. This allowed Mr. Harper, the Alliance leader, to move in for the kill.

His dominance has been such that, even if he fell on hard times and decided to move on, the right side of the party probably would still be in a strong enough position to dictate a successor. Moderate Tories have a couple of potential leaders. One is Bernard Lord, the former premier of New Brunswick, who would be strong down east and in Quebec. Another is Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who’s trying to maintain his image as a major player while being given nothing to do on the climate-change file.
The question of whether old-style Tories can ever return to claim control of the party is of defining importance. The Canada we know was built by two moderate parties. It was a blend of the centre and the centre-left. If the old Tories don’t re-emerge, the Canada of the future will be measurably different – a hybrid of the centre and the hard right.

What Mr. Martin is calling "old Tories" or "old-style Tories" he really means Progressive-Conservatives or British North American conservatives. Is there a truly BNA conservative left in the Conservative Party? I doubt it. Even those who he has mused as potential succssors to Harper, Bernard Lord and Jim Prentice, would not alone bring the Conservative Party back into the realm of BNA conservative tradition in this country.

To do so the party cannot just hold a leadership change and claim that they are a new brand (or old brand, considering your position) of conservatism in Canada, they'll need to govern. And through governance putting forward a decidedly progressive-conservative cabinet. This new Red Tory PM would need to gut the Harperite and Canadian Alliance loyalists from the party by making it clear that they are not going to have cabinet posts. The guard will have to change.

Consider this, there are a dozen or so former Reform Party MPs still in Harper's government, some in Cabinet. There are a handful of former Progressive Conservatives, like Peter "The Worm" MacKay and Jim Prentice. However, both of these men have done little to shape this government's views on the issues of Foreign Policy, National Defense, Industry or the Environment that is remotely in the scope of progressive-conservative political tradition. They've kept their mouths shut and done what they were told. If either of these two run for leader of the post-Harper CPC, the real test will be their first two weeks as Prime Minister, if they ever get the chance. A dangerous experiment, I know.

And so, I propose that there are very few, if any, Red Tories left in the government. But the few that are do have shining moments. I'd propose that Scott Brison is one of them. Ralph Goodale would have made a great Red Tory. Garth Turner, but he's gone. Jean-Pierre Blackburn could be in the Red Tory camp given his previous tenure in parliament under Mulroney and his loyalty to federalism during the Bouchard revolt. Keith Martin (although he started out as a CA MP). Flora MacDonald flies the Red Tory flag in the Senate.

After that, I can't think of very many. Men like MacKay and Prentice are considered Red Tories or BNA conservatives by default, however their actions in this government have proven that they are more willing to take their lumps from Harper if it means being in cabinet. There are a number of Liberals and New Democrats who, if they were born in a different decade, would have made cabinet with a number of Progressive Conservative governments. The same goes for a number of Green Party members. Former GPC leadership candidate and right-hand-man David Chernushenko would have made a fine PC.

The ultimate test of the PC/CA merger will be the face of the CPC when Harper is gone. The party has not put together a real plan for governance since the 2006 election, and even that is questionable. The CPC has relied on one crucial pillar to their election strategy: we're not Liberals. Remind people that they are NOT Chretienists or Martinites and that will suffice. After all, it was the Liberals that drove the PC and CA parties (despite the PC membership) together in the first place!

What was the 2006 election won on...? Policy? Cutting taxes? Leadership? No, no and no. It was won by the very fact that Stephen Harper was not a Liberal. And the Liberals were equally as policy inept as all they could muster was a tired "hidden agenda" chorus. 2008 was decided on perceptions of leadership; which pitted "weak" Liberals against "strong" Non-Liberals - Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Policy be damned! To hell with a "vision" for the country! What the CPC is built on is an identity that is "not Liberal" and nothing else.

Letting Harper walk and flushing the party of Harperites and Canadian Alliance loyalists and putting policy first is what will need to drive the progressive revival of the CPC in a Post-Harper party. Anything less and we'll see another Reformer leading the party and the relaunching of Canadian Republicanism.

CPC v2.0 is going to be years away, my friends. Which will trigger responses from Liberals, Greens and New Democrats which will hopefully lead to a better result than that of January 2006.

Police Chiefs: Enemies of the Harper State

2010-08-24T10:53:00.011-05:00

The War on Information rolls on.

First it was the Blitz: a "Shock and Awe" campaign to blindside policymakers, industry, churches, universities and the general public by castrating the mandatory long-form census.

As things spiraled out of control, Harper sent in the troops led by General Tony Clement. Casualties began to rise. Canada's Chief Statistician resigned. And so, Tony marched back to the House. Only a small group of Francophones found a "chink" in the chain of Tony's armor. However, the diversion was exactly what the government needed. Tony shuffled some questions to appease this group while the issues remained in silence.

All was quiet on the Western front. And the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police blasted the government opening up a second front Harper will have to fight in the War on Information.

"Our support for the long-gun registry is because we use the information contained in that registry virtually every day -- we use it over 11,000 times a day,"
"Our police officers use that information to conduct criminal investigations, they use it to keep communities safe, and they use it to keep themselves safe."
Association members voted on a resolution based on that report, calling for improved communication with police officers and the public on gun-safety issues, better information and intelligence sharing, improved training and operations, as well as the association's "support for the retention of the Canadian Firearms Program in all of its components, including the long-gun registry," Blair said.

The association voted unanimously to adopt the resolution, which calls on police officials to promote the registry's value to both politicians and the public.

The CPC drone turned libertarian will bark that regardless of the CACP's support of the registry it costs too much and that farmers are being victimized through fees and threat of jail time for non compliance. (Sound familiar?) They'll also claim that criminals do not register their guns so how useful can the registry really be?

I had an experience with these situational libertarians. You know, the type that doesn't think same-sex couples should have the ability to get married or that a mosque should be built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero - meanwhile, voter-based subsidies and long-gun registries are socialist programs designed to privilege the liberal "elite" and stomp on the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

Libertarian X feels that the gun registry is an intrusion on their life. They shouldn't have to face fees and the possibility of jail should they not tell the state if they have a gun in their house. After all, owning a gun is their business and since they are a law abiding citizen the state should have no reason to be suspicious. In fact, Libertarian X would go so far as to say that when the government starts to monitor the guns civilians have, we are witnessing the beginning of a police state.

But I ask every situational libertarian a hypothetical for their "principles": If you were a cop and were arriving on the scene of a domestic dispute, would you want want to know if there was a gun in the house?

For years I came to my mailbox and received 10-percenters exclaiming that the local Liberal MP was "soft on crime." Today, the government will dismiss the concerns of the CAPC. Conservative supporters will claim that the police are here to serve us and will do as they are told by their legislative masters.

It is clear that in the case of the gun registry and the census the government is ignorant to common sense, rational thought, practical applications. Straight up: good judgment is thrown out the window.

I want to be clear, the direction the government is leading the country in is dangerous. The origins of this War on Information are becoming clearer. Certain governance mechanisms, the long-form census and the gun-registry, are perceived by this government as Liberal institutions regardless of the universality of their application and use by both public and private sectors. Eliminating these mechanisms serves a dual purpose: I.) it affirms a base that has been largely ignored by this government since being elected in 2006; and II.) actively skews information available to ministry staff, placing greater discretion on the opinions and beliefs of elected officials in policymaking.

One of the father's of Canadian foreign policy once said, "when threatened, people in power often regard the truth to be so precious, it needs to be protected by bodyguards of lies."

I believe this ought to be the tagline for Harper's War on Information.

The CFL needs the Tiger-Cats

2010-08-15T14:22:00.003-05:00

If the City of Hamilton and Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young do not come to some agreement, we could see the loss of another historic CFL team.

The 12-3 decision by Hamilton City Council to put a new stadium on the West Harbour, to kick-start a downtown renewal, isn't the ideal place for Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young. The city and the 'Cats have seen 10 proposed locations for a new stadium in Hamilton, but only 1 does not work for the team: West Harbour. And while it will provide the city with a new foci for a new 21st century downtown (have any of you been to downtown Hamilton lately?), the West Harbour location is difficult for Tiger-Cat fans to get to and would not give the team the financial edge needed to compete with their opponents in the league.

I'm not saying the city should do whatever Bob Young wants, because it's pretty tough to justify a brand new stadium for a team that only brings 9 games of 25,000 fans to the site; but losing the Tiger-Cats in Hamilton would be a huge blow to the city and it's history.

There are rumors that the team would go to Quebec City or Halifax or Moncton if a deal isn't reached. But as many TSN analysts have said, why would Young move the team from a city with an inconvenient stadium to another with no stadium at all? Furthermore, sites like London, Quebec City, Halifax and (dare I say) Victoria; are great places for the league to expand, not to absorb current teams with historical baggage.

As Ottawa prepares to bring the CFL back to their city in 2013, Bob Young is threatening to move the Tiger-Cats for 2011. This is counter productive to the vision of the league that many of us have: a league with 10 teams.

Five in the east (Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax/Moncton) and five in the west (BC, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg). Twelve teams are possible if Quebec City or London become interested in having a team in the east; and if Victoria ever finds it palpable to have one for themselves on the island (with a metro population of 300,000 the fan base is certainly possible, yet, the question always rests with corporate support). (The only other Western location for an expansion team would be Saskatoon . But we all know they would never choose to cheer for a team other than the Roughriders.)

Losing the Tiger-Cats would be a devastating blow to the CFL and set back the reality of a new expansion team in the Maritimes considerably. If a location like Hamilton, with it's rich CFL history, cannot sustain a team and a stadium, the possibility of a new expansion in Halifax/Moncton would be bleak.

I urge Tiger-Cat fans to email their Mayor and City Councilor and urge them to find an agreement with Tiger-Cat owner Bob Young. Young has done a lot for the city since 2003 and he's prepared to do a lot more should the deal be done right. Urban revitalization is important, nay, it is key to the future of a city like Hamilton. However, taking the Tiger-Cats out of the picture is stripping away part of the past on a gamble that the future won't need them.

Like the caboose of a train...

2010-08-11T20:03:00.006-05:00

Diane Ablonczy will plod along with the rest of her comrades in the Harper Party and do as she is told and support the changes to the long-form census.

It must be hard to wake up everyday and go to work when you know that upon your resignation a Jack-O-Lantern could run as the Conservative candidate in Calgary Nose-Hill and win.

Here's the email that was sent to me a few days ago from Jason Ritchie on her behalf:

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Hon. Diane Ablonczy, regarding your concerns with the recent announcement of changes to the 2011 Census that made the filling out of the long-form voluntary.

The government’s reason for replacing the mandatory census with a voluntary national survey is clear. We do not believe that it is appropriate to compel Canadians, under threat of punishment, to divulge extensive private and personal information.

The data collected through the former long-form census will now be collected through a new voluntary survey, called the National Household Survey. The questions that will be asked in the new Survey are identical to the questions that would have been asked in the mandatory long-form census.

I have shared your e-mail with Ms. Ablonczy and she appreciates you taking the time to share your thoughts and advise with her.
Once again, thank you for writing to Ms. Ablonczy.
Sincerely,
Jason Ritchie
Executive Assistant
Hon. Diane Ablonczy, MP
Minister of State (Seniors)

It is only fitting that the entire country be run the same way as the Conservative Party of Canada, the blind leading the blind.

Things the census (mandatory or voluntary) doesn't tell you

2010-08-03T16:11:00.003-05:00

Well, Stockwell Day has recently fired the first real shot at the credibility of the census in Harper's War on Information.

Apparently, people are not reporting enough crime. (Like getting your neighbour blacklisted as a terrorist or Liberal.) And therefore, we need more prisons for the convicts that are not being reported. Ah, the logic.

Meanwhile, the Treasury has frozen the budgets of nearly every government department. Except for the 9.89 million dollar budget for a team of media and political advisers needed in the Prime Minister's Office. Go figure.

The War on Information is underway. More media straight from the PMO. Statistics Canada gutted. And when the facts don't fit the fury of Harper's ideology, they'll just cook the books to rationalize spending billions to imprison criminals that no one is reporting.

Welcome to Harper's Canada.

My Census Email to Peter Braid (CPC - KW)

2010-07-24T18:28:00.008-05:00

Mr. Braid,

I am writing you today as a concerned constituent who believes that making the long-form census voluntary will have a number of ill affects on Canadian society.

Making the long-form census voluntary defeats the purpose of having a census at all. If only those concerned about filling out the census fills it out then the data being collected will be skewed. Secondly, the sample size of the statistical information will be reduced considerably by making the reliability of any data collected questionable.

Consider this, if you received a mandatory short-form census and a voluntary long-form census, which one would you be more likely to fill out and send away? I believe the government is being naive in thinking that the same, if not more, households receiving the long-form census after 2011 will complete it and send it back to Stats Canada.

As an academic I value Statistics Canada greatly. Throughout my master's program and work experience I have used statistical data from Stats Canada on a regular basis. Eliminating the mandatory long-form census will hurt the future of young Canadians studying public policy and the integrity of think-tanks in Canada.

As a parliamentarian whose constituency comprises of two universities, I implore you side with the integrity of education. It would be shameful to remain silent on the issue when so many of your constituents use Stats Can. information everyday to educate the future generations of Canadians. People come from all over the country to attend the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, let's not deprive them of the best education and the accurate statistical tools they need to learn.

I find no cost benefit for making the long-form voluntary, nor can I see any practical reason beyond mysterious complaints from disgruntled individuals. There are bigger fish to fry than the long-form census (I believe income trust taxation is one of them) that have far greater implications on Canadian households than filing out a form that is beneficial to so many sectors of the Canadian economy.

I urge you to break with Tony Clement's ranks and side with reason. Please show your support for keeping the long-form census mandatory.

Dylan

Words never spoken by PM Harper:

2010-07-22T18:01:00.010-05:00

"I was wrong."

If it was not so sad it would be funny. Helena Guergis wants to reach out to her former party and have a sit-down, face-to-face meeting with the PM. Whoda thought that the RCMP would clear Helena? Surely not Harper and his crack squad of "shoot first, ask questions later" staffers.

Good luck Mz. Guergis, cause you'll need it. By taking you back into the fold the PM signals to the public, and his party, that he was wrong and that he took bad advice. Most importantly, it shows weakness and bad judgment. How can the Pope of Canadian Republicanism be fallible? Has the RCMP unwittingly found a chink in the chain of this master tactician? Maybe...

I always thought that Harper's minions would be the ones to embarrass him and screw up his plans to become Canada's natural governing man. But I never thought he'd pave the way for them.

The return of the Rough Riders? Dream on!

2010-07-22T12:49:00.003-05:00

The CFL sportsworld is buzzing over what to call the 2013 Ottawa CFL team. When the league awarded a new team to the national capital region they did so on the condition that the Saskatchewan Roughriders had a veto on the Roughrider name (and variations of). Is that fair?

Of course it is! The Ottawa Rough Riders folded! The franchise, brand, and name died 15 years ago and since then the Saskatchewan Roughriders brand has been reborn and is flourishing. Moreover, the Green Riders have had 100 years of the name behind them. The Ottawa Rough Rider name appeared on the football radar sometime after 1926 (when they were known as the Ottawa Senators).

Reading the opinions of Ottawa football fans in comment sections makes me think that at the heart of all the name angst is not the name "Rough Riders" being dead and gone, but rather team ownership and management that couldn't hang onto a team for the 1997 season and beyond.

Suggestions for a new name? I like the Ottawa Raiders. This way, the signature white "R" could be reused. It's close enough to "Riders" to ruffle a few feathers in Saskatchewan (mine excluded) and most importantly, it's a classic sports franchise name. Names like "Renegades," "Mad Dogs," "Enforcers," or "Galaxy" will be come dated within the next 10 years. I also like the idea of the new franchise being called the Ottawa Falcons.

I'll admit, I was a little disappointed that there won't be another team of "Riders" in two years. It was pretty unique for a league of 9 to have to two teams with the same name (or moniker at the very least). But then again, I bleed Green. And in the final analysis I wouldn't want anyone mistaking a Rider to be some bureaucrat eating lunch on the the Rideau canal.

Who knows, maybe when Moncton gets a team they'll name their team the Argonauts and we'll finally have our league niche back.

RIDER PRIDE.

Burgundy is the colour; football is the game!

2010-07-19T17:50:00.005-05:00

They looked smashing in their burgundy and black uniforms two days ago when they clawed their way back from a 14-10 halftime deficit to beat the Edmonton Eskimos 24-20.

This week the Saskatchewan Roughriders look to gain some space between them and the #2 Calgary Stampeders. I'll predict a close win for the Green and White given 3 factors: our running game has been fantastic, we've been putting pressure on opposing QBs, and the secondary has had been great at forcing turnovers.

Four-and-Oh!

GO! RIDERS! GO!

GPC: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

2010-07-13T20:52:00.003-05:00

It might be a little late to comment on the recent fervor surrounding Elizabeth May's leadership of the Green Party; but I've got some time on my hands tonight.

Look, I'll be straight with the readers of RCI: I had a pretty unflattering post about E-May when she won the GPC leadership in 2006 over party stalwart David Chernushenko (the candidate I supported to succeed Jim Harris). Since those days, I have become very fond of Mz. May, and I think she is exactly what parliament needs.

I cannot comment on the conclusion drawn in the Toronto SUN that there is "constant infighting" in the GPC, but I can say that without Elizabeth May at the helm of the party in the next election - they'll lose all visibility. Canadians are used to seeing a leader stick around for a while, run in a couple of elections, and gain trust with the public. Changing the guard every 2 or 3 years might be good grassroots politics, but c'mon! The Greens have to run with the big dogs now, make a game plan to last half a decade, and stick with it! This is especially true given that we will probably be staring at the ballot box within the 12 months.

Was the departure of Jaques Rivard, May's deputy leader in Quebec, a "last straw" for grassroots members? It shouldn't be. Rivard justified his move by stating that the Greens could simply not serve the environmental interest of Quebec like the Bloc. I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

First, the "environmental problems" confronting Quebec are much bigger than Quebec - they are much bigger than the federal government; they are global. And to align with a separatist party to achieve these environmental goals over that of another federalist party (such as the Liberals) doesn't amount to beans. Now, it is true that separatism is far down the list of things that Gilles is concerned with. But that is not the story with the PQ which adds a twist in the already interesting situation brewing at the provincial level. Rivard's move smells of opportunism in Quebec, but does that translate to the situation of the GPC at the national level? I'm not entirely convinced at this time (although, they did take some regional hits in the last EKOS poll which is linked in the post below).

Looking in the rear-view mirror is only so good if the party can learn something from it in going forward. First of all, May should have been focused on BC since she won the GPC leadership four years ago. Yet, she had to run in London North in 2006. Was her decision to run against MacKay a game-killer for the Greens? Maybe, but she came closer to defeating the CPC incumbent than any other progressive candidate in the last decade. But was it ultimately a waste of resources? Perhaps, but what was her chances of knocking off ANY Conservative incumbent last election?

I believe May has built up some pretty good momentum heading into the next election. The party needs to run candidates in 300+ ridings again. It would be nice to see them in the debates for a second campaign in a row, but that is unlikely to happen. So she needs to have a tight, focused, campaign that puts her at the centre of the action in the Saanich Gulf Islands. If she wins, she stays on as leader. If she does not, it would be time to go back to the drawing board.

The bus to nowhere? Putting policy in the driver's seat.

2010-07-13T20:16:00.009-05:00

I'll come right out and say it. I want Igantieff's cross-Canada bus tour to be a smash. Now, I'm not a Liberal. But if I was, I would be rallying all my friends and family to come out and support the team when it rolls through my town. Because that's exactly what this tour needs to do: energize the Liberal Party. The battlegrounds have been set since the last election: BC, Ontario and Quebec.

If we are to take the latest EKOS poll for the terrible news that it delivered, the LPC should be concerned. They do not lead in any region of the country. Apparently, there is a 12 point lead for the CPC in Ontario; a neck-and-neck situation between the LPC and CPC in the Maritimes, with the NDP running away with things; Quebec support for the Liberals is only 5 points above the CPC (and nearly 25 points back of the Bloc); and the picture in BC shows growing separation between the CPC and the LPC/NDP. The prairies and Alberta show the Liberals in second place, but just by a hair to the Greens in Alberta.

So what is this bus tour worth? To get all his ridings onside? To test the waters for an election? Those goals are very well and good, except this bus has to be going somewhere other than a six week gripe-fest against the Harper government. By which I mean the Liberal Express needs to be showing Canadians new things about Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. New, policy oriented, things.

I've argued in the past that Ignatieff does not want to show his hand about everything right away, and I maintain that there will be plenty of things that he doesn't say on this tour that will have progressives calling him a hack, lazy, undirected, and sliding into political irrelevance. Which is why he has to give us something. ANYTHING. Just a taste of what's to come. After all, you don't tell the audience that Bruce Willis is a ghost before the previews end.

And when I talk about "something" I do not mean speeches about how terrible Harper is. Nor do we need more words like "change" and "hope" and "future." We need some numbers too. Numbers that will make the CPC and NDP crunch some of their own in order to make a rebuttal. Moreover, he needs to unveil some new and exciting Liberal positions for his own candidates! These men and women have nothing right now! How can they go door-to-door looking for new members and new volunteers when they have nothing to offer their constituents besides the same old "Harper stinks" mantra?

Igantieff needs to find his niche - the thing that makes him a real alternative to Harper. The detainee issue isn't going to be it. Economic recovery isn't going to be it. Foreign policy could be it, but Canadians don't care about that kind of stuff (moreover, it would probably just act as another stanza to the "just visiting" chorus from the galactically stoopid).

I hope that this bus tour can reinvigorate the debate about what direction the country wants to go in and then kick it up a notch with hard facts, innovative ideas;,and the building blocks for an election platform. To do that, Ignatieff needs to put policy in the driver's seat. By only going so far as to say that "ideas" need to propel the LPC into 24 Sussex is going to make this tour a waste of time. Let's hope (no pun intended) that this bus is really going somewhere this summer.

Misinformation: "G20 Repression"

2010-07-06T10:04:00.006-05:00

Today I received an email from the KW Anti-Torture Coalition, a decent group that I believe does mostly good work. The email was a call for participation in a rally on Wednesday for "Justice for Our Community Against G20 Repression." Similar headlines were made in the past few weeks by student newspapers with taglines such as "G20 police brutality." These headlines and titles for rallies are, in my opinion, misleading and misinforming the public as to what the G20 is and the circumstances that led to the curbing of Canadian civil rights in Toronto a few weekends ago.

The headline "G20 Repression" makes the G20 seem as if they are the group doing the repressing. The G20 is not an institution. The G20 is the grouping (or gathering) of 20 heads of states from the world's most powerful economic countries. You can liken the name G20 to that of a moniker - the meeting of heads of states happen all the time in Davos, in Washington, in New York, etc.; without rioting and mass protest. The G20 is not the World Bank nor is it the World Trade Organization. Their "market power" is incredibly weak - states may or may not do what they pledge at these meetings. The importance of the G20 is bringing together emerging developing states from the global south (China, India, Brazil) and the developed world to meet each other in an informal setting so that in institutional settings we can understand one another better.

People talk about the G20 as if it is the Legion of Doom. As if they meet all the time and are plotting against the world, or in collusion with "the banks", of have some grand scheme to enslave people. The G20 does not exist outside of the G20 meetings. That's why the "G" in G20 stands for "Group of."

The G20 has a number of uses for global governance and for the global citizenry - yet, as long as the focus is on a Seattle circa 1999 blackened police vehicle and everyone is talking about how terrible the "G20" was on our civil liberties, the bigger picture is being missed.

The group responsible for police brutality AT the G20 meetings in Toronto were the police groups and private companies that were hired to quell the sit-ins and marches. The repression that took place AT the G20 meetings in Toronto must be answered by the people in charge of these police forces and, ultimately, the federal government for organizing the security forces.

What hand can anyone say German chancellor Angela Merkel had in the "G20 repression" KW Anti-Torture wants to protest against? She a part of the group that, apparently, was repressing protester's rights, so, let's haul her to the Hague!

People have to start remembering that the police brutality and rights abuses that happened at the G20 by police and private law enforcement companies may have been done so because the G20 was in town - but not because of G20. The secret laws passed in the Ontario legislature to give police enforcement sweeping powers to investigate and detain anyone they want to in Toronto and Muskoka over the four-day stint was not, and is not, G20 meeting procedure. Dalton McGuinty and Stephen Harper have to answer to that.

Let's protest the fact that our provincial and federal governments think they can strip away our civil liberties, our rights and freedoms, just because they want to put on a good show for 19 heads of state. Going so far as to claim that the abuses that occurred in Toronto in June 2010 is a symbol of the G20 is plain old ignorance. It's a symbol of the Harper government. It's a symbol of the Ontario government. Creating a police state to have a four days of meetings in downtown Toronto in June is not acceptable. The meetings themselves are, in fact, acceptable to the public if they do not cost 1.2 billion dollars and people are allowed to go about their daily business without being detained by the police.

Is that not the message concerned citizens want to send? Or are so many people truly too confused about who and what the G20 is, that they'll equate an elaborate cocktail party with a black tower and a boardroom full of blood swilling vampires? Gimmie a break.

1.1B before and after...

2010-06-25T20:03:00.005-05:00

Before, 1.1B was the amount the Harper government was spending on G8/20 security.

Now, the new and improved 1.1B is the exact amount that the G8 will pledge for maternal health in the global south.

You thought 1.1B was ill-spent. Now you know 1.1B is being spent on women in poverty. Got it?

Good.

Harper statistically tied with hypothetical LPC-NDP Coalition Government

2010-06-24T17:47:00.013-05:00

Listen up!

Deep in the recesses of the poll released by EKOS today is the question: If you were forced to choose between a government led by Stephen Harper and a coalition government made up of Liberals and New Democrats and led by Michael Ignatieff, which would you prefer?

Harper Government: 38.8%
LPC-NDP Coalition Government: 38.6%
No Response: 22.6%

Support for a coalition government led by Ignatieff is strongest in Quebec. Respondents in Alberta and Saskatchewan/Manitoba strongly favour a Harper government (no surprise). However, support for a coalition government vs. another Harper minority is a statistical tie within the margin of error for respondents in BC, Ontario and the Maritimes. Of those who would prefer a Harper government, 40.3% had an education of a high school diploma or less compared to 34.4% who have a post-secondary education. A "three-times a charm" Harper government also garnered the most support from people aged 65+. Coalition supporters came largely from those who are university educated (50.7%) and found the most support from people aged 25 and younger. Perhaps It seems to me that there is certainly a generational aspect to this poll that ought to be explored further. Do these trends indicate that by the time I am between the ages of 45-64 coalition governments will be a staple of the Canadian political economy?

However, the circumstances by which said coalition government would form would definitely have an impact on the 22.6% who did not give a response (my theory: those who had no response wouldn't care as long as the process to determine the next PM and the parties that govern is transparent and legal).

So, does this open up the "merger" talk again? Maybe. But that being said, the question was not "who would you vote for between a CPC candidate and a hypothetical Liberal-Democrat candidate?" so we cannot really use this poll to support merger talk.

We can, however, also get a glimpse at what a single-transferable-vote electoral system would yield: more LPC and NDP candidates with fewer Conservatives and BQ MPs. Among Liberal voters 38.7% would vote NDP as their second choice; while 30.4% of Dippers would cast their second ballot for a Liberal candidate.

And for some comic relief: 51.1% of Conservatives do not have a second choice between the LPC, NDP, GPC, Bloc, nor any "other" party that could potentially be on the ballot.

To my surprise, the GPC did not pick up more second choice votes. The Greens' highest block of second-choice votes would come from New Democrat voters at 22.8%. Meanwhile, only 26.3 of Green voters would list the NDP as their second choice (which was well above the 15.3% the LPC received and 10.9% the CPC garnered). Green voters had the second highest "no second choice" of all committed voters at 36.5%.

And, believe it or not, 61.1% of undecided voters had no second choice.

Coalition governments, electoral reform and Iggy as PM... oh my! Lots to comb through in this week's EKOS poll. This will give me plenty to rant about for the next 7 days.

Shorter Fillibluster: Foreign Policy doesn't matter

2010-06-21T20:34:00.005-05:00

I'm a little stunned by Fillibluster's popular post today which blasts Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for talking about foreign policy.

Oh ye of little faith.

Apparently, foreign policy isn't "on the radar" of Canadians. According to the Nanos list, neither are Afghan detainees - but don't tell progressives that or they'll have a fit. Indeed, there are as many Canadians who are "unsure" as to what the most important issue should be, as there are those who feel that the environment is the #1 concern. So... theoretically, foreign policy could outrank the environment in the next election. Or education. Or Taxes. I'm just saying.

If you ask progressive voters, and I'd go so far as to say past-Liberal voters, foreign policy has to be on their list of priorities for any Canadian government. Moreover, if you were to ask the average Canadian to what extent they believe Harper has improved Canada's image abroad (on issues such as poverty, climate change, security) they might not give the current government a passing grade.

Enter the Liberals.

The Liberal Party is a foreign policy party. Well, old-school Liberal governments were foreign policy minded. Moreover, even Mulroney's government was interested in foreign events and Canada's role in the international community. This began to fade under Chretien (as domestic issues such as the 1995 referendum and the Mulroney debt) and has fallen into a coma under Harper. Indeed, Harper struggles overseas. He is fumbling the G8/20 meetings right now. He cannot talk about climate change anywhere outside Ottawa or Alberta. Afghanistan is a quagmire for his party. The only thing he wants to talk about with other leaders - the only international platform he wants Canada to stand on is the bank tax. Taxes.

Are Canadians concerned about our image abroad? I'm sure of it. Do they want the Afghan combat mission extended? I don't think so. However, would Canadians mind Canada contributing to global security as peacekeepers? I'll bet they do. If progressive Canadians could choose between our foreign policy being aimed at trade agreements with states that are committing gross human rights violations; or directed towards helping the poorest of the world's poor in Africa; I'd guestimate that they might lean towards the latter.

I suppose the question I'd like Nanos to ask is: do Canadians want Canada to be a global leader in the 21st Century?

Now, you can put that up against: is health care a greater issue facing Canada than foreign policy? And I'm sure health care would win. But that doesn't mean Canada, or the Liberal party, or any federalist party shouldn't put out a foreign policy platform.

Progressives should be mindful that Harper doesn't have a foreign policy. And that this has contributed to our embarrassment on the world stage. We've lost our place in the world and I think it's about time the Liberals stepped up and have claimed foreign policy as one of their issues to champion. If it brings back former-Liberal votes, it'll win half a dozen close seats lost to the CPC in 2008. If it's strategically placed within a comprehensive platform that hammers away at Harper's mismanagement of the country, it could bring them back (albeit by minority) into power.

EKOS delivers good news for progressives

2010-06-17T22:15:00.004-05:00

While the Liberals are stalled at 26% (plus or minus 2) and the Conservatives keep slipping as the summer session draws to a close (from 31.7 to 31.4 to 30.5) the most encouraging part of today's poll from EKOS is that Canadians no longer equating the success of the country to the current government.

The poll also suggests that close to half of Canadians (48.9 per cent) feel that the country is moving in the right direction while 38.6 per cent say it is moving in the wrong direction.

Similar to previous weeks, more than half of Canadians (51.5 per cent) feel the government is moving in the wrong direction, compared with 36.6 per cent who say the government is moving in the right direction.

Since June 3 - the beginning of the end of Harper's insurmountable lead over the LPC - the number of Canadians believing that the country is heading in the right, and those who feel it is going in the wrong, direction have roughly stayed the same.

In the last two weeks, support for the direction of the country has gone from 49.2 to 48.1 to 48.9. Those who believe the country is going in the wrong direction have gone from 39.1 to 39.4 to 36.6.

Yet, support for the direction of the government has dropped from 38.9 to 38.4 to 36.6. While angst over the antics of the government have grown from 48 to 48.6 to 51.5. No longer is the "new" Conservative government the savior of the country.

The name of the progressive campaign game has to be all about Harper's mismanagement, misrepresentation, and misdirection. The country is recovering despite the efforts of the Harper government. Hardworking Canadians can pat themselves on the back for this and they should be leery of Conservatives taking the credit. We, as a country, as Canadians, worked together to climb back from the worst recession since the 1930s - and Canadians deserve a parliament that works together. Not a parliament "led" by a government shrouded in deception. Leadership goes beyond covering your ass. Leadership goes beyond micromanagement. Leadership goes beyond having the country on election standby.

Leadership means change. Changes to our social safety net to make things more fair.

Leadership means vision. Vision for our domestic economy and our place in the international community.

Leadership means action. Action towards a greener planet, a safer world, and broadening trade with our neighbours near and far.

Competing visions and competing ideas of leadership should drive the next election. Some may call this competition a "war." Some may say this competition goes so far as to try and define who we are as a people - as a distinct place in the world with a distinct identity and culture.

All we need to do is wait for the next statistical tie in the Fall.

Pulling the ripcord, and THEN jumping out of the plane

2010-06-08T20:47:00.008-05:00

This is getting out of hand. And Conservatives everywhere have to be killing themselves laughing. Gearing up to the most expensive G8/G20 Summits in the history of the meetings, "anonymous senior members" of the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada are seriously entertaining the idea of merging the two parties. And why, pray tell? Because Ignatieff is in the process of being written off as a leader who can win an election against Harper.

I want to know, where this is coming from? Glancing over all the EKOS polls published by the CBC, the Conservative's watermark for the year 2010 is 34.4%. And that was just a few weeks ago! The latest poll, which puts the CPC at 33.9 and the LPC at 25.7 (+/- 2.1%) had over 14% of those polled say they didn't know who they were going to vote for!

Over 50% polled believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and 48% of those polled said the government was headed on the wrong track.

The majority of the year, from the looks of things, puts the LPC and CPC around the 31-29% range +/- 2% points. The message: no one is particularly attractive to voters. The result of the next federal election is likely to be decided by fewer voters than in 2008 and is most likely going to produce a minority government.

Yet, people concerned with politics rather than the country are plotting. This is what happened when the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives "merged" in 2003. Winning became the biggest goal, and in 2004 Harper was one of the "losers" as the Liberals formed the government for the fourth time in a row.

In 2005 Harper went on the BBQ circuit and dressed up like a rodeo clown to court voters. Going from neck-and-neck with the Grits when the election was called in November, his party trailed in the first half of the 2006 election and then... BAM! The NDP called in a favour from the RCMP and the next thing you know, Goodale is being falsely accused of insider trading and the CPC is up 8 points in the polls. Overnight. Yesterday's man, Stephen Harper. "Mr. Nobody-Will-Ever-Vote-For-You-to-Govern" became the guy to beat. Martin strummed a guitar and delivered his resignation three weeks later.

While the idea of a merger is nice and all - this is not the time. It'wasn't the time before 30 Liberals abstained from the budget vote and it wont' be the time after the G8/20 meetings.

Nanos analyzed electoral cooperation. Looked good from both the New Dem and Liberal supporters. Conservatives hated it. I say, let's go from there.

(And while we're at it, why not make Saanich-Gulf Islands a two horse race: May vs. Cannon.)

Chretien was Smarter. Period.

2010-06-08T11:24:00.015-05:00

When I first heard that the 2002 G8 Summit was coming to Kananaskis, Alberta, I thought to myself, "Let's see those hippies torch a Starbucks now!" Chretien was on point when he sought the pristine Alberta mountains to host the G8 leaders for a number of reasons.

First, it was remote. While this is good for the politicians attending the event, it also has security benefits. Security was easy to restrict seeing as how there's pretty much one road in and one road out. Furthermore, it was unlikely that large numbers of protesters would bushwhack their way to the resort causing a wake of environmental damage on their journey. Second, it was easy to restrict airspace over the resort. Lastly, it showcased the natural beauty of Canada.

The total security tab for the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis: 300 million. So much for those "big spending" Liberals.

Contrast this to Toronto, where Harper is hoping to grab a seat next election (check that: any election).

The G8/G20 Summits are not only excruciatingly expensive, but they will disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people going to work, school, a baseball game or to the grocery store. Should a top-secret, glorified photo-op be this much of an fiscal and social inconvenience for North America's fifth biggest city? I dont' think so. Neither did 2002 Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Days spent hosting 20 world leaders: 4.

Cost to securitize Toronto: 1 billion.

Fake Photo-Op Pond and indoor "Experience Canada Ally": 2 million.

Accusing the Liberals of being big spenders: PRICELESS.

Pat Martin and I finally agree

2010-06-07T19:05:00.005-05:00

"I think the Conservatives can't wait to get out of here and change the channel and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts we never come back," Mr. Martin told The Hill Times. "Sometime late in the summer or early in the fall, Harper will meet the governor general and say he's lost the ability to govern and we should go to the people."

Bingo. Steve's gonna try and party like it's the pre-recession summer of 2008.

Let's just hope Iggy doesn't fumble and pass him the clicker.

Ignatieff understands Legitimacy

2010-06-06T15:11:00.006-05:00

Finally! Iggy comes clean on his stance on coalition governments and the latest rumors of an LPC-NDP merger.

Sticking to the "coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" stance, Igantieff reiterated that he'd only enter into a coalition agreement if that's what was "in the cards." In other words, if voters respected the coalition government proposal and wanted it to govern.

As much as I wanted Dion and Layton to force Harper's hand in 2008, with the proroguing of parliament it was a clear signal that the GG would not have granted a coalition between the Dion Liberals and Layton New Dems the chance to form the government. We would have faced an election and the way the polls were leaning, it would have been a massive Harper majority. Proroguing parliament was the best thing that happened to progressives in Canada because it gave us some ammunition to aim at Harper all the while avoiding a crushing defeat at the polls.

Steve should have asked for an election and skipped the prorogation BS and rolled the dice that perhaps Jean would have granted the LPC-NDP a six month stint as the government and then rallied an election around one word: legitimacy.

Igantieff understands that the Dion-Layton agreement was sound in principle, but not among the majority of Canadians. Polling did not indicate 62% approval of the coalition deal, meaning that there were Liberals and Dippers that did not believe Dion should be PM and that the New Democrats should have their hands on the cheque book. It's unfortunate that this was the electorate's position, but that's that.

Will Harper play the coalition scare-tactic in the next election? Sure he will. Will Igantieff and Layton counter with the British example? They'd be smart to be united on this front to give voters the chance to see that cooperation is possible. (That is, if the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK is successful.) Will this mean soft Liberal votes will go to Harper? I doubt it. Cooperation will probably sway Green votes to the Liberals or NDP in strategic ridings (as this has been the trend in the last two elections despite the GPC being the only party to gain votes in the two previous elections).

Ignatieff needs more face time in Parliament and his Liberal Party needs to put out press release after press release during the summer to initiate discussion on the issues that matter most to Canadians: the economy and health care. He needs to hammer the government on their maternal health debacle and stand strong on climate change mitigation. Instead of waiting for juicy soundbites from the Conservative caucus ('cause Lord knows there are plenty of 'em) the LPC needs to be about sound, principled, pragmatic policy. When Canadians ask themselves: who is the most practical leader right now? They need to answer: Igantieff.

His position on coalition governments and mergers is just the first step in this direction. Let's hope there aren't any sidetracks between now and September.

Harper places abortion and climate change on the same level

2010-06-05T12:56:00.004-05:00

According to the stagnant Conservative government they've managed to dodge "thorny" issues such as abortion and climate change at the G8 and G20. Now, I understand that there is a certain unpleasantness surrounding the abortion debate. I get that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue for nearly every government and elected official on the planet. Therefore, the easiest issue is to hide behind some smoke and mirrors and pat every activist on both sides of the debate on the head as much as you can.

Despite framing the maternal health agenda as being a health issue, Harper cannot seem to shake his pro-life supporters from inserting their moral agenda into the G20. Straight up, he's afraid of alienating his base even though he has a great way out in framing abortion as a health issue.

Similarly, one could frame Canada's action against climate change. The government says that it will act towards mitigating climate change as long as it does not hurt the G20 economies. Alright, so this is an economic issue. And perhaps it ought to be.

However, if climate change goes unchecked - if abatement does not start immediately for the developed world; then the costs could be as high as 1.9 trillion annually in 2100. At current growth rates, that is 3.1% of global GDP, or, 1.8% of US GDP/year in 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, etc. A 1m level in sea rise would be disastrous for American, Chinese, Indian and Canadian coastal cities: not to mention low lying areas in Europe and the developing world. What would the cost of new levees in New York, Boston, Miami, Halifax, and Vancouver be? What about hurricane damages? Increased droughts in the developing world, placing pressure on international assistance?

The target most countries are talking about today is 0.5% of GDP. Putting this amount towards climate change mitigation efforts right now is still 0.2% less than our commitment to the developing world agreed upon at Glen Eagles eons ago.

Will 0.5% have an effect on our economy? You bet it would. Would it be better or worse than a nearly 2% effect 90 years from now? We can only speculate that future generations will be wealthier, but I doubt the wealth of the Canadian population in 2100 would be great enough that committing 2% of our GDP would be a drop in the bucket. Moreover, the action required in 2100 without changes to developed and developing industry practices would mean excruciatingly expensive measures in 2100 like building levees, accommodating population movements, etc. Moreover, it would be unlikely that the risks associated with new green technologies would simply go away at a time of crisis - therefore, making it harder for populations and governments to invest.

Framing is everything, but Harper just cannot seem to figure that out when it comes to real issues and not smearing his opponents for political gain. If you were to ask the CPC to spin the issue of Ignatieff teaching at Harvard - they know exactly what to do. If you ask them how to spin parliamentary conventions (such as Coalition parliaments) they've got the tools to convince the public it's a coup d'etat.

Ask Harper to frame maternal health and climate change? One is a health issue limited by moral shout-downs from his base, and the other is an economic issue cooked up by dishonest scientists and Europeans to cripple the "West" - regardless of the non-partisan scientific and economic research to the contrary.

Harper cannot get out of election mode and it is to the detriment of the country. Would things be better if he had a majority and then he would not need to lean on his cushy 25% legion of supporters? I doubt it. If anything, we'd get more stalling, more brazen arrogance, and even less action to save our children's future.

Same-Sex Marriage: still an inconvenient truth (for some)

2010-05-12T22:20:00.007-05:00

Some crusades just won't end.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) will appear before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Thursday, May 13 and Friday, May 14 in a case involving proposed legislation that would allow the province's marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex "marriages" because of sincerely held religious beliefs.
In July, 2009, Justice Minister of Saskatchewan, Don Morgan, asked the Court of Appeal for an opinion on the constitutionality of the potential legislation. Morgan told the media that his government intends to fulfill its promise to provide a religious exemption to marriage commissioners, and to settle the issue with legislation. This is intended to resolve the situation that has seen marriage commissioners sue the provincial government over its insistence that they perform homosexual "marriages."

It is not so much enraging as it is sad. How is it that some marriage commissioners are actively seeking to simply ignore a part of the law because they don't agree with it? It's an outrageous proposal, no matter how "fundamental" that disagreement is to their core beliefs.

Would it be okay for a marriage commissioner to refuse to marry an interracial couple (above) if they really, REALLY didn't think it was an appropriate lifestyle choice? Or a couple that has a child out of wedlock? Or an older man/woman to a younger partner?

Of course, the Evangelical Council does not present the issue to be this black and white. It is far more complex - think about all the other government employees whose freedom of religion and conscience is being oppressed by the state!

“If neither of the proposed options is found to be constitutional, the limitations on religious freedom will not only affect marriage commissioners but could well impact any Canadians working in the public service,” explained EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “It would mean that government employees would be expected to check their beliefs, religious or otherwise, at the door, if inconsistent with their government employer.”
“Somehow, they perceive the right to freedom of conscience and religion doesn’t apply to an employee in a public role. That position is inconsistent with the Charter and Canadian jurisprudence. Human rights and employment law jurisprudence has well established that a Canadian, whether working in the private or public sector, may object to performing a task if it is contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs. To strip all Canadians who choose to serve the public in a government accredited role of their Charter rights is ludicrous.”

Now this is really pushing the boundaries of acceptable interpretations of the law. Of course public servants are allowed to exercise their freedom of conscience and religion in the workplace - no one is asking a person to check their worldview at the door when they come to work at 9am. However, everyone is bound by the laws which govern this country.

Listen, I don't think that may taxes should go towards the military and other implicit and explicit violent uses - but that doesn't mean I have legal grounds to NOT pay my taxes all together. That would be tax evasion, even though I am in my rights to exercise my right to conscience and religion in everyday life.

Moreover, when domestic rape was included within the scope of sexual crimes it might have rubbed a few cops the wrong way. Even a couple of judges who think what goes on in the bedroom between a husband and wife is their business. But the definition of rape is what it is and there is a legal obligation to uphold the law. If marriage counselors in Saskatchewan do not want to perform gay marriages then they should quit their jobs. They can take it up with the government, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't personal. They're not priests or pastors and marriage is a religious institution. Their job is to provide legal proof of a union between two people. Not to bless them, nor wish them well, nor stand before them in the eyes of God and all in attendance. In fact, to get "married" in Saskatchewan here's the process:

Both parties must appear in person (or one party needs to complete the “Non-Attendance Before Issuer Of Marriage Licenses” form) before the local issuer of marriage licenses and provide the following:

birth certificate and government issued photo identification;
written parental consent if under 18;
proof of divorce or annulment (original or certified copy);
proof of death of previous spouse is not required, but you need to know the exact date and place of death.

And as for the "act" of "marrying" that the Evangelical Fellowship is trying to protect their clients from having to perform under the auspices of freedom of conscience and religion entails:

Bringing the prospective spouses to complete and sign the statutory declaration in the presence of the marriage license issuer.
Reading the declaration to the parties to prove that they fully understand the content.
And finally, reading the "Degrees of Consanguinity" which may bar the solemnization of the marriage. (This includes prospective spouses who are related to each other in the following ways through whole blood, half blood or adoption; grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, son, daughter, granddaughter, grandson, brother, sister.)

Wow. How morally trying and religiously charged. My order at Starbucks is more personal and emotional than getting a marriage license from a public servant.

I sincerely hope the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rules against the EFC and their ridiculous crusade to marginalize the realization of the human rights of same-sex couples.

Get out of town: CPC is undemocratic

2010-05-11T11:15:00.006-05:00

I guess after all the controversies surrounding Rob Anders, Garth Turner, Bill Casey, and Mark Warner that Helena Guergis would have received the memo by now.

Under the glossy veneer of "populism" and "grassroots" politics is the uncomfortable reality that the top brass of the Conservative Party of Canada has an iron grip over their candidates, members of parliament, senators, and, to a lesser extent, their riding associations (that is, until the shit hits the fan).

After Stephen Harper dumped Helena Guergis (one of the party's trophy MPs) she recalls at how "undemocratic" the process of her termination really was:

The former minister for the status of women accuses the Conservative Party of treating her unfairly.

"I feel as though they've thrown the rule books out the window, that they're not respecting due process at all. I find it very undemocratic.

"I'm hurt by the prime minister. I am hurt because I did consider him to be a friend
"I feel as though I've gone through a trial, I have been convicted and now I'm been sentenced. And I still don't know what it is I'm supposed to have done." as well, so I find that very hard to deal with."

See, the problem here is that she's appealing to Harper's feelings. Which, according to most of her own supporters, is not a priority in a real "leader."

Among committed Conservative voters, "honesty" was the most important attribute in a leader with 45% of those polled followed by "intelligence" (23%), "decisiveness" (23%), "do not know" (8%) and lastly, "compassion" (5%).

More people do not know what is the most important attribute in a leader of a political party than "compassion." Go figure.

"If people in your family make mistakes you don't turn your back on them," Guergis said, pausing to fight back tears. "You stick with them and you work through it and I am committed to my marriage."

So play your little violin Helena. Go ahead and talk to the media and do all the TV interviews you want. You are, check that - you were just another cog in the Stephen Harper party and now that your usefulness (or the acceptance of the inane antics of your family) has run its course you will be replaced by someone just as good looking and probably just as qualified.

I applaud Guergis' determination and her commitment to her marriage. Those are the kinds of principles that I like to see in any representative. It's just too bad they came up a little short in her career as a public servant.