Wikileaks On The Party Leaders

Wikileaks has released another cable, this time on the eve, more or less, of the election.  The cables relate US Diplomatic messages covering a period of six years, ending in early 2010.  The cables primarily target PM Harper, although there is some information on the Liberals, specifically Ignatieff himself, and about his speech work.  The link is below.


An Article on The Leaks
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/01/wikileaks-canada-leaders.html

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)

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

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:

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

'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?

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

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.

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

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/

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

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?

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