Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Well That Happened

Well that happened.  What we now look forward to is a 4 year Conservative Majority.  I actually had to take a day off to process those results and think on it.  I think in part we're still waiting a little bit to see what the actual totals were of people who voted, in many's the way, the internet, facebook, twitter, gave 'progressive' people perhaps a slightly skewed sense of the world.  As is what always happens, the constrains of our reality give us a warped view.  For example, on my facebook I know or can link immediately to about 750 people.  Of this 750, perhaps a dozen were openly Conservative supporters.  You would think those odds somewhat indicitave, but they of course are not.  Many of my friends are arts industry in some form or another, or tend to share my similar viewpoints.

There was definitely a moment of deep sadness, perhaps even slight impending terror as I watched the numbers climb higher and higher.  For many in my industry, it is representative of a government which is doing its best to silence us, to kill us, to literally remove our work and erase its possibility of happening.  I was in a heated debate with a non-artist who countered that under Harper's tenure thus far, he had created a 75 dollar per child program for those enrolled in arts.  It's true, he did that.  But that program does not help those of us who are career artists, unless we are directly involved in promoting youth arts.  What about arts for adults?  What about arts and stories exclusively for adults?

There was a moment where I briefly considered that this would be a good time to study abroad, work abroad.  Kelsey even mentioned that this would be a great time for us to go work Cruise ships, which is also true.  Then I realized that it isn't what we should do.  Arts, and artists in Canada are here to stay.  We won't be strong-armed out by a government.  Even over four years, what seems like an insurmountable amount of time, he cannot outright kill institutions like the Opera, or the Symphony.  Some companies in our cities operate on tens of millions of dollars, employ hundreds of people.  There is an infrastructure in place of developing artistic creativity, that as much as the Harper government wants to politically silence, there are simply too many of us.

I am reminded that we are Canadian people.  That we are unbowed, and free, free to create and work and explore.  We face challenges now, yes.  We will assuredly face bigger challenges in the years to come, but we are not going to run and hide.  If anything, I deeply hope our work will flourish under persecution.  That's my fervent wish, much as I would like a more social, more democratic and engaged Canada...well they always say that your best work happens under the gun.

I will of course be updating this political blog less now that the election is done, but will continue to report on interesting news and articles as they develop.  An Election is a first step in democracy, not the last.  It's up to us to continue to be engaged over the next 4 years, to draw attention to the issues, to hold our representatives accountable, to ask questions and demand answers.

I leave you with a quote by a great man.  No it isn't the Martin Luther King mis-attributed one, but rather from David Van Belle, whom I had the pleasure of working with earlier this season.

Progressive friends, put your shoulders to the wheel. Locally, personally, daily. BE the political change you want in your own life. Open up. Listen to people. Meet people. Talk to people. Help people. Get creative. Act with love, not fear. That's how we get through this.   -David Van Belle

Monday, May 2, 2011

Go Vote

There are a lot of reasons to vote.

If you don't vote, you can't complain.  It's a small price of civic duty, kinda like being called to be on jury, to pay for being a Canadian citizen.  In some countries, fairly modern ones too, you are expected to do mandatory military service.  To think that Canadians, some 42% of us last election couldn't be asked to take an hour or two of time out of our day (paid for too by the way) to express our opinion?  That's pretty crazy.

I'm not endorsing a question of who, because I believe who you vote for depends on your riding.  But get out there.  Democracy will not wait for you, in Ancient Greece when it was devised, I was told in Ancient History class that they had never conceived that there would be people in society who would be apathetic to the political, judicial, legislative process.  They believed that all land owning men (or slave owning, hey I didn't say it was perfect) would be interested and engaged in process.

Let's get out there, Canada.  Let's show the world that we do care, we are engaged.  Let's be able to wake up tomorrow and no matter the results, know that we made the decision.  Not someone else for us.

Go Vote.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

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

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.


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

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?

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