Friday, April 29, 2011

I'm Afraid

  • I don't disagree with anything you say, Lester.  It's just that I have to be careful with what I write.  If I write out anything too critical, too outspoken, it could be seen and I could lose funding for my company.  I could lose my job and the people employ.  I think you're brave, aren't you afraid that by being outspoken you might not get grants again?

I am afraid of that.


Angry Bairds

Okay, this should lighten up this blog just a little bit.  In case it doesn't...you have no sense of ridiculousness.

Apparently a number of young Liberal Party coders put together their take on Angry Birds...aptly titled Angry Bairds.  Basically you set up John Baird in a slingshot, while PM Stephen Harper looks on, and attempt to make cuts at organizations like the Wheat Board, Veterans, Health Care and the Long Gun Registry.

John Baird was appointed in 2006 to the Treasury Board.  In May of 2006, Baird was told to cut one billion dollars out of the budget.  He did so, announcing them on September 25th, the same day the Conservatives announced their 13.2 billion dollar surplus.  He announced he'd made cuts to sixty-six programs, including Status of Women, museum fundings, adult literacy programs, youth employment, social development, BC's ongoing pine beetle crisis, and most keenly the Court Challenges program.

Following the Cabinet reshuffle in 2007, Baird was reappointed to Environment Minister.  He is a vocal opponent of Kyoto, noted by environmentalist David Suzuki as being a 'disappointment'.  Target goals released by Baird are to cut emissions by 2020 or 2025, a full eight to thirteen years longer than were outlined in Kyoto.


  • Al Gore famously criticized Baird's plan, calling it "A complete and total fraud." and "designed to mislead the Canadian people."

Baird championed cuts to research in Canada on climate change, a move staunchly opposed by industry experts.  He was derided internationally at the Bali Climate Change Summit, and at the Cancun Climate Change Summit, Canada was awarded the three Fossil of the Day Awards.  Awards given by 400 international NGOs which recognize countries who have done the most to disrupt or undermine UN climate talks.  The Canadian government, under Baird, is noted at Cancun as being the only country which signed weaker greenhouse gas reduction targets.


The Game Here
http://www.angrybairds.ca/

Wikipedia Article on John Baird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Wikileaks Takes Aim At CPC

It's nice to know that I'm not the only critical one.  The American government's Ambassador has apparently some interesting words for the Conservative Policy of late:


  • "they have used the crime agenda to great effect, making it an essential part of their 'brand,' in spite of the fact that they have not actually passed most of their proposed crime and security legislation,"

Written by US Ambassador to Canada, David Jacobsen.  He also said:


  • "The PMO apparently provided no explanation why it will end up waiting four months to enact its own sentencing credit law, but the delay has not prevented the PM from using crime — and the bill — as a partisan issue and to prep for imminent Senate appointments,"

The US Embassy also had this to say about the Senate controversy.


  • A leaked cable from December 2008 suggests that U.S. Embassy officials in Ottawa saw Harper's appointment of senators as "a major about-face for a PM and a party that long campaigned for an elected upper chamber. The cost of the eighteen new senators also conflicts with political messaging about the need for official belt tightening."


Take from it what you will, it is a wikileak, which some people deride as being nothing but contextless statements, but they were just recently released.  Also the later part of the cbc article and leak itself on Laureen Harper is just silly.


WikiLeaks takes Aim at Conservative Policy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-wikileaks.html

Conservative Majority To Protect Our Border?

This one is stretching a little thin.  Anyone watching the Conservative war room of late has noted an increasingly desperate message of "We need a majority to-" The ends to that sentence are rampant.  Keep taxes low.  Protect your pension.  Buy fighter jets.  Okay that last one they haven't directly said, but have at.

Anyway the next one is that the NDP are not interested in maintaining our border...against our American Invaders.  That's right.

Well that's not exactly the message being sent, I'm being sensationalist.  But Harper is talking about how jobs are linked to our American counterparts.  And how the earlier trade agreements signed this year help foster growth while protecting security against 'terrorists'.

Except that border, customs officials, and local offices aren't biting.  Noting that constant reduction over the last year has trimmed their jobs, closed entry points, and forced office hours to slim.  We'll see if this latest rhetoric will hold any weight, but I am forced to at the very least ask:

We live in Canada, since when has working together become so repugnant?  Why do you need a Majority, Mr. Harper?


CBC Article on Border Jobs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-harper-ndp-1148.html

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

On The Choice of Vote

While my blog has been notably...let's say anti-Conservative, and pointedly anti-Harper.  I have generally attempted to not be particularly partisan in my support of either Liberals, NDP or Green.  Or Pirate for that matter, although Mikkel Paulson has struck me as a rather nice and well-informed guy.

The reason for this is that there are a multitude of salient points which should influence any Canadian citizen on who deserves their vote.

First and foremost, let me say that even though it is perceived as naive, I honestly believe that the Candidate matters as much, if not more than the party.  The particular Candidate you vote for must be someone you believe will represent you.  They and their party might not agree with every point you and your fellow constituents perceive, but their job is to represent you.  You elect them.  Don't let them ever forget that.

In Calgary, I voted in past elections against Diane Ablonczy.  Over the course of my adult life, I have written in excess of a hundred physical letters, innumerable emails, and made a daunting number of phone calls.  Diane Ablonczy, the incumbent Conservative MP of Calgary-Nose Hill has never responded to any of my concerns with anything more than a form letter.  When parliament was prorogued last year, approximately 5000 fellow constituents of mine in Calgary - Nose Hill wrote a substantial petition and signed it, we received no response to our inquiry other than that it had been received.

I truly believe, truly, that Diane Ablonczy values her party above her constituents.  And that if push came to shove, if our entire constituency rose up in referendum over an issue we took particular umbrage against, I don't know what that would be, but if it occurred, I fundamentally do not believe she would cross the floor and represent our views.  I believe her party ties to be stronger than that of any sense of civic responsibility to her constituents.  Certainly since I came of majority, all my inquiries have been steadfastly ignored, disregarded, or marginalized.

This year, I am voting in Edmonton City Center, as has been my home for the last three years.  I am blessed in that there are two candidates whom I truly believe listen.  Who will accurately, and fairly represent the constituents if they were elected.  Mary MacDonald and Lewis Cardinal are challenging Incumbent Laurie Hawn.

So I believe the first choice should be who your candidate is.  It's hard to not be partisan about this, but the awful truth is that generally Conservative candidates have a bad history of choosing party over constituents.  There are far fewer cases of Conservative candidates crossing the floor than there are liberal ones or independents.

The second thing is to recognize that there are two wars of policy being fought when it comes to the parties, and by extension their leaders.

The first one is more straightforward.  It is the economic one, the fiscal one.  Literally the platform upon which the parties reside.  The truth is that I will confess, I am generally fiscally a Conservative.  I would prefer if the government intervened less in taxation, I do think there are a number of sectors and industries that can govern themselves and regulate themselves accordingly.  You have to think for yourself and find out which party generally aligns with your beliefs.  Do you support public healthcare, private, or a mix of both?  What do you think of crown corperations?  Do you think big business should be taxed more or less as a cost of existing in our nation, do you think it's fair what they pay now, do they not pay enough, do they pay too little?

What about education, veterans, First Nations people, do they deserve money, do they deserve attention, or should they be self-regulating.

I am naturally of a skewed opinion in that I literally work in the arts and culture industry, I deal with that sector every day of my career, and have seen the continual decline of it since the Conservatives took power.  In that sector, I believe government intervention is necessary.  That government intervention isn't or shouldn't be in the form of payouts though, just because I'm an 'artist' I don't expect someone to just hand me a cheque.  Rather we need to form organizations, granting agencies, cultural connections between our own nation and the international stage, we need to create lasting impressions and exchanges of art to enrich both our lives, and the lives of the greater human condition.

EDIT:  I also want to point this out.  Fiscally, Harper inheritted a fairly stable economy.  Over the previous four years of the Chretien/Martin Liberal tenure, the liberals had managed to eliminate 42 billion dollars from the deficit.  It was their own deficit to be sure, but the economy was on the upswing.  Martin was also the one who instigated tighter banking controls that had helped weather the Canadian Economy.  As of January 2010, the federal deficit did an abrupt turnaround down 36 billion dollars.  How much of that you attribute to the recession, conservative or not, is your own business I suppose.

The second war of policy is considerably more obfuscated, more grim, and more difficult to understand.  It is no less important.

What I am about to say will sound to a great number of people as being sensationalist, partisan, 'dramatic' or any other number of words that are of similar nature.  We live in Canada.  Our rights, and freedoms, are being slowly eroded.  A small nip here, a tuck there, an incident here, an event there.  Tiny moments, tiny things, incidences that reveal a changing world.

A girl had a picture on facebook of herself and Ignatieff.  An officer took her name, screened her, looked at that facebook picture, and had her removed from an event for students.  A peace officer literally went online, searched out her name, saw an image and violated her right to attend a rally her peers were allowed to go to.

On June 26th and 27th of 2010, 1105 people were arrested, detained, denied representation for hours, without formal charge.  They were detained on cold concrete, packed in so tightly that often there was not space to sit for hours, without access to food or water.  Widespread reports of police brutality surfaced, police told protesters on multiple occasions that martial law had been declared, (which was wholly falsified), abuse of female detainees.  Amnesty International, called for an investigation, which has not happened.  At one point, facing accusations of brutality Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair unveiled a number of items he alleged were seized from protesters, when confronted however he confessed some items were unrelated.

Diplomat Richard Colvin brought allegations that the Canadian Forces were at least somewhat, if not wholly complicit in the handing over of detainees, many of whom proved innocent, for systemic torture by Afghani forces.  Colvin alleged that the torture involved beatings, whipping with power cables, the use of electricity, knives, open flames, and rape.  In an EKOS poll, 83% of Canadians surveyed believed that the Canadian government was aware that torture was going on, and were at least partially complicit in a war crime.  Instead of going right to the heart of the allegation, Harper instead chose to prorogue parliament.  The High Court of Whales has since corroborated Colvin's accusation, and predicts with a high degree of probability that torture occurs in Kandahar.  While the first specific allegations of abuse surfaced more than three years ago, there has been no official public inquiry. MPs in the House of Commons voted 146 to 129 in favour of a motion to set one up, but the Prime Minister has refused to consider it, stating that "the government of Canada has taken all necessary actions in all instances where there is proof of abuse of Afghan prisoners."

In 2007, The Canadian Association of Journalists awarded Harper the Code of Silence award, for literally maintaining his "white-knuckled death grip on public information".  They cited that the Prime Minister's Office regularly demonstrated contempt for the Public's right to know.  They followed this up in 2010 with an open letter, as seen here.  During the early part of the election, reports were notably kept in 'steel pens' at a stop in Halifax.  Since the election has gone on, the Prime Minister only accepts 5 questions per stop, all pre-approved.  Once when confronted with recent controversial issue over support from a terrorist group, media and campaign managers incited the PC crowd to cheer, drowning out the journalist.  

The problem is that are perceptions of these incidents depends on our own personalities.  Some people fundamentally believe the government is filled with idiots, certainly that is one perception.  Another is that they are maliciously whittling away social rights, norms, and values in order to push their own agenda, whether that be Fundamentalist, Pro-Life, Anti-Gay, what have you.  What I submit though, is that more troubling than any particular 'stance' or 'spin' as it were, is that there is a flagrant disregard for Democracy in the way our government is run.  As Canadians, we should be almost up in arms.  Every single one of us, every single one who reads this blog is practically a second-class citizen in Canada.  We are abused, and at the behest of government politicians seeking to build upon their own legacies, reap the rewards of their social positions.  We are made to think, throughout our lives that we will never be able to aspire to politics, never be able to grasp at politics.

The vitrol of the media is pointed as such, as youth we are told endlessly that we are uninformed, that we are too young, that we have not paid enough in taxes to truly understand.  It's not that hard, Canadians.

The truth is there, all over.  Read what's out there, talk to your peers, have an opinion, think about what matters most to you.  The choice of vote is yours, and yours alone to be exercised.  We live in a time when you can access every and any form of media at your fingertips, global tv, ctv, cbc, newspapers, national post, blogs, twitter.  Everyone is saying something about this election.

It's yours to listen to, and to shape.  That's who you should vote for.

Vandalism Hits Closer to Home Today

An Edmonton Businessman in Strathcona was vandalized sometime before Tuesday morning when his NDP sign and door were spraypainted, with the words 'Anti-Alta'.  While it is difficult to picture Ryan Hastman with a balaclava and a can of spray paint, likely the grafitti was done by some young punk with too much time on their hands over Easter weekend, the words themselves have touched off a whirlwind of debate about what 'Albertan Interests' are as far as political parties go.

Disenfranchised Albertans have been coming out to Advance Polls in droves, whom they've voted for will continue to be a mystery until Election Day, but the debate rages about the fiscal perogitives of the CPC.  Questions about the oil-sands and development of our Albertan north are among the foremost of many Albertan citizens.  And the hotly contested battleground of Edmonton-Strathcona is one of three that may be indicative of changing public opinion.

Regardless, we hope the police catch the vandal and put him or her to work with a bucket of soapy water.

Catch The Keys Megan Dart Talks Wrecking Ball

I couldn't attend Wrecking Ball on Monday due to being under the weather, but Catch The Keys Organizer Megan Dart graciously caught me up to speed and answered some questions about the Political Arts Event that took place all over the country, and right here in Edmonton at the Avenue Theatre.

A big thanks to the Wrecking Ball Team, All the Artists Involved, Catch the Keys, and Megan Dart for the following interview:



Tuesday, April 26, 2011

aurora torontrealis: 2011 Election Endorsement (La plainte d'un jeune c...

aurora torontrealis: 2011 Election Endorsement (La plainte d'un jeune c...: "If you read the news, you're probably aware that after the 2008 crash the financial problem was 'fixed' by injecting skrillions of dollars i..."

Advance Polls Report 34.5% Jump

Breaking news in Canada.  The preliminary Advance Poll numbers are in, and over Easter weekend, more than 2 million Canadians made it out, all over the nation to vote.  Almost unilaterally (except Nunavut) all provinces showed increasing numbers of Canadians voting in the Friday, Saturday and Monday advance polls.

The number reflects an almost 34.5% increase in voter turnout from the advance poll in 2008.  Numbers like that could be an early indication that Canadians are passionate about their country, and are taking the time to ensure their voice is heard!

Elections Canada has noted that the number may change, and final tally's will only be available once the boxes are opened on May 2nd.  Some stations have not reported in either yet, these are still preliminary.

The Elections Canada Media Release
http://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=apr2611b&dir=pre&lang=e

The CBC Article on Advance Polls
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-advance-polls.html

The Ongoing F-35 Debate

It has occured to me that many Canadians are not sure why the government came down when it did.  The response I most frequently hear is that the opposition defeated the minority over the budget.  That is technically true yes.  On one hand, yes the opposition defeated the minority Conservative government over quibbles about the budget.  On a much more important sense, the opposition defeated the minority government not because it had major issue with the numbers, but with the spirit of those numbers, and the intention of those numbers.

The government fell last month because the opposition parties all agreed that the Conservative government was in contempt of parliament.

Think about that statement for a moment.  The opposition members felt strongly that the government itself, was lying, obfuscating, or deliberately misrepresenting data to the Canadian people, in order to push it's own agenda.  Were they?  That's not really for me to say as a member of the citizenry, that's a direct inquiry for a judiciary body.  I can only speculate, at best, on the information and research I myself have come up with.  However since my last post about the F-35 Lightning planes, where I indicated that the numbers we were getting were not representative of all the data, the U.S. Pentagon has corroborated similar numbers, that the F-35 Project is wildly spiraling out of control in terms of cost.

Americans, for the number of jets they intend to purchase, speculated initially that the initiatve would cost approximately 382 Billion dollars.  They have now revised that figure, that the cost of maintaining these jets for a 30 year life cycle, would be 918 Billion.  More than twice the cost.  The increase is considered comperable to the Canadian situation.  Initially projected in 2001 at 75 million dollars an aircraft, that number, including it's maintenance for 30 years looks more like 375 million dollars.

Conservatives have unilaterally rejected the new numbers.  Citing that we are in these comparisons, comparing 'apples' to 'oranges'.  But if we factor in the numbers, the Conservatives have cited only 7 billion dollars for maintenance and service upgrades to the planes, over their 30 year lifespan.  Kevin Page, the Parliamentry Budget Officer said the number should be more like 19.5 billion, but was derided with criticism from the party.  The Pentagon speculative number is 24 billion.

No one seems to be able to corroborate the figures the Conservatives use, that is the problem.  Their number appears to have been pulled out of thin air, or the 75 million per aircraft, which we now understand is a figure that is ten years old!  If the numbers exist, if Canada has ink on a contract, why can't we, the people, who are paying for this ridiculousness see what we bought?

Edit:  It has been pointed out to me that comparing the 'American F-35' to the 'Canadian F-35' is not similar.  This is technically true.  The majority of American F-35s are an F-35C class Variant, the C designation notes that it has a specific design in mind for use with Naval Carriers.  Of which is one of the major sources of American Military power, and we in Canada have no Carriers.  The Canadian Variant is the F-35A, outfitted with a drag chute (for slowing down on icy runways).  It is still priced comprehensively similarly to the other variants.  Only the F-35B, which is modified to have less fuel and a short takeoff system (similar to a harrier jet) is noted as having a different price, due to the engine differences.

Also, separately of note, is that Wikipedia has exposed information that IP addresses tracing back to the Winnipeg 1st Canadian Air Division attempted to remove critical information from the online wiki and add derogatory comments and insults to opposition party members.  This happened last year, July 28th, 2010.  Since then, perpetrators of this crime have not been named, and no disciplinary action has been disclosed.

CBC Article on Department of National Defence citing rising costs of F35s
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-f35s-costs.html

CBC Article on Harper's Denial
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-f-35-costs-316.html

MacLean's on the F-35 Cost, Where an interesting discussion is beginning to take place:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/26/how-much-is-that-fighter-jet-in-the-window/

Wikipedia Article on the F-35 Procurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement

Monday, April 25, 2011

'Does It Irk You?'

From Dawna Friesen’s one-on-one interview with Stephen Harper.
Dawna Friesen: When this is all over, not just the election, but politics—and you’re out of this game—and you look back, you will go down in history as the only Canadian Prime Minister—the only Prime Minister in the Commonwealth—to ever have their government voted in contempt of Parliament. Does that irk you?
Stephen Harper: Not at all, well it irks me in a sense that I think this was this was a completely unjustified act. It was an example of the kind of political games and maneuvering that are taking place in this minority parliament. There was no basis for that … it was a pretext for an election that Canadians did not want.  There’s no case for that. This government—and we don’t say we’re perfect—but this government is focused on Canadians’ concerns and I think we’ve governed competently, our ministers and MP’s have acted with integrity, and we’re proud of that record and you know as I say, I think it’s unfortunate that those kinds of things are being done in a minority parliament but I think it tells you why we must have a majority government and not a minority parliament that focuses on that kind of stuff instead of the economy.

 I feel like when I read this response, I see a man who doesn't believe his government has made any error.  That literally he feels that his government has actually acted with integrity.  Not that I'm making a case for saying all Conservatives are soulless bastards or anything of the like, I do believe that in their own way, perhaps they are justified.  But surely on some fundamental level, we must agree that there have been improprieties over this last session of Parliament.

There has been no transparency over the F35 Issue.  Why?

Bev Oda scrawled a tiny little ^not on a document, stood before the house and said she did not make that alteration on a legal document, and then later confessed that she had LIED, and had been confused about the question.

Richard Colvin has been systemically attacked for doing his job, raising serious allegations about the possibility that Canadian soldiers and military have had a direct hand in handing over innocent Afghani men and women for torture.

The entire world derided Canada's performance at Copenhagen, citing serious concerns that Canada has not done enough on a global level to be the leader on environmental policy it should be.  We turned a blind eye and vilified our detractors.

For two days, downtown Toronto became the site of running skirmishes with police, ending in hundreds of innocent Canadians detained illegally, and abused.  On our own country soil, men and women were run down, their belongings searched or confiscated, and they were arrested without due cause or without proper representation.

Canada lost its seat on the United Nations Security Council, literally because we did not pursue it enough and we were not considered influential enough on the global scale.  Harper's ministers blamed Ignatieff''s mongering.  Many of the other country's diplomats however said "Ignatieff who?"

Widespread nips and tucks to funding for organizations, institutions and services are quietly being eliminated beneath the government regime.  Is the price of this 2% lowering of GST mean we Canadians will lose out on a host of important services and institutions from arts and culture, museum funding, status for women, to planned parenthood?

When the opposition, as is their job, raised serious concerns to the government over a number of these issues, Harper chose to prorogue parliament, granting himself and his ministers 2 months off work seemingly for the Olympics, that is 2 months with pay, while our entire legislative body of government ground to a halt.

Is this what our Prime Minister means when he says he believes he and his ministers have acted with Integrity?

Why doesn't it irk you, Mister Harper?

Convincing Argument

My Roommate and I went for a walk today, we wandered by the advance poll station and peeked in, had a look at the map and chatted for a moment.  It was quiet, but there were people certainly around.

On the way back, I asked him if he'd made a decision on who to vote for.  He told me he had, and then I asked him something which my ever curious mind has been pondering of late (and actually is the poll question to your right).  Did he know, when the election was first called whom he would vote for?  Did he have a good idea, or what party or platform or leader he chose to support?  He said he didn't know then, that he only came to a decisive decision when he saw the sign I had requested from the NDP.

For him, knowing how and for whom I would vote helped to crystallize in his mind his decision.  In a way, he mentioned, he felt it most appropriate to follow my lead, that I was better researched and informed, and evidently my reasoning and logic had prevailed on him to vote in a similar pattern.

On one hand, a part of me was concerned that he had not made an informed decision, that he was following in my own choice.  Then I realized that he was indeed, actually free to do so.  That was an essence point of Democracy in and of itself.  It was his choice.  It was his choice to be as informed or not as he saw fit, to make as necessary a decision as he felt needed attention, or not.  Sometimes I wonder at the influences on myself and whom has led me to certain 'platforms' or 'political points' that I deem important for a party or candidate to address.

And by extension of that, I wonder what we all consider fundamental to what we believe represented?

Vandalism Continues in Canada

The politically motivated vandalism appears to be continuing in Toronto.  Despite massive police presence, tires are still being slashed, grafitti and hate messages are appearing and voters are unfortunately being intimidated.

Areas Toronto Center, and Davenport are now also reporting that Liberal supporters cars are having tires slashed.  NDP and Green Party signs are also being defaced and destroyed.  While candidates explain that they do expect a few signs to go missing or be destroyed each day or night, the campaign has begun to take a hateful turn.

All Party leaders and their candidates are unilaterally decrying the vandalism.  While no one points blame at any other party, an assault on one is an assault on our own democracy.  Intimidation at the freedom of speech, and the freedom to exercise civil right should be met with stringent repercussions for the perpetrators.  I was in a debate with a friend earlier tonight, who thought of the damage in terms of a dollar value.  And while yes, repairing and replacing a set of tires is at most fifteen hundred dollars, the slashing of our democracy is a blow to Canadians everywhere, who we are and what we stand for.

The people out there who lack the way to express their frustration and only resort to physical damage and gross intimidation should be tried and punished as a hate crime on democracy.



CBC Article on Continuing Vandalism
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/23/cv-election-vandalism.html

Toronto Star Article on the Vandalism
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/979602--election-vandalism-spreads

Saturday, April 23, 2011

A Letter from Tommy Banks

This was sent to me this morning, I don't know exactly when it was written, but from all indications on the internet it's quite recent.  I thought I would post it here in it's entirety for reading.  It is long, and sadly as Mark Eisenman put it, unlikely to be read in its whole extent.  But I urge you to read it, walk away, and think about it.


A letter from Tom Banks
 It's worth noting that Tom was a Conservative when he was appointed to the Senate. If you agree with this food for thought please feel free to send it to your friends of whatever political stripe. The bigger message here is how we want our government to behave, no matter who forms that government. Here's Tom's missive:

"There is only one thing about the outcome of the May 2nd election on which Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper agree. It is that one of them will be the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and Ms. May are not in the running to form a government. They can’t. It will be either Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Harper.

 That is the choice, and it is a very clear – in fact, stark choice. We will choose between openness or secrecy. Between listening or refusing to listen. Between someone who respects Parliament or someone who disdains it. Between things we can and will do now or things that, (provided of course that everything goes well), we might do in five or six years. Between someone who answers all questions from Canadians, or someone who won’t accept any.

 Between Mr. Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act”, or Mr. Ignatieff who said “ . . . we don’t want user fees. We want universal, accessible, free-at-the-point-of-service health care, paid out of general revenue. That’s just bottom line. Otherwise we get two-tiered”.

 Between buying jets or helping vets. Between real early childhood learning and care or Saturday-night babysitting. Between respect for our great institutions or contempt for them. Between helping families or helping big corporations. Between the Canada that we think we have, or the way in which Mr. Harper has already changed it.


 Over the past few years Mr. Harper’s government has quietly engineered so many changes that there are some ways in which our country is barely recognizable. Many of us don’t yet realize the extent of those changes, because many of them have been brought about very carefully and gradually – almost imperceptibly in some cases.

 This is diabolically clever. If these things had all been done at once, there would have been loud protests and reactions. But moving just one little brick at a time doesn’t cause much fuss – until you realize that the whole house has been renovated. And we’ve hardly noticed.

These are changes that are at the very heart of who and what Canadians are. They are changes to the protections that used to exist against the tyranny of the majority – or against a single-minded my-way-or-the-highway autocrat. These changes are losses to our very Canadian-ness. Let me remind you of some of them:

 The Law Commission of Canada was created by an Act of Parliament in 1997. It worked very well. It kept an eye in a sort-of avuncular way, on necessary reforms of the law, including election law. The Commission couldn’t actually change law; but it was very good at letting governments and everybody else know when changes needed to be made and why. It was our legal Jiminy Cricket, and it performed a valuable service for Canada. The Commission was created by an Act of Parliament, and any government wanting to shut it down should have been up-front about it. It should have come to Parliament with a Bill to rescind The Law Commission of Canada Act. That’s what any of our 21 previous Prime Ministers would have done.



But to Mr. Harper, Parliament is an inconvenience. Somebody might ask “Why are you doing this?” But he didn’t want to go through all that Parliamentary trouble; so, rather than proposing the abolition of the Commission (a proposal about which there would have been pretty fierce debate on all sides), they just eliminated all funding for it in the federal budget. Governments can do that. Poof – no Law Commission.



Nice and quiet. Just one little brick. Hardly noticed.



Then there was the Court Challenges Programme, set up in 1994, which was the means by which a bit of legal help could be provided to a private individual or small organization who didn’t have a lot of money, and who was taking on, or being taken on by, the Government of Canada. It leveled the legal playing field a bit. It was a perfect example of fundamental Canadian fairness.


 By convincing a tough panel of judges of the reasonableness of your cause, you could get a little help in paying for some lawyers to go up against the phalanx of legal beagles that could always, and forever, and at public expense, be brought to bear against you by the State. In other words, if you weren’t rich, and if you were taking on or being taken on by the Feds, you might have had a chance. But Mr. Harper doesn’t like being questioned, let alone challenged. It’s so inconvenient! Solution? Quietly announce that the Court Challenges Programme is being, er, discontinued. Poof – no Court Challenges Programme – no court challenges.

 Hardly noticed.

The Coordination of Access to Information Request System (CAIRS) was created (by a Progressive-Conservative government) in 1989 so that departments of government could harmonize their responses to access-to-information requests that might need multi-departmental responses. It was efficient; it made sure that in most cases the left hand knew what the right hand was doing, or at least what they were saying; and it helped keep government open and accountable. Well, if you’re running a closed-door government, that’s not a good idea, is it? So, as a Treasury Board official explained to the Canadian Press, CAIRS was killed by the Harper government because “extensive” consultations showed it wasn’t valued by government departments. I guess that means that the extensive consultations were all with government departments.

 Wait! Wasn’t there anybody else with whom to extensively consult? Wasn’t there some other purpose and use for CAIRS? Didn’t it have something to do with openness and accountability? I guess not. Robert Makichuk, speaking for Mr. Harper’s government, explained that “valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting”.

 Right. In other words, CAIRS was an inconvenience to the government. So poof – it’s disappeared. And, except for investigative reporters and other people who might (horrors!) ask questions, its loss is hardly noticed.

 And the bridge too far for me: Cutting the already-utterly-inadequate funding for the exposure of Canadian art and artists in other countries. That funding was, by any comparison, already laughably miniscule. Mr. Harper says that “ordinary” Canadians don’t support the arts. He’s wrong. And his is now the only government of any significant country in the world that clearly just doesn’t get it.


All these changes were done quietly, cleverly, and under the radar. No fuss. No outcry. Just one little brick at a time. But in these and other ways, our Canadian house is no longer the kind of place it once was. Nobody minds good renovations. Nobody even minds tearing something down, as long as we put up something better in its place. That’s not what has happened.

 Mr. Harper fired the head of the Canadian Wheat Board because he was doing his job properly. He removed the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission because she wanted to make sure that the Chalk River nuclear reactor was safe.

Hardly noticed.

 There are many more things that were hardly noticed: Cuts to funding for the Status of Women, Adult Learning and Literacy, Environmental Programs, museums funding, and more. All quietly, just one brick at a time.

Hardly noticed.

As to campaign promises, everybody in sight on every side is guilty of breaking those. Except the Federal NDP of course, who haven’t yet had the opportunity. (It’s very easy to make promises that you know you will not likely have to keep).

 But the government promised to end wait times in health care. They didn’t. They promised to end, once and for all, the whining of some provinces about the non-existent “fiscal imbalance”. They didn’t. They said they had brought final resolution to the softwood lumber problem with the U.S. They haven’t. They promised to create thousands of new child-care spaces in Canada. They haven’t. They promised not to tax income trusts (“We will NEVER do that!” they said). They taxed them. They promised to lower your income tax.

 They raised it.

 They said they had a good “made-in-Canada” plan to meet our obligations on climate change. They don’t. Mr. Harper has said plainly that whatever the Americans do is what we’ll do too.

 They campaign on a platform of transparency and accountability; but they’re now trying to discredit the Parliamentary Budget Officer that they created, because he’s trying to do the job that they gave him. Mr. Harper said that our form of government, evolved over centuries from the 900-year-old British Westminster tradition, was all wrong. We had to have fixed election dates, because otherwise, democratic principles would be trampled. ”Fixed election dates”, he said, “stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar. They level the playing field for all parties”.

So Parliament (remember them?) at Mr. Harper’s insistence, passed a law requiring fixed election dates, which Mr. Harper promptly broke.

Somebody once said that we get the kind of government we deserve. What did we do to deserve Mr. Harper? He once said that we should all “Stand Up for Canada”. Well, let’s do that. We just have to decide whether the present version of Canada is the one that we’ll stand up for. Or stand for.

Thank you
Tommy Banks (an Alberta Senator.)"


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0000193

EDIT:
Senator Tommy Banks is actually identified as being a Liberal Senator, the confusion is because he was first noted by Mulroney's PC government, and then later recommended to the Senate by Jean Chretien in 2000.

Friday, April 22, 2011

What Country Is This Again?

Spell it out for me.  What country do we live in again?  Canada.  Right.  Right.

So on one hand, this is an outlandish, and downright shocking event.  On the other, given what we've seen over the past years that has led up to the election, is it that surprising?

Thursday night, more than 30 homes in the St. Paul Riding in Toronto were vandalized.  Tires were slashed, and vehicles were vandalized in an event not unlike the 2008 brake line cuttings in the same riding.  More chilling, all the homes vandalized were related or supporters of Liberal Incumbent Carolyn Bennett.  Even vandalized was Ms. Bennett's financial officer's vehicle, even though he had no visible sign for the Liberal party.

The form of voter intimidation is distressing to an extreme.  Though incredibly unlikely to be orchestrated by any other party, residents who were victims in the crime point out that the recent slew of attack ads and media may have their hand in encouraging this behavior.

Ms Joanne Mills, who had four tires slashed was quoted in the Star;

  • “I attribute this to Stephen Harper’s attack ads that make people think this kind of behavior is acceptable.”

Another woman, who had her tires slashed remarked that a neighbour yelled at her.

  • “Vote Conservative. It wouldn’t have happened.”

We expect these tactics, these monstrous un-democratic vandalism and intimidation tactics in other nations, not in Canada.  But here they are.  Wake up Canada.  Our own people are being victimized, being derided for their freedom to choose.  Our own people are being attacked on our own home turf.  And not in a rural nowhere either, in Toronto, the largest metropolitain bastion of our nation.

Do we allow this?  Do people deserve to have hundreds of dollars of vandalism or to be targeted in their own homes and amongst their own families for having the guts to stand up and say "This is what I believe in?"

What's next?  Tires slashed one day, will it be Molotovs, tomorrow?  Machetes?  We have always said our country was proud, was above that behaviour.  That our democracy was fair and free for everyone.  Yet that isn't the case for 30 households this morning.  Will we not take a stand?


The Article from the National Post
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/22/liberal-supporters-get-tires-slashed-l-scratched-on-cars/

An Article on the Incident from the Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/979199--residents-worried-after-vandals-strike-homes-with-liberal-signs-in-st-paul-s?bn=1

Tory Candidates Blowing off Forums

Calgary Center North is perhaps not a battleground, being part of the Conservative Calgary Bastion, but outgoing MP Jim Prentice's riding is somewhat up for grabs.  Except the PC Candidate replacing him, Ms. Michelle Rempel doesn't seem to think so.

Rempel skipped the second debate now, the first time at the University of Calgary, the second now at an all-candidates forum at a Church.  While the constituents who attended were angry, they were not without a sense of humor, as a potted plant was left out in place of the missing Candidate.  And an organizer stated "The plant is of course welcome back at any time,"

Rempel is not the first Albertan candidate to boycott forums either.  Nicole recently brought across my desk this second article about Lethbridge's Tory Candidate, Jim Hillyer's decision to boycott all remaining forums.  While it's hard to say what kind of effect these decisions will directly have upon their possible candidacy, Mr Burles, who wrote the article and questioned several phone in callers about it, said constituents were unilaterally upset by the decison.

Calgary Nose Hill Candidate Diane Ablonczy has also indicated she will boycott all-candidate forums.

And locally for Edmonton?  The Upcoming Wrecking Ball night at the Avenue Theatre has stated that all candidates will be on hand except for the Conservative one.  The Conservatives are clearly running their campaign in a bubble, candidates are not operating with the same transparency as many other party members.

Will this have an effect on election day?  Hard to say, but we'll watch as it unfolds.

Below, Alheli Picazo has also compiled a list of candidates across the country who have indicated they will boycott forums, or non-scripted events.  Interestingly, and unsurprisingly they are all PC candidates except for one.


CBC Article on Skipped Forum
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/20/calgary-rempel-forum-skipped.html

Country 95 about Jim Hillyer
http://www.country95.fm/news/news-detail.asp?ID=3909

Alheli Picazo has compiled a list of PC Members refusing to take part in unscripted events.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/apicazo/2011/04/election-2011-debate-absenteeism

Wrecking Ball Event Page
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192015364175843&ref=ts

EDIT:
A slightly more comprehensive list from the CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/all-candidate-no-shows-stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-before.html

Poll Scrutineers City Center

Just a disturbing news tidbit I read on twitter, hasn't been independently verified yet, but apparently a poll scrutineer working Edmonton City Center, specifically a conservative one was observed by Mr Patrick O'Connor to be talking politics and debating platforms of other parties.  This action is against Election Canada Protocol, and took place at station 600.

I'll try to find more information as it becomes available.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Ban on Twitter on Election Night?

If you live in Canada, and have voted before in a federal election, you know there is a media ban on election night. That is to say the media are literally fined a significant amount if they violate a strict ban on reporting results from out East before ballots in BC are closed.

Elections Canada seems to have an unfounded fear that seeing results of ridings in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia may unduly influence voters to the West, a claim that has been largely refuted. Despite that, even ten years ago, the major media conglomerates bowed to the wishes of the law, and refrained from broadcasting results nationwide as they came in before the ballots were closed.

Fast forward to today. In the era of instant internet video, tweeting, facebook statuses and digital communication, that information could be readily available and posted literally across the country in seconds. What this means is that even the major media giants, such as Canwest, cannot maintain a live-streaming blog of results, they cannot post ongoing information and results until BC closes.

What this also means?

  • It will also be illegal for any citizen, journalist or not, to tweet or blog or post something on a Facebook wall about the election results, until all the polls are shut.

If you think you're immune, the same issue happened in 2000, just before the internet explosion of data.  A prominent blogger in Vancouver, Paul Bryan blogged Atlantic results before the polls were closed to his small audience, he was fined $1 000.  He took his case straight up the courts to the Supreme Court, and was defeated there.

Draconian?  Yes.  Are they going to do it?  Well in our minds, how could they.  One look at the #elxn41 hash tag and you can see immediately that thousands of Canadians are updating every hour, posting news, opinions, links and observations on the unfolding election.  When we all go to the polls, you can bet that there will be posting immediately as well.

  • Nonetheless, John Enright, who speaks for Elections Canada, says his agency has no choice but to administer the law as written. Citizens are allowed to phone or text friends, or send private e-mails. But posting to a Facebook wall, to a webpage or to Twitter will be considered a violation.

    "The legislation is still on the books, so our role as Elections Canada is to administer the legislation that is before us," says Enright. "If there's a breach of the law, Elections Canada is not going to discriminate between the Mothercorp and Joe Smith down the street."

The courts have decided the law won't be looked at prior to May 2nd.

Scary isn't it?  Where do we stand, why hasn't this absurd sheepist law been repealed yet?  And furthermore what does it mean for our democracy when ordinary citizens are going to be muzzled from spreading information?




The Article Here from Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Twitter+Facebook+election+night+posts+draconian/4647769/story.html

An Article from the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/officials-mull-election-night-twitter-muzzling-rule/article1994365/

Quebec Only Conservative Ad

I don't know how long this will be kept up, surely the Conservative War Room will petition to have it taken down as soon as possible, but here you go.  This Attack Ad recently appeared in Quebec only...it is...well...interesting.



Do you think this ad represents Canada?

End of Planned Parenthood Support MP Declares

I'm not really sure what to make of this, but it has just recently come across my desk today.  Basically a Saskatchewan MP, Mr Brad Trost expressed to a Pro-Life Association how successful they were in creating petitions that had an impact on de-funding the Planned Parenthood Organization.

Planned Parenthood is an organization that works both nationally and internationally to provide counciling, contraceptives, HIV related treatments, family planning and of course, abortion related services.

The organization has not officially said whether they were denied funding, only that the were still waiting to hear.

I think this is distressing intensely for many Canadians.  Obviously for those who come down on the pro-abortion side, but also for those of us who could be pro-choice or pro-life itself.  The problem is two fold, first is that there is a real danger, at least in my mind of the government intervening in organizations to deny them funding in terms of the balance that has already been struck.

Many organizations, such as Planned Parenthood offer a more professional and clincial look than the vast majority of pro-life sidewalk councilling.  In fact, in BC it is illegal as of 95 to demonstrate in a non pro-choice manner outside clinics, facilities, hospitals and abortionist homes.

That is not to say pro-life people don't have their voice, but it also prohibits pro-abortion counter-protests, which throughout the 80s and 90s of course we all remember became shockingly violent.  Our Southern Neighbours right now actually are going through a resurgance of demonstrations regarding abortion on both sides, many of which have turned violent.

I want to be clear that I'm not personally on the side of either.  I think that there are always circumstances which will influence the individual one way, or the other.  It's up to individual cases, and I am, and always will be of the mindset that the opportunity to make informed, educated decisions far outweighs the removal of choices.  People need to be more educated, not less.  People need to have more options presented to them, not be made ignorant, willfully or otherwise.  To see the government intervene in this way, makes me question to what point we allow our government to make decisions for us.

More importantly, there are dangerous flags in my mind when an MP says they can't disclose information about how they were influenced.  How many people signed this petition.  Where was it circulated, for how long.  Was an independent study and review done?  Does this truly reflect the views of all Canadians?  What about minority groups, does the unilateral cut of funding serve the interests of all groups?  Why can't this information be disclosed.  Who made the decision to slash 18 million dollars in expected funding.  Why is our representative of government making flagrant statements about taxpayer money.  I for one am quite alright with my taxpayer money being used for contraceptives, my views are not accurately represented in his statement.

What do you think?

Read the Article from CBC here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html

Article Debunking Myths about Planned Parenthood (American, but still interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-planned-parenthood/2011/04/14/AFogj1iD_story.html

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Election 2011 A Dark Fiction - By Margaret Atwood

Just thought I'd share a fascinating little short that Margaret Atwood wrote today for the Globe and Mail.

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
I am a fiction writer. So here’s a fiction.

A vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door. “You must buy this vacuum cleaner,” he says. “Why?” you say. “Because I know what’s good for you,” he says. “I know things you don’t know.” “What are they?” you say. “I can’t tell you,” he says, “because they’re secret. You are required to trust me. The vacuum cleaner will create jobs.”

“Where is the vacuum cleaner made?” you say. “In another country,” he says. “So the jobs will be created in another country? Not here?” you say. You believe it’s your right to query: It’s your money and, come to think of it, you pay this guy’s salary.

“Stop bickering,” he says. “I am competent. That’s my story and I’m sticking it to you.” “I’m not bickering,” you say. “I’m asking relevant questions. How much will the vacuum cleaner cost me?” “I can’t tell you that,” he says. “Why not? Because it’s more than you claimed at first?” you say. “Or because you don’t really know the cost?” “I can’t tell you that, either,” he says. “But you have to pay.”

“Just a minute!” you say. “You want me to commit to an unknown, very large sum? That’s not fair! And it’s not competent, either.” “More bickering!” he says. “We need stability!” “But I might have to go on paying huge sums for decades!” you say. “We’re already up to our necks in debt! I’ll have to give up other things – I won’t be able to pay for the doctor, or support for special needs, or drinking water, or care for the elderly, or the kids’ education, or … and what happens if there’s a pandemic, or a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake, and you’ve already spent the money that could have helped in a disaster?”
“You are a very negative person,” he says. “You are not welcome here.” “Where is here?” you say. “In my country,” he says. “These are my mountains, this is my hockey, this is my flag. Mine! All mine! And I’m stamping my image on all of it!” “I like those icons, too,” you say, “but I think they should be shared with everyone, don’t you?” “What is this ‘shared’ of which you speak?” he says. “I believe in the individual and nothing but. Talk to the hand! Weak to the wall!”

“I don’t want to pay for the vacuum cleaner,” you say. “You have to pay for it,” he says. “See, it says here on this document. Isn’t this your signature?” “Yes,” you say, “but the document’s been changed to mean the exact opposite of what I signed. If I altered a document like that, I’d end up in jail.” “You are double-plus not welcome,” he says. “I make the rules around here.”

“But –” you say. “Don’t interrupt,” he says. “In addition to the vacuum cleaner, you will have to pay for several very expensive jails, the cost of which is unknown.”

“But the crime rate is falling!” you say. “Not for long,” he says. “I’m planning to have it rise again. Once people have their money vacuumed away, with none left for doctors, or the kids’ education, or making sure you don’t eat poisoned food – all those frills – they’ll get scared and depressed and desperate, the middle class will be toast, and the crime rate will rise. Anyway, I will criminalize lots more things. Because we need to fill up those jails!”

“I get the feeling you don’t like me,” you say. “Is it because I’m a girl? Or because I don’t want you to run up huge debts without telling me what the money is for? What happened to accountability? It used to sound so great!”

“You are beneath my notice,” he says, giving me the Death Glare. “Once I really get the whip hand, I will never have to answer another question from anyone. Not one question. Not ever again.”

***

“That’s a very dark fiction,” says the reader. “Surely people won’t sign away their right to know how their money is being spent! That would result in tyranny! It can’t happen here!”

“Anything can happen anywhere,” I say.

Margaret Atwood’s latest non-fiction book is Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/election-2011-a-dark-fiction/article1991748/print/

Monday, April 18, 2011

Conservative Twitter Fail 2

So Almost a week later, 5 days at this point now, still no response from the Conservative engine through social media on a number of topics posted, nor even really a greeting or hello.  I constructed both an email and a physical letter, and have sent them off requesting information from Laurie Hawn's office.  Now we start the clock, will we get a response?  Will the conservative MP ever address or even acknowledge my concerns?

In my 600 ish word email/letter, I have broached the serious concern that many Canadians have that the party itself of the Conservatives seem to have lost the moral ability to govern.  Which is not necessarily a poor reflection on Mr Hawn himself, but rather that I am concerned that our government no longer accurately represents our people, and instead has it's own agenda which is not being shared in a clear, and transparent manner.  Furthermore I am of the opinion that the lack of transparency is being deliberately misused in a corrupt manner by both duly elected officials, and appointed ones.

The questions have begun to stack up, and slowly become overwhelming.  Why is there no forthcoming answer on the Afghan Detainee issue?  Why is there no fiscal transparency on the F35 crisis?  What is the Prime Ministers opinion on the procedural failure that happened during the G8/G20 Summit.  What are the steps of progression on climate change, especially in the light of Copenhagen?  How does the government account itself for the repeated calls of contempt on the part of its ministers, such as Bev Oda?

These are moral questions on the minds of Canadians, will they not be addressed?  Will they not be answered?  Will they not even be acknowledged?  Are they existent only in the present moment of time when they are brought up and then hopefully forgotten by our own government?

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The F-35 Issue

The F-35 Issue is springing up again, as a cornerstone of fiscal discrepancy in the Conservative platform.  Partisan Liberals and NDP have tremendous, and quite well founded concerns about the Conservative's plan to purchase 65 Lockheed Martin Jets, at around 75 million an aircraft, for an estimated 14 billion dollars total.  I just want to point out the scope of that number.  14 Billion Dollars.

Not only is that 14 billion dollars, but it seems everyone except the conservatives are quite sure that number can't possibly be correct.  It's too small by half.  Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page thinks the number is more like 29 Billion Dollars.

29 Billion Dollars.

That's more than twice the cost.  Someone thinks they are getting a two for one deal that doesn't exist!  And Mr. Kevin Page isn't the only one who figures that number.  Mike Sullivan, a  man who works with the Government Accountability Office says the tag of 75 million per aircraft is too low, instead it will be more along the lines of 110 or 115 million each.  In a link at the end of this article, CBC also posted a quick FAQ on the F-35, which directly state the cost of the F-35 as being 155 Million American per Jet. 

American Defense Specialist Winslow Wheeler also weighed in.

  • “If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered.  Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy."

Retired General Paul Manson, former Chief of Staff took umbrage at the comments, attacking Wheeler's credibility.  However Mr. Wheeler has worked for 30 years on defense issues in the States for both Republican and Democrat members.  And he spent 9 years as an analyst for Accountability pertaining specifically to military procurement, and aircraft.

I still have trouble wrapping my head around the sheer numbers.  So let's look at it this way.  29 Billion dollars, translates for every single head in Canada to about 900 dollars of additional tax a person, going directly to the cost of purchasing or maintaining these pieces of aircraft.  That 900 dollars by the way is assuming your children pay taxes that go to defence materials.  I assume they don't, but you never know.  900 dollars each, to make 29 Billion dollars, for a plane that has no capability to do Search and Rescue, which is one of the primary functions of our own Canadian Air Force right now.

Oh and by the way?  Montreal Gazette has pointed out that those numbers?  They don't include the cost of an engine.  That 75 million dollar price tag per aircraft?  No Engines.  NO ENGINES!  I don't go out and buy an SUV without an Engine.  Why IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING THAT?

This was mostly touched off today by a tweet Conservative MP Laurie Hawn posted today:

I responded within twenty minutes with:

  • @ Defense specialist Wheeler also says the planes cost more like 150 million, twice PM Harper's estimate.

Tony Dewar, a Student at Okanagan College also chipped in.

  • @ Your welcome. I believe Kevin Page the parliamentary budget officer, numbers myself. He seems to be right on the money.

 Haven't gotten a response from Laurie Hawn yet, and am not sure one is coming.  But there it all is, make an informed opinion!  And what do you think, Canada, of our spending choices on government weaponry?


The Article from Montreal Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html

Article from The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-says-f-35s-wont-cost-more/article1979046/

CBC Article on The Spiraling Costs of the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html

CBC Article, an FAQ on the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/07/16/f-f35-faq.html

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Fallout of Guelph Special Ballots

So while Guelph's special ballot has been unequivocally allowed, Elections Canada has announced today that there will be no more special ballot voting.  They have ordered all returning officers from setting up special ballot boxes on university campuses, specifically.

About Mr. Sona, the office of his candidate has unequivocally denied to comment.  For some students, the stonewalling is as good as guilt, and more witnesses are coming forward about what exactly took place on Wednesday.

  • Kevin Bowman said Elections Canada officials at the voting station moved quickly to block the ballot box from Mr. Sona, took him aside, and a heated debate ensued. Voting soon resumed, and the sealed ballot boxes have been returned to Ms. Budra’s (The returning officer) office.
Meanwhile, the partisan jousting continued over the issue, Mr Harper has replied that their only concern was the respect of electoral rules, and not that they were trying to surpress voting at the university.

Mr. Ignatieff meanwhile has begun using the incident as a tinder for student voting where he can.

  • “This is the kind of thing you’d expect, you know, maybe in Egypt or Syria or some country that doesn’t know democracy,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
What do we think?  Is Elections Canada correct in banning special ballots over one incident?  Some more extreme left views believe this might be what the conservatives were after all along, to remove a convenient way for youth in our country to vote.  Others think it's just an extreme bureaucratic reaction on the part of EC.

Weigh in Canada!



The Globe and Mail Article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-puts-end-to-special-ballot-voting/article1987880/

Friday, April 15, 2011

Satirical Video: Students Don't Vote

Just a quick post, The Students Association of Mount Royal University students produced a great satirical video telling students around the country not to vote, and why.

Excellent work SAMRU!  Keep sending the word out, and get engaged!






I don't know if you should read the comments though on their youtube video page though...it's a little depressing.

Elections Canada Declares Guelph Votes Valid

Good news for democracy, and for the students of University of Guelph.

Elections Canada has ruled that the ballots cast on Wednesday by the students will be considered valid.  Recanting his previous party statements, Stephen Harper has declared "We encourage Canadians of all regions, all walks of life from all backgrounds to participate in the election and vote for the candidate of their choice," However the Prime Minister sidestepped any mention of wrong doing on the part of his MP running for office, or any of their volunteers or staff.

  • "The Marty Burke campaign states that none of its workers or volunteers interfered with the process; in particular, none of its workers or volunteers touched a ballot box or ballot," the Conservative statement said.
However, counterpoint to this, is an innumerable number of student witnesses who immediately posted about it.  Here's a section of the article the CBC posted from Bren Anstett, a Guelph student.

  • She said she was trying to vote when “a guy came up making a huge scene stating that this polling station was illegal and tried to grab for the ballot box.”

    “I found this to be disruptive and disrespectful, as many students were in the line at the time to vote,” Anstett said the posting on her Facebook page.

    “It was clearly a legal polling station, as there was Elections Canada, Special Ballot written on all of the documents present.”
Other students have come forward as well corroborating her statement.

In other news, perhaps Mr Marty Burke is feeling the pressure, he's already missed two of three of his scheduled debates, and he's not the only Conservative candidate to do so.  Diane Ablonczy of Calgary Nose Hill (my previous Calgary riding) has apparently declared she will not attend any debates. 


The CBC article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-guelph-student-vote.html

The Official Conservative Article:
http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/guelphvotes/2011/04/tories-national-office-comes-to-burkes-defence.html

iPod Tax Bullshit

If you're like me, you probably really detest attack ads.  Especially done in such a flagrantly biased manner.  The one that has caught the eye of Patrick though, and then brought to my attention is this fairly recent one about the iPod tax that Michael Ignatieff 'supports'.  I say 'supports' because McLean's magazine has recently completely debunked and explained the theory as to why the Conservative party is using this particular tidbit as one of their attack points.

McLean's writes:

  • The claim a $75 levy was ever on the table—and that it was supported by the Liberals—is dubious for two reasons: first, contrary to Conservative claims, the Copyright Board never suggested the levy should be up to $75. That amount was proposed by a non-profit called the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which collects and distributes private copying royalties. But while they may not be the ones who collect it, it’s the Copyright Board that fixes levies on MP3 players, such as the ones that were in place until a December 2004 Federal Court decision struck them down. These ranged from $2 to $25.
  • Secondly, the Liberals changed their policy on taxing digital audio devices in December and have explicitly rejected the notion of an “iPod levy.” They now support compensating artists with a yearly transfer of $35 million.

There is an immense amount of difficulty in trying to rationalize some of these strange points the Conservatives are making, so kudos to McLean's Erica Alini for digging deep into the truth of it.

What we also notice though, being savvy social media users and Web 2.0 people, is that Conservatives have denied access of comments and likes/dislikes on all their ads posted to youtube.  Probably to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, from people digging to find the truth, and then pointing out their references and citations at how these 'ads' are untrue.

The Conservatives are, to my understanding, the only party to be denying the people their direct input on their campaign this way.  All the NDP videos I've seen welcome discussion and discourse over them, admittedly I haven't seen a lot of videos from the Liberals yet, but Patrick says they too are open for discussion.  The Conservative Party seems intent on running their campaign in a bubble, an allegation that has been leveled against them time and time again.

The sad thing, is that many people will not explore further into these attack ads.  And could very well be turned away from their nominal voting choice by untrue statements and proclamations.

This is neither fair, nor a way I should think we want our government to conduct itself.


McLean's Article about the 'iPod Tax':
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/05/the-bull-meter-the-conservatives-on-the-liberals-ipod-tax/

The Conservative Attack Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_pSUHZZ5Qw

Globe and Mail Weighs In on Ballot Box Grab

Upon further research, and reading more about the incident, it's clear that Mister Michael Sona is the one who could have serious allegations against him.  What he did, in trying to physically grab a ballot box was a violation of Part 9, section 167 (2) D of the Canada Elections Act.

Students across the country are becoming notably disheartened at the disregard that the Conservatives showed towards them exercising their democratic rights.  And who could blame them?  I received the original post over twitter from Pirate Party leader Mikkel Paulson, reposted to facebook and blogged here it was shared more than two dozen times within the hour.

In some ways, this 'incident' goes far and above mere 'partisanship' which is something that many of the parties like to throw out there.  Instead it shows that the party wants to disregard the now mobilizing demographic of student and youth voters.

In the rising groundswell of support, an online petition has also hit the ground, calling for the ballots to be accepted and for the conservatives to drop their investigation.  Will they be successful?  It's hard to tell at this stage, but certainly if it becomes a contentious issue, and especially if those 700 ballots are thrown out, there will be an enormous public outcry, and I shall indeed hope those students will turn out again and vote in a very contentious riding.



The Online Petition for Guelph here:
http://www.leadnow.ca/en/hands-off-our-ballots

Here's the article from the Globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/about-that-conservative-ballot-box-grab-in-guelph/article1986324/

The 'Thanks Rick Mercer' Article
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/thanks-a-heap-rick-mercer-the-students-might-actually-vote/article1985368/?utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail%3A+Newsletters+%2F+E-Blasts+%2F+etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Conservative Twitter Fail

Well it looks like 24 hours later, every other politician I followed has followed me back and at least attempted to make an overture of contact.  Every one except Prime Minister Harper, and my own riding Laurie Hawn that is.

What do you think, Canadians?  Is it too much to ask for relevant contact with the politicians in power?  Do you think that there are policies in place that limit conservatives from using social media as a playing field the same way that the NDP, Greens, and Liberals are utilizing it?

Does it say something, that they refuse to connect with tax paying, voting, Canadians like myself, or do you think that I'm expecting too much?

Conservatives Open to Releasing The Afghan Documents

In a somewhat surprising twist, the Conservatives appear to have redacted their stance on the Afghan documents and are also open to their release before the election.

At least that's what City Center Conservative MP Laurie Hawn says.  There is technically no official word from the conservative party yet, and Bloc Leader Duceppe says he hasn't seen the statement yet either. 

What do we think?  The conservative government's stance in the past has always been that to make public the knowledge and understanding of both the Afghan reports, and more recently the G8/G20 Summit documents would be to cause a widening hole in national security.

The response the NDP and Liberals have taken is that Canadians, not the government should be the judges of what is reasonable to preserve in terms of security, that autocratic governments often begin with sheltering their own 'people' for 'security' reasons.  Is this change of heart on one Conservative MP's stance a recognition moment that we stand precariously perched on a slippery slope of 'national security'?

The CBC News Article here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-afghan-detainees.html

University of Guelph Students Told Their Votes Don't Count?

This one just came to me a few minutes ago.

Essentially a conservative communications minister, named Mister Sona, (For Guelph Conservative Candidate Marty Burke) attempted to actually physically take the ballot box away, telling people around that such a special ballot was 'illegal' and that he was confiscating it.

Obviously he was stopped, but now the Conservatives' lawyer has filed injunction with Elections Canada, stating that partisan election material was at the special polling station.  If their claim goes through and is proven, as many as 700 students who voted in the sealed special ballot would have their votes thrown out.

The special ballot held at the University of Guelph is the third time it's been done, and the Elections Canada media advisor said this is the first time any objection has been raised.

Are there any students who attend Guelph who voted yesterday around to comment?

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/517010--conservatives-ask-elections-canada-to-nullify-votes-cast-at-u-of-g-wednesday

Yvonne Su, a co-organizer of the Vote Mobs taking Guelph also wrote an article about yesterday, available here.
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/516819--just-voted-a-column-from-a-yes-woman

Afghan Records Won't Be Released

In a ruling today, the two judges overseeing the reporting of the Afghan Records controversy had decided that the reports will not be released before the election.

Richard Colvin, a Canadian Diplomat alleged in November 2009 that Canadian Armed forces handed over innocent Afghan detainees to be tortured.  In his own words:

  • "According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured"
 The High Court of Wales in England later corroborated this statement, saying that Afghan torture methods were known, documented, and very real.

Harper at the time, that December, sought to prorogue parliament, and did successfuly despite widespread protests.  When Parliament returned in the next year, Conservative support had been shored up and the danger of a no-confidence vote had been lessened.

I think the question we should pose at this time is do we still think this is an election issue?  Obviously, these two judges who are presiding think it is not.  They believe that the findings of the report should have no basis on our electorate.

What do we as Canadians think?

If the issue found moral wrongdoing on the part of the conservatives, say in the form of intentional coverup, or even unintentional, would that alter the way you vote?


The CBC article regarding the Judge's decision.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-afghan-detainees.html

This is an article released last week by the Journal about the Tory stance on the report.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Tories+seek+curtail+Afghan+report/4566478/story.html

Mme. Paille

Last night during the debate, a Quebec woman who was unemployed, and about 53 put all 4 of our potential 'leaders' through a wringer. She asked them:

  • “The employment rate is very high in the region. Steady jobs are scarce. It is hard for someone like me — I'm 53 — to find work. So I would like to know how you intend to create jobs in Quebec, particularly in my region, and how it will help people over the age of 50 find permanent jobs.”
Undoubtedly each of the leaders answered as best they could.  Each one attempted somewhat to spin the direction of the question against each other.  About how Harper had forgotten the 'common people' with all of his corporate tax cuts and funding for fighter jets.  Harper countered that his budget had constraints for elder citizens (though he didn't mention numbers) and that it had been defeated by the opposition, indeed the very reason we're here today.

But through it all, I couldn't feel sad but to know that none of them were tackling the specific crux of the issue.  Mme Paille has no job, it is difficult for her to find one, and unless she receives support in doing so, may always have difficulty.  There is nothing wrong with her, she should not have to go on welfare, she wants to work, is capable of work, and has worked.  But there is no steady job for her.

Many Canadians are facing similar problems.  The unemployment rate holds at last count, at a steady 7.8%.  Among youth and young adults such as myself, it almost doubles to 14.3%.  Where is our Canadian government when we are trying to find work?  What will each party do to help us find work.  And do you think this is an issue that will sway your vote, City Center?

To read more about Mme. Paille:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-madame-paille-852.html

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Twitter

Part of what makes living in this time interesting is communication. We've noticed that a lot of candidates are embracing the technology of communicating with their own constituents. Now...it's hard to actually tell of course if you're discoursing with the candidate themselves, or a campaign manager or media person...if it's not downright impossible. And trust me, I'm not so naive to believe that it's actually the candidate with their fingers on their phones tweeting their thoughts, but it would be nice wouldn't it?

But for those who are interested, Edmonton City Center Candidates are indeed on twitter!

As an experiment, I followed all four that I know of using twitter in one fell swoop.

Laurie Hawn of the Conservatives is http://twitter.com/#!/votelauriehawn
Mary Maconald of the Liberal Party is http://twitter.com/#!/Mary_MacDonald
Lewis Cardinal of the NDP is http://twitter.com/#!/LewisCardinal
Even Mikkel Paulson of the Pirate Party! http://twitter.com/#!/mikkelpaulson

I also issued a challenge to them. lesterleesm Lester Lee
Now following the 3 candidates for #yeg CCenter: @votelauriehawn @Mary_MacDonald and @LewisCardinal. I, and Canadians wait to be impressed!

Within minutes, literally minutes Lewis Cardinal responded to me, and refollowed me. We also had a short interchange.

Within a half hour, Mary MacDonald followed me. She hasn't said anything in response to my message though.

The Pirate Party, Mikkel Paulson shouted out, and we had a quick discussion about twitter and how I wasn't able to find him on the CBC...

And the PC Laurie Hawn? Well we're still waiting. Check back tomorrow morning, maybe he and his campaign went to bed early?

Election

So unless you've been living under a rock for the last little bit, you should probably know that our illustrious maple flavoured country is well on its way to another federal election. Election 41 that is.

This marks a new blog showcasing the candidates of Edmonton's City Center, their platforms, positions, what they say and do, and the questions or rhetoric we have for them as Canadians.

Edmontonians, Albertans, Canadians. We live in exciting times, we also live in terrifying times. It's not only our privilege but also our democratic right and civic duty to be informed, to be learned, and to discourse on the direction of our country at a fundamental level. Let us hold accountable the people who seek our votes, and let them know that we run our country, that our politicians speak for us, not just our parties.

This blog is maintained by Lester Lee, a freelancing professional Canadian Theatre Artist. I look forward to writing my thoughts about the coming election, and the state of our democracy afterward. Join me on this adventure!

You can also follow me on twitter, lesterleesm