Canadian Politics from the Left

Don't even talk about boycotting Olympics, it's a pretty childish idea

2008-04-15T16:03:00.002-06:00

I know I haven't posted for a long time, but I wanted to make my opinion known about the political controversy surrounding the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

Firstly, concerning the calls for a straight out boycott. I am extremely opposed to such a boycott, as it is completely unfair to the atheletes (who, by the way, are actually the focal point of the Olympics) and it wouldn't actually accomplish anything. The former is quite obvious but the latter is unfortunately not. I first learned about this in a recent edition of Maclean's magazine which contained an article by John Fraser. Basically he said that the Chinese government will not be budged by any outside power concerning it's policies towards non-Communist groups that pose a threat to the government or its vision of China. They know how a group can pounce up and take over a country, as that's what the Communists did themselves in China, and they have decided that they must exterminate any threat to the Communist Party, be it spiritual movements, unions, pro-democracy groups, or separatists. To put all that into a sentence, the Chinese government will do anything to crush any threat to the Communists no matter what the West wants.

Unfortunately the people who are protesting and demanding a boycott have not realized that it just wouldn't work. Yes, it would be a setback to China but it's not worth potentially losing their (the Communist's) influence. And of course it wouldn't destroy their economy or anything.

Let's take the politics out of the Olympics. If you have a problem with human rights in Tibet (and personally I am against what China is doing there) find other ways of expressing that. And when you find that idea, remember to think about it first before you start advocating it.

What's wrong with the ZENN car?

2007-11-26T08:32:00.000-06:00

Within the past couple of weeks, there has been talk of the previously unknown ZENN car. The Canadian company Feel Good Cars has had their low-speed electric car, ZENN, publicized on CBC News and CBC's Rick Mercer Report (click here to watch) within the past while. Just this month, Transport Canada deemed that the car can be sold in Canada. However, it is still up to the individual provinces to licence the car. In fact, only British Columbia has so far allowed it on its roads. (The reason that the company is afloat is that it can sell cars in the United States.)

For a simple car, it has attracted a lot of controversy. So why is Canada so reluctant to licence it? It is actually a Canadian-made car! It is environmentally friendly! What's the problem? The only flaw with it is that one cannot drive on a highway or expressway with it because its speed is limited to 40 KM/H (which is still plenty good for a city, where the speed limit is often 50 KM/H, but usually traffic is not nearly as fast!). The car is a wonderful environmentally-friendly alternative to a gas consuming car (you argue that electricity still burns fossil fuels? Pay a little more and buy green power!).

Now let's talk about the specific provinces. I could understand (although not agree with) Ontario not approving it for economic reasons, being that it should, economically speaking, support Ontario's auto sector and thus buy its cars, instead of buying Québec made ZENNs. In the territories, there could be too much snow for such a little car. Alberta would have to support gas-hungry vehicles. Okay, those provinces have their excuses. But what about the rest? In my home province of Saskatchewan, life isn't really fast-paced in the rural areas anyway; and with our boom, which has brought a lot more traffic jams, one could easily use a ZENN car for commuting during rush-hour in Saskatoon. And what kind of excuse could Québec have (other than the fact that their drivers probably go to fast to accommodate a slow car)? The car is actually made right there!

And unlike many past electric cars which have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, ZENN's basic model starts at only US $12,750 (and it does include a lot of features for such a low price). For that price many people in places without transit could get a very cheap method of transportation, not to mention the gas savings.

So please support this green Canadian car! Sign ZENN's petition online now! Still not convinced? Luc Couillard of the Agence Métropolitaine de Transport tried out the car for two weeks in Montreal. Read his review now!

What happened to the Blogging Dippers?

2007-11-08T09:22:00.000-06:00

One of the first things I did when I got up this morning was go to my computer and go to the Blogging Dippers website wanting to see if there had been any commentary yet on the Saskatchewan election. There was only one article by "Giant Political Mouse" that mentioned that there was an election last night. (Even as I refresh the page as I write this article there is still only my own article on the election.) I know that there are bloggers here that are from Saskatchewan, but where are they?

When I started blogging just about a year ago, the Blogging Dippers was an action-packed place to be; there was commentary on everything under the sun, and lots of it. There was also pages and pages of the summaries past articles that had been written; now there are only fourteen (so in order to actually get a look at everything a Blogging Dipper posts, it's necessary to check the site every 8-12 hours!). And why is it that, out of those fourteen spaces, I see only six different blogs? With less summaries to see, there is less to see and thus less of a reason to go to the site and see (get my logic?).

I do realize that people have lives outside of writing on their blogs, but it is a real shame to see the only New Democrat blog aggregate having so little life to it any more. Every week, a woman from Macleans (her name is Katie O'Maley, or something like that) appears on CBC Politics with Don Newman to talk about what's going on in the blogosphere. When she first started (at the beginning of this season of the show), she did the recognize the existence of the Blogging Dippers. However, it has been weeks since she has mentioned us; now she talks about what's on the Blogging Tories, Lib Blogs and the Progressives. But no us; no NDP. Perhaps it's because there just isn't as much life here anymore. Perhaps that means we need to give it life.

And lately, out of the articles that are written, there has been barely anything about actual current political events. Not too much about the mini-budget, the Liberals abstaining, etc. etc. (That's why we don't get our opinions on CBC, because we aren't really giving the NDP view on the current, top stories anymore!) While I do enjoy reading the articles written on topics that I've never actually heard of before, and I have no problems against that, I do wish that we could be actually discussing current affairs, too. If we don't the NDP and Jack Layton are the ones who lose, because they don't get any backing from the blogosphere, like Dion and Harper do.

As far as I know, I don't even think we have an active blogger who lives in Ottawa! I know for instance that the Tories have Stephen Taylor. But who do we have actively blogging from the centre of the action?

Let's get this sorted out. Let's get the NDP message out again through blogs. Let's start writing precise political commentary. Each of us doesn't have to do it everyday, but if we all write even once a week something really great, the Blogging Dippers might just rise from the dead.

End of the SK election, end of an era

2007-11-08T08:14:00.000-06:00

What can I say about last night's Saskatchewan election? While I was obviously hoping that all the polls were wrong and that the NDP could narrowly get into power once again, everyone was expecting a Saskatchewan Party government. Yes, there were some specific seats that surprisingly went from NDP to Sask. Party, but the grand total, province-wide results weren't all that different than I was expecting.

What the Saskatchewan Party will do in government is anybody's guess. They could go along with what they've promised to do, or who knows, they could go back to the Devine-times style of government. But either way, the 16 year string of NDP governments is over. While it would have been nice to add at least another four years to that, one can't expect to be in government forever. At some point, people are going to change, and when you really think about it, we should be thanking the Saskatchewan people that they didn't decide to change in the 2003 or 1999 elections (which even then would be a pretty good run for a single party to be in government). I guess this is just the type of rotation that naturally occurs in politics.

To a more local level, I was expecting that Frank Quennell (NDP) would get re-elected in my own constituency of Saskatoon Meewasin. However I was upset that Serge LeClerc (Sask. Party) won in Saskatoon Northwest (although not actually surprised). I was really hoping that Ken Winton-Grey (NDP) could pick up that seat, and for awhile, it was looking possible.

So in conclusion, I am not going to at all speculate as to what the Saskatchewan Party government is going to do with it's next half-year (until next summer) and it's next four years in government, and I think that anyone who does start speculating is quite irresponsible (unless that person is an opposition politician, because that's what politicians are supposed to do; they get paid for that). The soonest real hint that we're going to get will be their first throne speech that should be delivered within a couple months. But I guess that's the way politics flows.

20 years since the death of Rene Levesque

2007-11-06T08:08:00.000-06:00

I know, I know, the anniversary was on the first of November, but it's never too late. In commemoration of René Lévesque, the Parti Québecois is selling t-shirts with René's face on them, the leaders of all three parties in the National Assembly delivered speeches in his honour, and because of those two things (along with some smaller commemorations), René Lévesque has risen again as a topic of discussion; of course now that someone's dead, people usually just talk about how great he was.

While Lévesque was one of the first real Québec sovereignty leaders (which is what Pauline Marois highlighted), he also made inroads for social change, the nationalization of resources in Québec (such as Hydro Québec), and cleaning up Québec's government (which is what Mario Dumont and Jean Charest highlighted).

Even though I've lived in English Canada all my life, I am too much of a Francophile/'Québecerphile' to provide a truly English Canada 'review' on him. So this time I can just report the facts, but I would love to read a take on him written by a true Anglophone.

Sask. leaders' debate observations

2007-10-31T09:00:00.000-06:00

Last night, the Saskatchewan election leaders' debate took place in Regina between Brad Wall (Sask. Party), David Karwacki (Liberal) and Lorne Calvert (NDP and incumbent premier).

Here is what I noticed last night, written in point form:
1. The format of the debate must have ticked a lot of people off.
While the statement speeches were handled quite well, I felt that the bickering that occurred during the actual debate times must have turned off people who already had a hunch that politics is 'skum-bag' sport.
2. Brad Wall focused much more on the NDP's history and his independent review than his actual policy.
Last night, Wall focused on two broad points: a) his platform has had an independent review by an economist (and that economist said it was balanced); and b) Saskatchewan pretty much is falling apart under Calvert. However, Wall really didn't mention much about his exact ideas and—for the ones he did bring up—how those ideas will make Saskatchewan better. I think if people should know exactly what this change that's being proposed to them is, and how this change is actually constructive and will make everyone's lives better (i.e. that the change is not like switching from sugar-packed Lucky Charms cereal to sugar-packed Captain Crunch cereal).
3. David Karwacki did surprisingly well.
While I am in no way handing my support to Karwacki's platform, I was surprised how well Karwacki did in the debate. He didn't seem like the unelected leader of a third party who-has-no-current-MLAs type of guy. He did truly seem like a real contender who has a good chance.
4. Lorne Calvert ought to have made the point more clearly that the boom was started under his government.
While Calvert did mention several times that Saskatchewan is experiencing a boom and has increased prosperity, I never actually heard him take credit for that. The job boom logically means that there is more jobs, meaning that either companies are starting here or are expanding here, meaning that the business climate is good here, and since the jobs are getting filled, it means that people have a desire to live here. That is definitely something worth taking credit for; all of this did happen under this NDP government.
5. Karwacki was fixed on Saskatoon.
While Wall and Calvert gave a pretty provincial take on things and issues, Karwacki's points were very much Saskatoon-centric. He was talking about Saskatoon crime, Saskatoon traffic and infrastructure, Saskatoon as a young people magnet, and Saskatoon people who he talked to during the campaign. While it is true that his own constituency where he is running is in Saskatoon, and his party's only real shot is in some select Saskatoon constituencies, it really doesn't make him look fit to be a party leader—never mind a premier—who actually has the interests of such foreign places like Estevan and Regina in mind (kinda reminds me of Gilles Duceppe's 'geographical bias').
6. The taped questions by Saskatchewan residents often had a bias against the NDP.
I noticed that many of the questions asked by the people had a strong, obvious bias against the status quo (a.k.a. the NDP). For instance, one guy from Swift Current said that the roads in Saskatchewan are terrible and that it's impossible to drive somewhere without stuff falling off your car. Since it's currently the NDP who is in charge of the roads, and is backing up their track record on highways, that question is completely out of line. The question itself shouldn't have a political position.

And finally my number seven point, which, while not really having much to do with anything, is something I still think should be said for those who missed the debate. I noticed that after the first question (which was asked by an older guy in Regina with the subject of what are you damned politicians going to do with my hard-earned money), Karwacki actually laughed a bit (this was caught on tape because he was the first one to answer the question). I think this was because, with absolutely no offence to the questioner, the guy did have a kind of 'funny' or 'different' voice/vocal expression. I am not at all saying that Karwacki is losing all electoral chances to do this, but it does make him look like a snobby jerk.

Despite my above points, there was enough substance in last night's debate. However, I do not believe that there was an actual winner; no one really screwed up or said anything down-right stupid. A week until the election … isn't it all so exciting?

UN moving to Montreal? C'est possible.

2007-10-24T07:14:00.000-06:00

Originally reported in Montréal's La Presse newspaper, but reproduced in Montréal's English-language paper The Gazette, officials from the City of Montréal, the Québec government, and the Government of Canada have been lobbying the United Nations to move its headquarters from New York City to Montréal.

This whole story started when the United Nations decided that its buildings in New York needed to be significantly renovated. They discovered that this would cost $1.9 billion. Canadian officials devised a plan to give the United Nations a chunk of land in Montréal's Old Port that is nine times bigger than its current lot—with a whole new block of buildings on it—for less money than it would cost to renovate its current infrastructure in New York. (Even though it's in a popular tourist district, this particular section is "well removed from tourists".)

I believe that this would be a great move for the United Nations. Montréal is a truly bilingual city, which would be a great compliment to its two official working languages policy (the two languages being English and French). Montréal is also located, at least at the moment, in Canada, which is a lot less repulsive place for the UN to be than the United States.

Looking at it from our perspective as Canadians, this would bring a lot more attention, fancy diplomatic people, money, and quite possibly even more influence to Canada.

While Canada's proposal would still save the UN money, I strongly believe that it needs to be made even more attractive. Canadian officials need to mount an international campaign underlining that Canada is a much more 'authentic' home for the United Nations than is business, money-oriented New York in the cocky United States of America. Montréal has culture, life, and diplomacy ringing through its streets; that's what we have to present to the UN member-nations, as well as the UN itself. (It also wouldn't hurt to make it even more financially cheap for the UN.)

Just FYI, the New York renovations aren't set to start until the spring, so we still have some time to pitch our idea.

Election over throne speech?

2007-10-16T07:14:00.000-06:00

My answer: quite likely. Here is what I think each party's motives/thoughts are:

Conservatives:
The Tories have been trying for quite some time to reach 40% in the polls, which is generally considered the minimum support needed to form a majority. This week, they met that goal. Harper and his party desperately want a majority government. Now that they're this far, a decently financed election (which is something they can do) could be enough to actually obtain that majority.

Additionally, Harper has been setting the stage for an election, by taunting the Liberals to either support their throne speech or face an election. To me, this looks like Harper thinks his speech won't be an instant sell to the Grits.

Liberals:
On one hand, Dion and the Liberals are in no health to fight (never mind win) an election. On the other, supporting Harper's throne speech (which he is making sound a bit more radical than we are used to) is only going to make Dion look worse.

However, Dion has been hinting that he very well might vote against the speech. If he thought he wouldn't support it, he wouldn't have done all the ranting against it—and against the possibility of his party supporting it.

NDP and the Bloc Québecois:
Both of these parties seem as though they are prepared to, and will, vote against the government as long as its speech isn't a left-wing suck-up (which it probably won't be).

There's what I think. What's on your mind?

Marois has a seat in the National Assembly, politics changing in Quebec

2007-09-25T09:55:00.001-06:00

Pauline Marois, the new leader of the Parti Québecois, has won the by-election in the constituency of Charlevoix.

What does this mean for Québec and the rest of Canada? For federalists, this is in fact good news. Marois has stated that she, at least at this time, doesn't have the intention of pursuing the dominant sovereignty aspect of the PQ's platform. So with Marois winning this seat with 59% of the vote, showing her popularity, it means that Marois should be sticking around for awhile holding back the sovereignty agenda. What she'll do in the Assembly is something that we'll have to keep an eye on.

This adds to the list of recent events that shows a change in direction of Québec politics. All of a sudden in the past year, we have experienced the following:
- the first minority government in Québec since the 1800s
- the rise of a Francophone conservative party (the ADQ), and its position as the Official Opposition
- the federal Conservative Party going from zero to ten seats in Québec in one election, followed by another seat in a by-election
- an uncontested female leader of the PQ who has no immediate intention of pursing the sovereignty of Québec
- the first NDP MP in Québec since 1970

Remember Québec in the 60s and 70s? The passion, the patriotism, the anger of the public were all present; people were genuinely involved and passionate about the future of their province. Also, people were fairly centre-left. Nowadays, it seems as history is no longer an insight into Québec politics. More and more people are going Right to the conservatives, which thirty years ago would have been unthinkable.

In the August 13th edition of Maclean's, Québec filmmaker Pierre Falardeau was quoted as saying, "Quebecers have become imbeciles. This is a population that lives in the suburbs and shops at Wal-Mart. It's a collective problem. Where are the intellectuals? Where are the artists? Where are the thinkers, the ones who are meant to make us reflect?"

While many people would disagree with that interpretation, the former revolutionary-type province of Québec is changing. How much more it will go to the Right, and be like the rest of Canada, is yet to be determined.

California politicians close to deal on health care

2007-09-24T08:15:00.000-06:00

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is close to reaching a deal with the opposition Democratic Party on introducing universal medical coverage in the State of California.

While members of Schwarzenegger's Republican Party are very skeptical about it, and even publically against it, many of the groups who are traditionally against such health care reforms haven't really spoken out against it as was expected. Some major corporations aren't even really against it as they, too, are facing problems with rising health care costs.

Click here to read Schwarzenegger's health reform plan

A recent poll found that 72% of Californian adults support the governor's plan.

Isn't it great to see that even a Republican governor is fighting for health care for all, regardless of their ability to pay? We should all hope that this will go forward and become law in California. Between Schwarzenegger and the two leading federal Democratic leadership candidates, the health of low-income Americans is looking a lot better.

Thibault to be questioned by National Assembly

2007-09-20T08:49:00.000-06:00

A former lieutenant-governor of Québec, Lise Thibault, has been asked by all three parties of the National Assembly to explain some excessive expenses before the Public Administration Commission.

These excessive expenses, in fact, totalled up to $700,000 which she spent on personal gifts and meals; sometimes these expenses of hers were made simultaneously in different cities! During media questioning, she has said that she doesn't regret anything.

In my opinion, it is despicable for a public official to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of non-business expenses using tax money. While she did have some 'royalness' because of her position, that still doesn't make her the God of our money to do whatever she pleases with it.

The Commission is investigating to ensure that this doesn't happen again, and the president, Gilles Taillon (ADQ MNA), even mentioned criminal charges. In the case that these were wrongful expenses of tax money, I hope that the Commission will find out information that could possibly create criminal charges against Thibault, like anyone else, doesn't have the right to misspend so much of other people's money; money that could have been put to healthcare or other beneficial programs.

This case is not closed yet; we'll have to see what the Commission finds out and decides. After Thibault has made her appearance, I'll blog on this again.

P.S. What are your thoughts on this potential scandal? Have any other info? Please leave a comment.

Outremont and Quebec politics

2007-09-17T15:39:00.000-06:00

I noticed something recently, there is currently no Blogging Dipper who is regularly blogging on Québec politics. For that reason I am going to take up monitering Québec politics along with federal and Saskatchewan politics, until a Québec resident takes up blogging from the NDP perspective. Since it is necessary that the NDP be an active and noticed presence in Québec for it to make significant gains, there needs to be a blogger who regularly provides his or her take on Québec politics.

Since I have a new 'mandate' in my blogging, I will try to blog more in the future, time permitting.

And finally, my best wishes to Thomas Mulcair in Outremont tonight, along with the other two NDP candidates in the Québec by-elections. Let's get Thomas in the House!

Fall federal election to go with provincial elections?

2007-09-11T08:41:00.000-06:00

Stephen Harper has finally decided that he'd like to wipe the order papers free of the opposition's bills from last spring and start a new session with a throne speech. Of course, a throne speech brings up a very good point for the opposition parties to call an election.

Already, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québecois, has said that his party will vote against the throne speech if it does not make a firm commitment that Canada will withdraw from Afghanistan in February of 2009. Stéphane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party, has stated that his party will vote against it if it doesn't say that it will comply with Kyoto.

So it is starting to look quite possible to have a fall federal election. However, the opposition parties may be a bit more reluctant (hopefully they'll be reluctant, for the sake of election workers) to bring down the government when there is an Ontario election scheduled for October and the likelihood of a Saskatchewan election, too.

While I think it is a good idea to end this Harper-cratic government as soon as possible, I just don't think this fall is the time for that; let's wait until spring.

The Sask. NDP's pre-election campaign

2007-08-29T08:16:00.000-06:00

Wow, who know what all can happen with Saskatchewan politics during summer? But quite obviously a lot can happen, and don't forget the controversy with that.

To start off, I should mention what is becoming a pretty controversial thing in this province: the NDP campaign. Currently, the most noticeable aspect of the pre-election campaign are the 'Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing' ads, which appear of buses and billboards (the linked news article only really mentions the pamphlets), and will be in a pamphlet come election. Ever since this campaign came out (about a week ago), there has been at least a couple of articles on it every day in both of Saskatchewan's major newspapers. During this time, the Saskatchewan Party (essentially SK's Conservative Party) has spent all their efforts on trying to attack the NDP's campaign (surprisingly, they're not really attacking the NDP itself).

The next portion of the NDP's pre-election campaign is called, "The Same Old Sask Party". The website pretty much just speaks for itself. So far, it is an internet-based campaign.

I will post yet again a couple times in the near future on other matters in the Saskosphere (by the way, that's not a real word).

Long time no post ...

2007-08-27T08:11:00.000-06:00

As one might notice by viewing my archives, I have remained in a political cave this summer. But now that the Monte Bello Summit is over, Québec by-elections are coming up, and the House of Commons is due to sit in three weeks, I thought it may be safe to return from my cave.

However, all the political action of the summer is now quite past tense, so anything I add to the blogosphere would have no point (if you wish to read the general idea of my views on recent events, please see ndp.ca).

I'll try to put up a posting or two this week on les affairs en Saskatchewan, which might even be of interest to some of you Ontarians! In the mean time, check out another goof-up by the non-media world: http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2007/8/20/3170563.html

Will not be posting for awhile

2007-07-06T09:31:00.000-06:00

I will not be able to post anything here for awhile, as I will be gone for 3 weeks starting today. So no, I did not abandon the blogging world, but am just on vacation from it.

In the meantime, why not join (for free) the Conference Board of Canada and download some of their reports on Canada's economy or sustainable urban transport. Interesting reads ……

Secret gov. study backs $50 carbon tax

2007-06-27T08:21:00.000-06:00

A secret report to "Canada's New Government" from a "world renowned energy economist" (quote from Green Party website) has concluded that a $50 carbon tax would in fact lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and have an insignificant effect on Canada's economy—contrary to what Prime Minister Harper would have you believe.

(see the Green Party press release)

While there has been no commentary yet by Harper or Environment Minister John Baird (at least to my knowledge), I am not even certain that they could start fighting the findings of this study. Thanks to this study, Canadians can now know the truth—the truth about a carbon tax; and the truth about this government.

Very soon, C.N.G. (Canada's New Government) must implement Kyoto

2007-06-22T08:46:00.000-06:00

Do you still remember that private members' bill by Pablo Rodriguez to legally force the government to implement Kyoto? Well, it is poised to pass the Senate today, making it law for "Canada's New Government", along with succeeding governments, to meet the Kyoto targets.

Harper's government said it would not be in the interest of the country to implement Kyoto, and is willing to go to court about it (Steve sure likes going to court). So while it is a toss-up whether this bill means anything or not, it is still an achievement for Canada to have such legislation passed, and I applaud Mr. Rodriguez for drafting this bill.

But if this does go to court, it might very well bring out the less-Canada oriented side of "Canada's New Government".

Jack made no wrong at "private clinic"

2007-06-19T08:16:00.000-06:00

You may have heard the critisizm of Jack Layton that he went to a private clinic for a hernia operation. But according to the article below, he in fact made no wrong (meaning not abandoning the public system) by doing so:

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton has a legitimate beef with Dr. Brian Day, the new head of the Canadian Medical Association.
Day is calling Layton a hypocrite for having a hernia repaired at a private clinic while denouncing private health care in the political arena.
He is referring to the Shouldice Clinic, a specialty operation north of Toronto where doctors perform nothing but hernia repairs.
Day is right insofar as the clinic is privately owned, but Jack didn't pay much out of his own pocket. The Shouldice has been in operation since 1945 and was grandfathered into the national health plan when medicare was introduced.
Thus, Ontario patients have the procedure paid for by their provincial health-care plans. Other provinces reimburse patients at a level equivalent to their own fee schedules.
Thus, Layton's hernia repair involved no hypocrisy because the public system paid for it. This is the kind of health-care model Day says he supports.
It seems odd that he would attack a politician for using it.

- Randy Burton, The Saskatoon Star Phoenix, June 19, 2007

Commons Environment committee crashes

2007-06-15T08:09:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, another House of Commons committee crashed thanks to, yet again, the Conservative chairperson.

This marks the second time a House of Commons committee has been shut down since the leak of the handbook for Conservative chairs to shut down committees. This 200-page handbook also outlines how to control witnesses for the benefit of the Conservatives. (Yet another undemocratic habit of the Conservatives.)

It is completely unacceptable for the government to be orchestrating a Commons committee's 'malfunction', especially when it has such important work to do (for the environment), which includes hearing witnesses.

Well, in the next election, the Conservatives are going to have a lot of explaining to do to sort this all out to the public (especially MP Bob Mills, who was the chairperson who literally walked out from the committee). As was shown in a recent Decima poll, the Conservatives are lagging behind the Liberals; their support is slipping.

I doubt there is any Canadian who truly believes that it is acceptable for a government to interfere with democracy. The Conservatives are going to lose support for doing this; and since, according to a poll released ealier this week, the majority of Canadians don't want Stéphane Dion to be prime minister, there is a great opportunity here for the NDP in the next election.

The Great Hill Times Poll (it's a different type of poll)

2007-06-14T11:25:00.000-06:00

The Hill Times (a popular weekly Canadian politics newspaper) has now published it's annual survey of MPs. Who and about what did they survey? They surveyed political staffers, MPs and interns (for a total of 102 people) on everything from who's the "hippest" MP to the "Biggest Gossip":

Sexiest Male: Peter MacKay (Conservative)
Sexiest Female: Ruby Dhalla (Liberal)
Best Dressed Male: Scott Brison (Liberal)
Worst Dressed Male: Myron Thompson (Conservative)
Best Dressed Female: Belinda Stronach (Liberal)
Worst Dressed Female: Sylvie Boucher (Conservative)
Best Sense of Humour: Peter Stoffer (NDP)
Worst Sense of Humour: Stephen Harper (Conservative)
Best House Orator: Stephen Harper (Conservative)
Best Speeches Outside the House: Michael Ignatieff (Liberal)
Most Discreet: Paul Martin (Liberal)
Biggest Gossip: Belinda Stronach (Liberal)
Hardest Working: Ralph Goodale (Liberal)
Hippest: Rahim Jaffer (Conservative)
Best Hair, Male: Pablo Rodriguez (Liberal)
Best Hair, Female: Helena Guergis (Conservative)

To see the profiles and pictures of these MPs yourself, go to the list of current MPs.

Medicare Part 4: We can afford a better system

2007-06-11T08:08:00.000-06:00

For the last part in my medicare series, I want to focus on how we need to make our current system work. The reason that we are having so many problems with wait-lists, hospitals closing down and doctors moving to more urban centres is because we are not properly funding the system. Essentially, we are starving our hero and wondering why he doesn't make as much of a difference as he should. Without an adequately funded health system, it is obvious that it won't work to the degree that we'd like it to.

1. We can spend more on health
Many anti-medicare groups say that Canada can't afford to spend more on our medicare system, or else we'll have serious financial troubles. What they don't see, however, is that a private system would in fact cost more; the only difference is that it will cost Canadians more and the government a lot less. No matter if we have a public, private or a two-tiered system, it will still cost people money, if not by taxes, then it will cost more by hospital bills.

A private system would only serve to add profits to healthcare. We would be paying more (for those who could afford it) and only getting slightly better service. However, if we instead put some more money into our public system, we would have less wait times, more hospitals and better care for all Canadians. Obviously the latter is much more in the interest of the public.

2. Isn't health worth the cost?
Canada spends so much money on the military and corporate tax breaks, yet the anti-medicare advocates (often the same people who support big spending on the military and corporate tax breaks) say that we don't have the money to sustain a good public health system, therefore we should dismantle it and institute a private, for-profit system.

Health is one of the most basic components of life; it can't be put behind corporate tax cuts and the military. We are talking about providing healthcare to all Canadians, we can't just limit that to those who can pay.

————————————
As I have shown in the past four posts on medicare, we cannot continue on the track that we are on now. We desperately need to expand our public health system so that people can get care faster and be able to receive the necessary drugs in order to get healthy (pharmacare). Too many Canadian provincial governments—and the federal government—are simply ignoring the issue of health, and trying to give the responsibility to the private sector. We need to show these governments that health needs to be a much bigger priority for their governments. Without it, all too many Canadians will simply be 'turned down' for health.

Why can't Sask. MPs do the same?

2007-06-07T08:18:00.002-06:00

As we all know by now, Bill Casey, a Nova Scotia MP (who at the time of the vote was a Conservative MP), defied his government by voting against its 2007 budget. By doing so, he was kicked out of the Conservative caucus.

Here in Saskatchewan, there has been a lot of talk about why the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs also didn't dare to vote against the budget, seeing that many—if not most people (including some members of the media)—people here are upset that Stephen Harper broke his promise to Saskatchewan. While people (particularly the provincial NDP government) have been talking about that for quite some time, this debate has very recently got to be more interesting: If a Nova Scotia Conservative MP can put his province first, why can't a Saskatchewan Conservative MP do the same?

Saskatchewan Conservative MPs have clearly shown a lack of leadership; MPs are supposed to put their constituents before their party, just as Mr. Casey did for Nova Scotia (and it did pay off for him; many news articles, such as in The Star Phoenix, have said that Mr. Casey has had an even greater popularity boost for doing what he did). It has clearly been shown that the people have Saskatchewan are upset that the federal government has broke a promise, and they are also upset that their elected representatives are not standing on their side.

Already, the polls have shown that the Conservatives have been having some problems in Saskatchewan (particularly with the Wheat Board). With this issue added on, I think these MPs are going to have a lot of explaining to do if they are to get any decent portion of the vote in the next election.

Medicare Part 3: Extending the system to cover health

2007-06-01T08:10:00.000-06:00

Going back to the medicare series, I will be talking about two crucial elements for the next generation of strong medicare: home-care and pharmacare. The reason we needs these two more elements is simple: health doesn't just include a trip to the doctor or hospital. Health means taking medication to get better, and having medical and domestic help while resting at your own home.

1. Pharmacare
While "Canada's New Government" has been trying to pretend that the concept doesn't exist, the NDP has lately been raising the issue of a national drug plan (which Manitoba already has a version of) so everyone has access to the proper medication.

Obviously, Canada has had our "medicare" system for quite some time, and we've been proud of it. We have been saying that everyone has access to the proper treatment, and thus we are all a bunch of health Canadians. However, while our system does provide access to see a doctor, or even get surgery, etc., our system still doesn't guarantee the access to prescription drugs. For many, if not most, somewhat major health problems, a free surgery won't do the trick without having the proper medication after the hospital visit.

The above means that we need to have a national pharmacare plan soon. Without it, people still won't have the proper treatment. Without it, we can't at all claim that everyone has access to health, when drugs are one of the most common ways of treating a health problem.

As a quick side note, I would also like to provide the cost of a pharmacare system, as told by Joel Lexchin. He says that currently Canadians spend about $20 billion every year on drugs. A pharmacare plan, thanks to bulk buying, price negotiations, etc. would only cost $7-8 billion, and everyone would be covered!

2. Home-care
Once again, I will start off with information that I learned at the conference. From what I understand, our current system only provides home-care, to people who need it, for two weeks. While in many (not most, though) circumstances that would be enough to 'rehabilitate' the patient medically, that person still may not be able to do many things on their own: shopping, picking up medications, going to the doctor, taking a bath, etc.

So in those circumstances, when the patient does not have adequate insurance to pay for home-care, the only people remaining to help are family members. In Canada, there are only approximately 50,000 home-care workers, however, there are 3 million family members who help—on average—ten hours a week (many insurance plans don't even pay for ten hours a week of home-care).

As you can see, there are problems pertaining to the current home-care system. Home-care should be just something for people who can afford it, or who have hard-working, willing family members; home-care is something that is a right, just like a visit to a doctor is currently a right in Canada. Too many people need assistance at home with, in addition to medical help, help with basic day-to-day items which most of us take for granted the ability to do them independently.

———————
So as I have shown, we in fact currently do not have a full service, 'health-to-all' medicare system. Until everyone has access to both drugs and home-care, there will still be people who are not receiving the care/treatment that they need in order to be healthy. And in Canada, health is supposed to be a right. Let's actually act by our principles.

Quebec budget woes

2007-05-31T11:41:00.001-06:00

I will wander (just for today, though) on my series on medicare. I want to talk about the more political woes in Québec regarding the budget.

I am sure that most people by now know a lot about this whole flurry regarding Mr. Charest's most recent budget (but we can go over it again). In it, he spent all of the new money from Ottawa on a tax cut pour les Québecois that he has been promising for years. Both of the opposition parties have publicly opposed the budget. Even though the ADQ (Action démocratique du Québec) is on the Right and thus for tax cuts, they oppose it in this case arguing that the money should be spent on debt relief. The PQ (Parti Québecois) also is against the budget, saying that the money could be better spent aiding the healthcare system, and funding the education system as well.

At the beginning, Charest and the Liberals were not at all thinking about backing away from their proposed budget, even if that meant an election (the last Québec election was in March). But then a new poll came out, and that of course changed everything. It changed because the Liberals are now in 3rd place, with the ADQ poised to form a minority government. Now, the Liberals are not being so tough.
(CBC: The Liberals change their mind)

"But in the end, I want everyone to know: I'm not the one who is going to decide about the future of this government. The two other political parties, they all have a decision to make on what we'll vote on tomorrow."

I would just like to remind Mr. Charest that yes, he does have a pretty big say on the future of his government; he can just make a better budget! He should remember that politics isn't all about agreeing with governments and having as few elections as possible; politics is about getting this done to make a better province.

So my thoughts on all this. I think that Quebecers deserve better; a better government. (This is only backed up by the quote on the left.) In Québec, you have the two largest parties both wanting to spend money on tax cuts or debt relief when the health system has many problems, the education system needs more funding, and the environment needs as much money as possible in order to reduce emissions to combat global warming.

There needs to be a real change in the way Québec does politics.

Medicare Part 2: Cost is not a problem

2007-05-30T08:11:00.000-06:00

Again, I will start off by mentioning an argument against our treasured medicare system: our health care costs are going through the roof; the government simply can't afford to continue to fund health. Once again, there are fundamental flaws to one of their central arguments.

The main 'theme' in this argument is that our costs overall—for health—are accelerating, and therefore it is not feasible to continue to fund this as a country or a province. But it is not like they're lying; our health care costs are in fact rising. However, we cannot keep it to such simple terms as some people do. So while medicare costs are rising, they are not in fact rising in comparison to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) According to economist Robert Evans.

Also speaking of health expenditures in comparison to the GDP, we can also look to Taiwan for some answers. At the conference I attended, there was an "International Perspective" session. One of these 'perspectives' was from Taiwan (provided by Tsung-Mei Cheng). In Taiwan, they too have a form of government-subsidized healthcare (modelled after Canada's). In 1994, 4.8% of Taiwan's GDP was being spent on public health care, which covered 58% of the cases/population. However, now Taiwan is spending only slightly more (5.7% of the GDP) on health, and more than 99% of the population is covered!

Finally, we must look at what part of our health system is increasing the costs of health. At the conference, Roy Romanow pointed out a common myth about our health system. Many people believe that every aspect of our system is publicly funded. This, in fact, is not true. An all too large percentage (more than 20%) of the health system is privately funded. We must also remember that when groups like the Fraser Institute say that our costs are rising, they are also including the costs of the private health sector as well. So when they say that we're paying too much, that also includes non-governmental funds, with budgets, fees and profits that are not at all controlled by the government. Romanow also gave us an example of the difference in cost increases, and while I was not intelligent enough to write down the time span of these increases, I did get the increases themselves. Over this certain time span, public health expenditures only rose by 4.5%, while private costs went up 6.6%; it is not, then, the public medicare system that is mostly driving up costs, it is instead the private system that is doing this.

So just remember, don't take the arguments exactly as they're told. The public system is still the way forward.

Medicare Part 1: Our system v. America's

2007-05-08T09:03:00.000-06:00

Last Thursday and Friday, I attended the S.O.S. Medicare conference 2 in Regina. The main objective was to establish a clear goal for where to go now in terms of medicare, particularly relating to the "second stage" of medicare. Today, I will start a series on medicare (with no definite end date).

" 'Everyone for themselves!' said the elephant as he danced among the chickens."

– Tommy Douglas

As we all know, there are several groups in Canada trying to fight against our medicare system, including the Fraser Institute. One of their arguments is that our medicare system is becoming unsustainable due to increasing costs. But, as was pointed out at the conference by economist Robert Evans, health expenditures in Canada are not rising in comparison to the GDP, and the biggest increases in health are, in fact, in the private system (which governments are quietly letting through the door). He also reminded us that we must remember that more than half of Americans who declare bankruptcy due to health costs actually have private health insurance!

Their other main argument is wait times. They say that if there was a second tier of health care—involving the private sector—people could simply pay and get treatment faster. They sometimes refer to the U.S. where there are barely any waiting lists. The thing, though, is that in the U.S. they have very little waiting lists, because many people simply can't get onto a list due to financial reasons! It is completely unacceptable to have a society where money buys health; all people should be treated equally, regardless of ability to pay.

In New Zealand—where they have a two-tiered health system—specialists spend only 48% of their time in public hospitals; the rest is spent at private hospitals treating people who can pay more.

Opponents of public medicare also point to the shortage of doctors and nurses as a sign that government medicare is not working for Canadians. However, we must remember that everyone is getting treated by these professionals; they don't have a shortage in America because, again, they have a smaller per capita population who 'deserves' to get health care.

Health care is not a privilege for the privileged few; it is a right for everyone. I believe it is quite obvious that a private, American-style system won't get us anywhere; and I think most Canadians believe that, too. However, the real fight is going to be to improve our current system to make it even more accessible to everyone, in order to stop a two-tiered system. We need to move forward to make health in Canada an even greater right for everyone, not make it a corporate profit-making business.

The next part of this series will not be posted until May 24th or 25th, as I will be out-of-town for the next two weeks.

Another P.M. Trudeau? Doubt it.

2007-04-30T08:08:00.000-06:00

Justin Trudeau, the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, has won the Liberal nomination in the Montréal riding of Papineau.

And already, even before he has started to campaign to try to win Papineau, people are speculating that he might be a future Prime Minister.

Personally, I highly doubt that he will be the leader of the Liberal Party someday, let alone prime minister. I am quite astonished by people who think that just because his father was prime minister, he will also be a prime minister, just because he is entering politics.

From what I've seen (and heard) of him, he does not (yet) have the qualities and talent that would be needed to even consider the job.

So while the Liberals really need to get a new leader, I don't think they should be turning to Justin Trudeau (or even thinking about it right now). Just because he had a special prime ministerial father doesn't mean that he should have any fast-track through politics. The public and the media should just let him develop 'naturally' like any other politician.

O MY GOSH! The opposition is destroying the world as we know it!

2007-04-23T08:03:00.000-06:00

Last week, Environment minister John Baird released his brand new report on what would happen to Canada's economy if the opposition's (particularly the Liberal's) environmental plan came to be.

According to this report, if the emission standards of Kyoto were implemented in Canada, our economy would basically collapse, and many Canadians would lose their jobs (and the Conservative's will implement "meaningful" and "tough" action to combat climate change without hurting the economy).

Baird told the committee that analysis from economists shows implementing the Kyoto Protocol would mean the following:
- Gasoline will cost more than $1.60 a litre over the 2008-to-2012 period
- 275,000 Canadians working today will lose their jobs by 2009
- Job loss will cause unemployment rates to rise 25 per cent by 2009
- The decline of economic activity in the range of $51 billion

And by the way, I don't think anyone is sure what "tough" and "meaningful" action implies. Compared to what we should be doing (Kyoto), the original Clean Air Act was far short of being tough and meaningful (it was more like soft and easy-to-do action).

See, the thing that Baird doesn't realize is that Canada can actually create a 'green' economy which would be able to employ all the people who won't have jobs (note that his estimate his quite extreme), which in turn (by having the green businesses) would be able to bring more money to Canada's economy. And most importantly, the environment would benefit significantly.

Nor does Baird realize that if we don't actually fulfil Kyoto, all that supposed economic loss would really mean nothing when compared to the environmental consequences that will face our health, etc. etc. etc.

(To read more "Nonsense by Baird", read CTV Question Period's interview with him.)

This whole report of the Conservative government is simply a scare tactic to make it acceptable to Canadians how little the government is doing for the environment. It is not the government's job to scare people; it's the government's job to do what the people say needs to be done (also, polls indicate that the CPC is not the enviro-party of Canada; it's the NDP). Now wouldn't it be nice if the environment minister stopped wasting his time of scare-reports, and started to actually do something that is progressive?

Railway Continuation Act vs. Labour rights

2007-04-18T08:09:00.000-06:00

I am sure that there were a great deal of people watching CPAC last night due to the debate and voting on Bill C-46 (Railway Continuation Act, 2007). Unfortunately, the bill was passed by 195 votes, versus 71 against (please note that CTV recorded, on the internet, the second reading results versus the third reading; the latter really means more).

The bill was passed, of course, by the Liberals and Conservatives, while it was contended by the NDP and the Bloc Québecois. (If you would like to see who exactly voted which way, please see Hansard, and go to the vote near the bottom of the page.)

What really is the railway continuation act of 2007? Well, it is intended to end the strike/lock-out (different people see it differently; I like the latter) of the United Transportation Union workers at Canadian National railways. The reason that the Conservatives and Liberals cite for passing such legislation is that the 'non-working status quo' is hurting the economy and the farmers, financially. However, the reason of the Bloc and NDP for voting against the bill is that the conditions pre-'non-working' period were not at all good for the workers, especially concerning safety.

So my thoughts on this ordeal. While I am an associate member of the National Farmers Union, and thus on the farmers' side, I would have to stand with labour on this one. While the initial strike was started by the workers, they did have good cause: their safety while working was compromised by CN in favour of more money. So it was completely acceptable for the workers to strike. However, they are now locked out, not on strike; why should labour have to continue to suffer now at the benefit of CN? It makes no sense.

It would be nice for a change to have the Liberals and Conservatives on the side of labour and the people for once, instead of on the side of big business. But yet, they continue to claim that they are. It just doesn't make sense that if they are on the side of labour, that they'd vote for this bill (actually, they never even really mentioned labour at all in last nights events, they know they have the weak side). They may not get the message now, but we can sure show them next election.

NDP taking on pet food regulation

2007-04-12T08:01:00.000-06:00

A couple weeks ago, there was quite a lot of talk on pet food, as there was the pet food contamination at Menu Foods. However, all that talk has now died down, at least on the news.

As a pet owner (and one who buys Iams and Purina), I was particularly concerned about this whole event. But as much as I was concerned, I also spotted it as an opportunity for the NDP to make gains among pet owners. It is for that reason that I sent a short email to Jack Layton (or his office, I don't really know who checks it):

I obviously don't have to say anything regarding what has happened; it has been all over the news. As a pet owner, I find this particularly troubling. But, of course, I am not the only pet owner in Canada; of the people I know, at least 60% of them have pets. And many people, of course, are very attached to their pets, and would do a lot for them; possibly even move their political support.

So it is for that reason, as well as that this has made such a big impact on the news, that I would like to see my party, the NDP, move very quickly to take up the issue of pet food regulation in Canada. With pets being such an important part of many families in Canada, it only seems natural that the NDP, as the party of the people, should also become the party of "man's best friend". Also, I cannot for the life of me see any Canadian arguing against pet food regulation.

I hope that you agree with me that this is something that could be a great 'feature' to add to the NDP's family-friendly agenda: advocate for pet food regulation in Canada.

Close to a week later, I read in the newspaper that the NDP, particularly Olivia Chow, is now calling for pet food regulation in Canada. While I do not think that I was the only one to write, I do think that each call upon the NDP led to this. And as far as I know, no other party has taken the cause for the pets (another political victory for the NDP).

To kick-start this campaign for regulation, Olivia Chow released a video on YouTube concerning pet food:

Also, she created a petition (PDF) that we can all print off, get people to sign, and send it back to her office. I would encourage you all to do that.

So in conclusion, I would like to encourage you all to back up the NDP and Olivia Chow on this battle. While it may not be as big of an issue as, say, climate change, it is something where the NDP can score "brownie-points" with the electorate, and, of course, is a good cause, too.

Part 3: Why and how you should support Barack

2007-04-11T08:00:00.000-06:00

This is the final part to my 3-part series on Barack Obama (Democratic Party leadership candidate, U.S.). For my final part, I will highlight why Canadians should support Barack, and how this can be accomplished.

What Barack as President would do for America, and why we should support that
This topic is answered by my previous post, and I would ask that you refer to that one. Barack's platform for America comprises several important topics, such as universal medicare, ending the Iraq war, and creating green cars and green fuel.

What Barack as President would do for Canada
Of course, if elected, he would not be working for a better Canada. However, from what I've heard from other Canadians who support him is that he respects the importance of the relationship between Canada and the U.S. While I don't expect him to ditch NAFTA for anything like that, I believe that from the row of candidates for Democratic leadership, he would benefit his own people (Americans) and Canada more than any other candidate.

How you can support his candidacy

If you have any American friends, especially those who are eligible to vote in the Democratic primaries, call or email them, and talk about American politics, and Barack Obama
Buy Barack merchandise and wear it. Do this especially if you are taking a trip to the States.
Write blog articles on Barack, and why Canadians (and Americans if they read our blogs) should support him
Write a letter to the editor to an American paper and hope it gets published
Finally, you can "join the campaign" by going to his website, and at the top, enter your postal code and email address. I haven't figured out yet what this whole process is about, but I'm sure it's great.

This concludes my 3-part series. I hope by now, as Canadians, from what we know about Barack, can all rally around Barack and his campaign to be the next president of the U.S. Yes, right now, Canadians aren't particularly fond of America; this is mostly due to the last four and a half years of Bush as president. But I hope that, by supporting Barack, we can reconcile the relationship between Canada and the U.S.; Barack is not looking to continue what has been happening for the last four years, but instead, he is looking to turn that all around.

Why I support Barack Obama, and my views on his policy

2007-04-10T07:55:00.000-06:00

Last Thursday, I wrote an article on Barack Obama's (Democratic leadership candidate, U.S.) fundraising. Today, I am following that up with why I support Barack Obama. Let me give my reasons why:

1. Health Policy

"In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we will have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president's first term."

– Barack Speech, January 2007

In his health platform, along with several other specific initiatives, Barack supports two central systems: universal healthcare and lowering drug costs. Lowering drug costs is something that we haven't really accomplished as a country in Canada, but hopefully Barack, as president, could do just that.
While Barack's platform on universal healthcare is very loose, he does believe, as far as I know, that the U.S. should have a universal healthcare system like that of Canada (his platform would do a lot of public consultations).

2. Environment Policy

Just check this out for yourself (click on the link above). His environment program is classified under energy, and includes plans for hybrid cars, reduced energy use, and renewable fuels.

3. Overall Policy

Overall, his policy is well rounded and quite left, as far as America goes (although, I think the platform could be a bit more detailed). I would ask that you check out his whole platform, and see what you think.

4. Barack Himself

By just reading his bio on his website (click above), you can see why he would be an excellent president. The other, smaller factors are that he is not an oil typhoon, terribly rich, or anything like that, which would be a nice change for America. Also, he is an African-American (from what I heard, he is not pure African, though), which, too, would provide a different prospective for America, and would probably make a move more to the left.

Tomorrow, I will have the third and final installment on my 'mini-series' on Barack Obama: Why you should support him, and how.

Go Barack!

2007-04-05T08:00:00.000-06:00

Even though I am Canadian, thus my life is not American politics, I am a supporter of Barack Obama. (If you're one, too, please leave a comment here!) And yesterday was one of those happy days for me: Barack managed to raise US $25 million in the first quarter of 2007, versus Clinton's US $26 million.

Most of us (especially the Canadian observers) know that money virtually drives U.S. politics, and, as a general rule, the more you have, the more supporters you are going to get. So while Clinton was able to get a million bucks more, Obama actually has more money to be spent in the Democratic primaries (Clinton has a whack of money she's not going to spend just now).

But I have a funny feeling that, from now on, Obama might actually start to get more money. One stat that backs this up: 90% of his donations were under $100, meaning that there are a lot of people who can still be tapped for more.

While the polls of democratic members supposedly put Clinton as front-runner, Obama actually has a greater donor base: he has more than 100,000 unique donors, while Clinton has half that (50,000).

So, yes, at the moment, Clinton has more overall support (if you like polls), but Obama has a greater fundraising base than she will probably ever have. And yes, Americans have traditionally been (much) closer to the right than Obama is, I think that once they see how much better life would be with his platform compared to the status quo, people might just change ideologies. So if it's true that money buys votes in the U.S., Obama could possibly be the next President of the U.S.A.

Either tomorrow or next week, I'll have a post on why I support Obama, and why you should, too.

NFLD Attack Ad & Tory Campaign Office

2007-04-03T08:15:00.001-06:00

This year, we've had Tory ads attacking Dion (in English & French), NDP ads promoting themselves, Premier Williams' ads attacking Harper, and now we have a new batch. Now, the Conservative Party is launching a newspaper ad campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador to counter that province's premier's efforts to discredit the federal Conservative Party.

But that is not the only 'awkward' news story from yesterday and today. The federal Conservative Party has opened their new election 'war-room' in suburban Ottawa. I saw a few pictures of this place, and it has a fairly large size (and looks quite expensive), especially if the Conservatives are saying that they will not push for an election. I am not 100% sure that they would put all that money into the place already if they were not adamantly sure that an election would happen this spring or early fall. In my books, if the governing party is almost 100% there is going to be an election in the very near future (enough so that they'd start spending money), there will be an election in the near future.

(However, it would be a good trick if the opposition parties kept the government afloat for another year, just to help deplete their resources.)

My Thoughts on the Status of Quebec

2007-04-02T08:35:00.000-06:00

The whole topic on Québec is a very sensitive one, but alas, I will start to tackle it today. As everyone who lives in Canada knows, Québec officially became a "nation" last fall in the eyes of Parliament. But what comes after that? Should Québec be bilingual, venture into full nationalism, or actually separate? I'm going to start from the last item on the list to the first.

Countries of North America: U.S., Canada, Québec?

There is obviously not too much for me to say on Québec separatism: I am against it. I think it would be one of the worst things to happen to Canada. And it wouldn't really benefit Québec, either. Yes, they would receive all tax dollars collected in Québec, but they would not have access to federal services; they would have to set up their Québec tax system with e-filing, etc. etc., which would cost money.

The Nationalism Argument

While I am not as extreme on this stance as Mario Dumont (ADQ leader), I do agree with the principles of Québec Nationalism. The culture and language of Québec is one of the most important features, in my opinion, of Canada. Resorting to Nationalism, to a certain extent, would protect that status. What I think Nationalism should encompass is the Québec and European traditions, and the French language itself. Québec is not just another province, but a society in itself. I will elaborate on my views on Nationalism at a later time.

Do you live in Quebec? Oui, j'y habite.

I cannot see bilingualism to be a good thing for Québec and its heritage. Once English is given an equal status in Québec, it will slowly and discreetly kill French as the main language in Québec. This is, in fact, completely the opposite direction that Québec should go.

So as you can see, there are many different options that Québec can choose. I do not feel whatsoever that Québec should be eaten up by North American culture and the English language. That is why I do not support separatism, yet, I feel that Québec should seek the Nation alternative.

Jack did it again

2007-03-30T08:36:00.001-06:00

Despite what many Canadians thought, the NDP was successful in significantly amending Harper's Clean Air Act.

This, of course, will make the Clean Air Act a much more valuable piece of legislation (although it would help to have some more envir-funding, too). Environment Minister John Baird, however, is not as delighted as the opposition parties are. He says that this new Clean Air Act will in fact be worse for Canada, as there are what he calls new taxes on Canadian industries.

Another 'funny' thing about what he says is the way he says it. Yesterday, when I was watching CBC Politics, Baird said that this bill will harm Canadian industry with the Carbon Tax. But then he goes on to say that the Conservative government will do "meaningful" actions to help the environment. Does that mean that the Clean Air Act now is too good, thus making it extra-meaningful, and Baird wants to stick with just plain old meaningful?

So while Baird goes around and says that this environmental legislation will hut Canadian industry, Canadian industry will continue to pollute Canadians without any financial penalties.

For the records, let it be known that Jack Layton puts people and their health first, and Harper and Baird prefer to give priority to companies that do not much else than pollute.

Prov. Tory vs Fed. Tory

2007-03-28T08:23:00.001-06:00

Newfoundland & Labrador Premier Danny Williams has started running ads that attack Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The strange part of this story is that Premier Williams is actually a Tory himself; he just happens to be extremely upset with the Prime Minister. Why? Well, you probably already know: NFLD was kinda 'ripped-off' in the federal budget, at least according to the premier.

Just like Sask. Premier Calvert, Williams is complaining that his province wasn't treated fairly in the budget, concerning equalization (the only difference between the two premiers is the Calvert is NDP and Williams is Conservative).

So while these two premiers battle it off with Ottawa, I am personally going to see what the next province-by-province poll is going to reveal (I don't really like polls, but they give a very general idea, at least).

What last night meant for Canada

2007-03-27T08:23:00.001-06:00

The day Canada has been waiting for has passed: the Québec election is over! Everyone now is already familiar with the results (Liberal minority gov., ADQ opposition with a hint of PQ), but what is all this really going to mean for Canada?

Let's start with the obvious. Most political analysts agree that if Charest got a majority, Harper would have started making excuses for an election. If that is the case for a Liberal minority too, I don't know. So either: a) Harper has already decided that a Québec minority government is sufficient; or b) he's going to wait awhile and see what the ADQ is going to as opposition.

The biggest issue for Canada, however, was if the PQ would win, as that is the first step for Québec sovereignty. Obviously, Boisclair is quite far from having a government and being premier. Thankfully, a PQ government doesn't look certain any time soon.

So what did last night mean for Canada? It meant that Canada is not on track to lose Québec (unless the ADQ & PQ make some mischief), and Québec was not destined to never have a minority government again. Last but not least, it meant that Harper's love affair with Québec (which he said he wouldn't do when he was in opposition) didn't actually have the influence he wanted, and thus not getting the results he wanted.

Boy, politically, Québec is a funny place, but that funny place is an integral part of Canada, and I hope that doesn't change.

Poll & My View on the Sask. Budget

2007-03-23T08:27:00.001-06:00

Yesterday was budget day in two of Canada's provinces (Ontario & Saskatchewan). But because I live in Saskatchewan, I will talk about that budget.

Strategic Council Poll

Released Mar. 22, 2007
Conservatives: 39%
Liberals: 31%
NDP: 13%
Greens: 9%
± 3.1%. 19 times out of 20

I am not going to elaborate on the details of the budget (just click here to read more), but I will just quickly say my prospectus on it. While I am a New Democrat, and believe that it is necessary to spend money in order to have a prosperous and equal society, I do find a spending problem in this budget. There are two points which I'd like to mention:

1. The Senior Drug Cap
The problem with this plan is that it will just cost too much, and it will cover people who don't need it. The plan is to cap prescription costs for seniors (65+) at $15/prescription. The only thing I'd change is to have a cap on income, too. (It makes no sense for taxpayers to cap costs for seniors making $100,000 per year.)
2. The Deficit
Again, I am for spending on social programs. But, however, I think it was a mistake to create a deficit in the meantime. The thing is that people are always watching to see if NDP governments are going to create a deficit; in fact, they critique them more closely than Tory or Liberal governments. People are going to be all over the fact that the NDP created a deficit. It has always been a pillar of the NDP to have strong social programs and not get into debt/a deficit. There are many people who vote for the NDP based on that.

So yes, I continue to support the Saskatchewan NDP government, but, unfortunately, I am thinking that this may cost the NDP in the next election.

Another Liberal Gone

2007-03-22T08:26:00.001-06:00

You'd think that the Liberals would be trying to keep everyone they can in their party (they already lost Wajid Khan, David Emerson, and someone else to journalism). But yesterday, they kicked someone out: Joe Comuzzi, MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North. The reason he was ousted, you may ask? Because he said he will vote for the Conservative budget.

Briefly, I will just explain why he will support this budget. It contains money for a cancer research centre in his riding, and he says he cannot vote against that (I can't really blame him).

But why Stéphane Dion would actually kick him out over that is another story. The Liberal Party caucus chair actually advised Dion not to throw him out, and Mr. Bonin (caucus chair) actually learned about this through a reporter.

I actually thought that the Liberal Party would be more democratic than this; there is money for his riding, why shouldn't he support this?

But in the end, this is going to be the Liberal's loss. As of now, they have lost three MPs since the last election. And this only goes to show how Stéphane Dion is not the great man that he and his party want him to be.

SK taxes = Quebec tax cuts?

2007-03-21T08:22:00.000-06:00

As you know, Québec got a significant share of the spending in the federal budget (about $2.3 billion). But not all of that may go to basic programs which are in need of funding. Jean Charest, the Québec Liberal leader and current premier, said that if he is re-elected, he will spend $700,000 of that money on new income tax cuts.

Now I do not disagree that Québec should have the right to do whatever it pleases with it's newfound money (however, I do disagree that Québec should be getting so much more from the federal government), I do have a problem with the fact that my federal tax dollars, which are collected in Saskatchewan, are being used to give tax cuts in Québec (if Charest is re-elected).

Well, I can only hope that this will backlash on the Conservative government. Maybe Charest will be re-elected, and this money will be spent on tax cuts. While it doesn't have seem to made into a huge story yet, it very well could. Maybe next time Harper and Flaherty make a budget (if ever), they will consider the fact that people who live in the other 9 provinces and 3 territories don't want their money to translate into tax cuts pour les Québecois.

My Budget Thoughts

2007-03-20T08:38:00.001-06:00

Enough has already been said in the Blogging Dippers about the budget, and I am now quite confident that everyone who wants to know what is in the budget already knows. So I am just going to talk about what I think about the budget.

Environment

There was definitely not as much money as I was expecting for the environment; I think it's only $4 billion or something. This is definitely not enough, in my opinion, to combat pollution. However, I do really like the idea they have about taking off a couple thousand dollars off hybrid cars, etc., and taxing gas guzzlers (13+ L/100 km) up to $4,000. They really should have put a biggar emphasis on the environment, though.

Taxes

I was actually quite surprised by the lack of tax cuts in this budget, compared to what they put into my mind concerning tax cuts. Don't get me wrong, I do not support tax cuts, it's just that this budget is not a typical Conservative one; it seems more Liberal. But anyway, even for middle-class people, there isn't as much of a tax break as the last budget. And for low-class people, they actually get no income tax break; the people who actually need it don't get it. And the rest of the smaller tax cuts are just as pointless as the ones from last year.

Poverty and Low-Income initiatives

As I just said, there were no tax breaks for low-income people. Also, there were no real programs or funding put forward to help eliminate poverty. This budget was more centered on the middle-class people, and it contains that North American ideology that you should only think about what affects you, and not others. And seeing Flaherty was bragging how this budget is for all Canadians, and how family-friendly it is, it must make the lower-class people feel like they're not Canadians.

Another note that I have to put in. Today, in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix today, when they were talking about the budget, the authors made it seem like it was a fact that this is a family friendly budget. This is just ridiculous what the media can really do. Also, they just included junk about how amazing this budget is; there was no large stories about how not good it is.

So to conclude, I am glad that Jack Layton has decided not to support this budget. It is just a package of junk wrapped in a family-friendly banner. And while I don't at all want this budget to become law, and to actually have tax dollars spent this way, I am somewhat relieved that the Bloc actually will prop-up the government for two reasons:
a) I don't want another election already; and
b) It is more proof how the Bloc has dropped their progressive values, and it is another thing that the NDP can use in Québec to show that the Bloc is not representing les Québecois well.

An election over the budget?

2007-03-19T08:43:00.000-06:00

Happy Federal Budget Day!! While we are not sure on the specifics of today's budget, we have been told a lot already by Finance Minister Flaherty. There are going to be tax cuts, equalization changes and funding, and money for public transit. But the thing is that he did not release any information which would be able to have political parties actually discussing right now. So because of that, we don't know for certain what the parties are going to do.

But that doesn't mean I can't guess. Here is what I think each parties reaction might be to the budget (based on what I think is going to be in it):

Liberals:

The Liberals still aren't in a position to face an election; their poll numbers are far too down for them. So their vote really depends on if the budget is even somewhat supportable, or if it is completely filled with right-wing tax cuts, etc. If it is even somewhat supportable, they'll definitely find an excuse to support it (maybe they'll say that they are standing up for Canadians who don't want an election). If it is the latter (tax cuts, etc.), they might have a more difficult time finding excuses (and Canadians won't sympathize with them if they vote for a true Tory budget).

Bloc Québecois:

If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'll support the budget. Most political analysts are certain that this budget will contain big bucks for Québec, and some money for the environment. So if it includes enough for Québec (to the Bloc's standards), they'll have to support it (and they're not soaring in the polls, either).

NDP:

The NDP is a more complicated story. There is one thing I can bet on, though, and that is that if there is one other opposition party who supports the budget (as that would keep the government afloat), the NDP will vote against it. It would be a real shame to destroy the NDP's track-record of voting against this government on every confidence motion, unless it is necessary. But if both of the other parties vote against the government, that'll be much more complicated, and that decision would be completely based on the specifics and every little tidbit of funding in today's budget.

So will there be an election over this budget? Only time will tell.

L'Election du Quebec en 2007

2007-03-16T08:46:00.001-06:00

As you know, Québec is having an election campaign now. It is now really looking like it's going to be a minority government for once (they haven't had once since the late 1800s). Lots of people in Québec don't really know who to vote for, and I can't blame them; the parties are considerably different than in English Canada. I spent most of yesterday researching the Québec provincial parties and their platforms. Here are the main ones, and what I personally think of them:

Liberal Party (PLQ)

As you know, the Liberals currently hold a majority government in Québec, under Jean Charest. The PLQ is, in fact, the largest (and almost only) federalist party in Québec, and thus get some votes based on that, and not actually based on their platform and values. Despite being called the Liberal Party, the PLQ is more right wing than center; their platform is quite based on Right values: smaller government, less taxes, etc. The PLQ also, of course, is constantly defending it's record in government.
My opinion: While I am a federalist, I would definitely not support the PLQ. It's right-wing policies, and (in my opinion) record in government, it is definitely not the best party in Québec

Parti Québecois (PQ)

Well there is not much to say about the PQ. They are currently the official opposition in the National Assembly, and are the biggest supporters of sovereignty in Québec. They have been in government a few times in history.
My opinion: This is definitely an extreme, pro-sovereignty party that does not quite represent me. Their platform, however, is fairly good; it has some ideas that a New Democrat would support.

Action démocratique (ADQ)

The ADQ is another pro-sovereignty party. Unlike the PQ, however, it is not on the Left; it is a right-of-center party. Also, it has never been in power. During this campaign, they have had a few problems with outspoken candidates (some of whom are no longer ADQ candidates).
My opinion: Definitely not my party. It's right-wing and pro-sovereignty.

Québec Solidaire (QS)

The Québec Solidaire is another pro-sovereignty, left-wing party (however, it is more left than the PQ). It does not currently have an MNA, but according to recent polls, is at around 5% support. Even though it is a small party, it does have a fairly broad platform. It has 123 candidates (out of 125 ridings) in this election.
My opinion: This is a party that I'd be more likely to support. I agree with much of it's platform, and it has good policy on have a French society (in lieu of a more English one). Again, it supports the idea of sovereignty, but that, of course, is not the only issue. If I lived in Québec, I would definitely consider voting QS, and if there was a referendum, I'd just vote No, but continue to support the rest of their ideas.

Green Party (GPQ)

Well, it's the Green Party; we all know them. They are federalist, and mostly focus on environmental issues. They have about 5% in the most recent polls.

Who and what is Ecotrust Canada?

2007-03-14T08:32:00.000-06:00

You probably already know about Harper's environmental foundation called "Ecotrust Canada," established this year. But that is not the only Ecotrust Canada. There is a well grounded organization called Ecotrust Canada, that was founded well before Harper's version.

As far as I know, the original Ecotrust is not actually a registered trademark, but it is still slightly offended that the government created a program with the same name. So I do not expect there to be any legal consequences, I don't think that it was the smartest idea to call a program something before checking if the name is actually in use.

Harper hasn't said anything about this mistake, so I am guessing that he is trying to pretend it never happened, and that the real Ecotrust Canada actually exists.

So I wonder if the real Ecotrust will get more or less donations? If people think it is a government program, who's going to donate? I have an idea: maybe Harper himself should put in a few thousand dollars.

Immigration cornerstone to Canada's growth

2007-03-13T08:52:00.000-06:00

Information released from the 2006 census shows that immigration is key for Canada's continued growth in the future. Immigrants made up the vast majority of the 1.6 million new Canadians between 2001 and 2006. This means that Canada has the highest population growth in this time frame among the other G8 nations.

In that time frame, we had those 1.6 million new Canadians, but in fact, only an average of 240,000 per year were born in Canada (for a total of more than 1.1 million).

The other problem, though, is that the birth rate is still falling. If it wasn't for immigration at all, we might have come out at about even, as there are people who are dying while others are being born. In this time, it was virtually immigration alone that kept Canada afloat.

While it is a fact that immigration is key to Canada, we still have a flawed immigration system in Canada. There are two fundamental problems: 1. We are not recognizing foreign credentials, thus not tapping into a great amount of knowledge; and 2. We are simply not allowing enough people into Canada. The last I heard was that there are 600,000 immigration applications waiting to be processed; there is not a lack of people wanting to be Canadian. Please see my article: Canadian Immigration Flaws.

So what is the moral of the story? Canada's birth rate is falling; less people are wanting to have kids (and I have a funny feeling that the birth rate is not going to change all of the sudden). It is also necessary that Canada have a growing economy to keep up with the world. So because of this, it is necessary that we allow more immigrants into this country, and actually let them work at their trade, instead of not recognizing their credentials. Immigration is going to be Canada's future; Canada's immigration policy needs to change.

Conservative appointments show loss of Tory credibility

2007-03-12T08:24:00.000-06:00

Another Conservative flip-flop. Did you know that the last 10 federal government appointees had close ties with the Conservative Party or its supporters?

Back in the days when the Conservatives (and Harper) were the opposition, and they seemed like they'd be the perfect government, they criticized the Liberal government for appointing Liberal supporters. But guess what happens when that opposition party got in? Harper did exactly the same thing.

Personally, I am not on either side of appointing friends or not. It makes no sense to have people in your government and administration who do not support you or your agenda, but it is also unethical to appoint your friends and strongest supporters to good-paying jobs; all of this in a sense makes "The Big Boys Club".

The problem that I see, and that Canadians see, is that Harper said one thing and did another. I wouldn't have bothered to write an article on this if Harper, when in opposition, didn't raise a fuss about appointments. But the case was totally different. Harper was hypocritical, and somehow or another makes excuses for things in Question Period that contain household phrases like, "After 13 years of Liberal government,"; "Canada's New Government,"; "A culture of entitlement,"; and sentences having some wording like sure we're not perfect, but look at the previous government. We're better than that.

While this is no new political stunt that has never been tried before, it does show another hole in the Conservatives' we're the good guys plan (along with appointing Senators to be ministers, accepting floor crossers, etc.). This is yet more proof that the Conservatives are no better at keeping promises than the Liberals.

Now both the Liberals and Conservatives have lost credibility. The doors of honesty are wide open for Jack Layton and the NDP.

Harper's Enviro PR Scam

2007-03-09T08:44:00.000-06:00

Another day, another announcement. Harper has announced $155 million to research the 'art' of capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground.

This is one of those things that is really pointless but still scores brownie points for the PM. I personally support the idea; it's going to take awhile until we can get off of the tar sands, and I have a funny feeling that Shell Oil is not going to pay for these projects (despite what their commercials tell us).

So to the reason why I support the idea, but not this particular project. The money is being spend on research, not the actual program, which would cost much more than $155 million. The thing is that CO2 capturing is a technology that is already being used. Sure, not in as much of a scale that would be required for the tar sands, but the basic system (it would not cost $155 million to slightly upgrade the existing tech). It is currently used in Weyburn, SK, and has been used for several more years at a company just north of Calgary.

Another Harper PR scam: get the public to think he's a good guy by investing in environment research, but the research is already done. Why won't Harper just put in the real money to start using this technology now?

Rae taking away woman's chance to win

2007-03-08T08:42:00.000-06:00

It's official: Bob Rae, former NDP premier of Ontario and former leadership candidate for the Federal Liberals, is running for the Liberal nomination in Toronto-Centre.

It's quite obvious why he wants to run in Toronto-Centre (which, by the way, includes Rosedale, that high-class T.O. neighborhood): it's a strong Liberal seat; he would win it for sure.

But all of this is kind of disgraceful for the party, as the other contestant for the Liberals there is a women, Meredith Cartwright. And time after time, Stéphane Dion has said that he wants more women Liberal candidates. And because Rae is Rae, a former premier with lots of political experience, chances are he'll win that nomination.

Yesterday on CBC Politics, Rae said that, while his nomination opponent is a woman, he does still have a lot of experience, so why should he not try just because of the fact that a woman is also running. While this may be true, I did find at the time that his comments seemed a bit 'Rae-centric' and cocky. But what do I care? They're the Liberals; they've already shown to be: a) hungry for power; b) without any real objectives and no one knows what they stand for; c) hypocrites; and d) to be fans on the good old 'Old Boys Club' system.

So it is not surprise to me to find Rae doing this, but for the sake of political honesty and diversity/acceptance, I wish he'd just step down as candidate and let the Cartwright run!

Afghanistan: A Plan

2007-03-07T09:11:00.000-06:00

For those who watch CBC's The National, you would have noticed the significant amount of stories lately on the war in Afghanistan. All of the sudden, this war has been a hotter topic than it was even a few months ago.

PM Harper has been saying that we are there to help the country, Defense Minister O'Connor has been saying that we are there because of 9/11, NDP leader Layton has said we shouldn't be there, and Liberal Dion hasn't said much at all on this issue.

My opinion: we should we helping Afghanistan; not fighting and blowing up its people. In other words, we just need to significantly change the objectives of this mission. We cannot deny that we have the potential to make the country a much better place for its people, but we also cannot deny that we are currently occupied with raw war, and that it is not going to take Afghanistan to where it should be. And where is that, you ask? Afghanistan needs to be an independent country. It needs to have its own military that is properly trained, and it needs to have a much stronger democracy, to ensure that criminals aren't getting elected.

We cannot stay there forever. There is the problem of the home team advantage that the Taliban has, as it knows the people, and the people can, and do, often trust them more than us. By giving the Afghan government the nessecary training for its army, the good side, too, can have the home team advantage.

Now you may be saying this is all well and good, helping Afghanistan to become an independent nation and not have to rely on other countries, but you are probably asking what we are going to do about the Taliban. The supporters of the Taliban are never going to completely go away, but in fact it is not solely them who are doing the fighting. They are paying civilians to risk their lives fighting the West. The reason these people are fighting is because the Taliban pays them more than $200 per month, while most jobs in Afghanistan would only pay less than $150 per year. So the biggest reason that the Taliban is still strong is due to its money. This flow of money, then, obviously needs to be stopped. So where are they getting their money? 'Tis the opium crops, of course. But I do not think, for the sake of people who make a living off of them, we should ban all poppy crops; we should make a system to have all poppy crops sold through a regulated system, to ensure that the money goes to the farmers. Any farmer who cannot prove that he is a member of this system will have to forfeit his crops. It's that simple.

I strongly believe that we have the opportunity to do good in Afghanistan, as long as we do the right things. We should be training their forces, building their democracy, and helping their overall society, instead of this endless fighting. Canadians will continue to die if we are doing the combat work. It would be much more efficient, and have better chances of success, for the Afghan people themselves to save their country. History has shown that countries cannot succeed at all if they are under the oppression of a foreign country; they need to be given independence, and a chance to succeed.

On the road again

2007-03-06T10:10:00.000-06:00

Stéphane Dion is now on his cross-Canada road trip, which is designed to have people see the Dion which the Liberals want to see. This, of course, comes after the Liberals are shown to be dropping in the polls, and the Tories had their attack ads against Dion specifically.

There was a national poll published in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Saturday. However, I accidently threw out the paper, and I cannot retrieve it on the internet without a password. This poll, though, was different than the one publish a day or two earlier by Decima; this was a Canwest poll. In it, I remember the NDP being 15% (and with the margin of error, that could be up to 18%, which is about the same as the last election), and the Greens down to 8%. This is significantly different than the Decima poll from a few days earlier, where the NDP and Greens were tied with 13%.

This shows how unreliable polls really are.

From his point of view, this is something that is really needed. The polls have been falling; less people are supporting the Liberals. The reasons? Well, probably due to the Tory attack ads, Dion himself, and how no one really knows anymore what the Liberals are wanting. The latter is probably so due to Dion's vote against the terrorism legislation last week. Personally, I agree with the NDP stance, and the Liberal stance now, that we also have to protect civil liberties. Imagine if you were arrested and put away without any evidence on the suspicion that you were a terrorist. It's completely disgusting. But anyway, the problem with the Liberals vote was that it was the Liberals that introduced that bill in the first place. It just seems funny to Canadians for a party to vote against its own bill.

The fate of this road trip will depend on who he meets. If he is just planning on meeting Liberals, then it's a waste of money. But if he is going to really try to paint a self-portrait, then he might have a chance.

A few notes & an interview with Jack Layton

2007-03-02T08:44:00.000-06:00

Here is an article concerning NDP policy, and an interview with Jack Layton, that you need to read/watch:

NDP Taliban policy:

"Taliban Jack" ..... oh wait a minute make that "Ahead of his time Jack"

If you have any other articles concerning the NDP and Jack (preferably left-wing), please post it on the comment page

Interview with Jack Layton (15 min.)

Latest Poll by Decima

Released March 1

± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20

Conservative: 36%
Liberal: 27%
NDP: 13%
GPC: 13%

A spring election over the budget?

2007-03-01T08:57:00.001-06:00

While lots of the political pundits and journalists are saying that we won't have an election until fall, or even 2008, I am thinking now that we are going to have one very soon.

Why? Well, of course, it's just about budget day (March 19). I am quite sure that Jack and the NDP will not support the budget, unless they could strike a deal to modify the budget, like they did in 2005. I don't think Jack wants to break his record for the only party to vote against the Tory government on every single confidence vote. But the Bloc is a different story. They supported the last Flaherty budget in 2006, and it's more likely that they will support the upcoming budget, as it is expected to include big bucks for Québec.

And the Liberals are an even longer story. For one, they are not doing too good in the polls. But, they should look like they are working in the best interests of Canadians, and it would not be good to have voting to keep themselves alive on their record. Also, they are always complaining about everything that Harper does to Canada, especially concerning the environment. And it is also not expected that the upcoming budget will be 'Liberal-worthy'. So I would think that the Liberals would want to look like the heros and rescue Canada from Harper, as long as they don't cause an election where Harper gets a majority.

Even if the government does fall soon, it wouldn't be a sin. The average minority government lasts about 1 year 5 months, meaning that if this were an average minority government, the next election would be late June, early July.

But I think that, no matter what happens later this month, we should all start preparing for an election; this Parliament can't last forever.

Income Splitting

2007-02-28T08:57:00.000-06:00

It's not even a month now until Budget Day (March 19), and the Tories have backed away from their Income Splitting promise. While I am not in favor of too many tax cuts, I believe in income splitting for seniors. Flaherty will probably not, according to the CTV story, permanently back down from income splitting, but they will for this budget. So instead of I.S., the Conservatives are going to give tax cuts to corporations and middle-class people; the people who don't need it. But when it comes to doing the right thing (I.S. for seniors) or buying votes (middle-class and corporate tax cuts), they will choose to buy votes.

So why do seniors deserve I.S.? It's simple: often, they don't have a ton of money in the bank. They are the people who built up this country. Lots of seniors once had prosperous, middle-class lives, but pensions often can't keep up to that. Seniors have payed taxes their entire lives when they had enough money to do so and live decently, but once they get into older age, have less money, and have given their share to society, they are still expected to pay the same taxes. Don't they ever deserve to be left alone?

But, we have a Conservative government, thus I do not expect good things to happen in Ottawa. So yes, according to the Tories, they will put I.S. on their To-Do List, but in the meantime, they will have to wait while middle-class people save up enough tax dollar savings to get a new SUV (in order to pollute their grandchildren).

Is the CPC website dissolved into the GC website?

2007-02-27T09:31:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, it was raised in the House, by a Liberal MP, how Canada's New Government™ is making the Government of Canada's websites political. Quote from CTV story: The website of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada carried the minister's statement, which concluded with a jab at the Liberal opposition.

"At a time when the Opposition parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism, Canada's New Government remains unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security,'' said Day's statement.

This is something I have noticed for a long time. The GC website has these political statements (not as bad as the above, though) all over it, and it, of course, always refers to Canada's New Government.

Well, I guess the gov. does have the right to promote what it's doing, but, outside of the House of Commons, it really shouldn't make any reference to the opposition parties.

Please note, on the GC homepage, how every news piece refers to Canada's New Government. Also, note on the PM's website, at the top, it says, "Canada's New Government: Getting Things Done for all of us". Isn't that a bit partisan?

It is the peoples choice which political party they donate to, but tax dollars shouldn't be funding partisan websites.

The Story Behind the ATM Fee Platform

2007-02-26T10:06:00.000-06:00

Every wonder what's up with this thing that Jack Layton is making a fuss about? They're ATM fees, it's not really a large bill to pay, isn't it? And don't we have free markets like most of the Western world? Can't the banks do whatever they want to?

There is now a little info centre (and petition) on the NDP website, which I'd suggest you check out first. There is a lot of interesting information on that page, such as the record bank profits from 6 major banks. Also, I learned on this page that TD Bank does not charge its U.S. customers ATM fees, only us Canadians.

And it's not just Canada (or Jack L.) with these ant-ATM attitudes. The U.K. banned ATM fees 7 years ago. And while it seems like a petty thing for an MP to talk about, it is also a basic values issue. Why are we being charge to get our own money out. We pay them to look after our money, so shouldn't that be enough?

My next argument: it's still money. While those $1.50 or $3 bank charges may not exactly drive you to the poor-house, it does add up. For example, if you did not live near your bank, and you needed to withdraw, say, $60 every two weeks, with a $3 charge, that would cost you just about $80 per year, which could take you out to a restaurant a few times, or pay for a Greyhound bus fare, etc. etc. etc. And anyway, the banks are not going poor. The billion dollar profits that they're making could do a lot for our society, such as fighting poverty. But instead, that money is going to CEOs, and paying for gold platted windows on RBC towers in Toronto.

Finally, if you want to check out a more personal story on bank fees, read Sean in Saskatchewan's ATM fees ... to be questioned by Commons committee.

Fair Traded Coffee: Are we doing enough?

2007-02-24T13:35:00.000-06:00

For many Canadians, coffee is an essential part of life. Everyday, I have a cup of coffee, and chances are, so do you. But do you think about that coffee (other than how it tastes)? I don't even think much about where my coffee came from before it arrived at Starbucks. We all know that it comes from fairly temperate climates, mostly in third-world countries. But how much of this coffee is actually fairly-traded (meaning that the farmer of the coffee plant gets a reasonable deal when selling his coffee)?

I'm going to talk about the 'fair traded-ness' of Starbucks coffee. In fiscal 2005, Starbucks paid approximately 23% more per pound for high-quality coffee than the average New York "C" (some type of coffee price index or pricing). While this seems quite good (at least in our world plagued with corporations), is this really high enough? Starbucks pays US $1.28 per pound of high-quality coffee. But if you walk into a Starbucks store, a one-pound of coffee costs more than CAD $12. Do you see the gap in price? The ones who probably work the hardest, per pound, to make coffee get the least amount of the money.

Overall, how much Starbucks coffee is actually fairly traded? According to the Starbucks Social Responsibility brochure, there are two categories for 'social responsibility' in buying coffee. To start, the first, and original, Fair Trade Certified™ (FTC) coffee. Of all FTC coffee imported into America in 2005, Starbucks purchased 21% of that, which means that it is the largest
purchaser of FTC coffee in North America. Again, this sounds (and is) great, but despite this, FTC coffee made up only 3.7% of the total Starbucks coffee purchases in 2005 (I will give them some credit: this number is up 2.1% from 2004). The second category: Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) practices (another somewhat fairly traded coffee guideline). Of all 2005 coffee purchases, CAFE made up 24.6% (up 10.1% from 2004).

The total percentage of Starbucks coffee that is of the fair trade background: 28.3%. Not even a third. While I do applaud Starbucks for being a leader in social responsibility regarding coffee (and it's quite amazing that a multi-billion dollar company would do this), I want to ask why 100% of coffee is not fairly traded. If you do not agree with me, try thinking of it this way: 71.7% of Starbucks coffee is not fairly traded. And remember, fair traded does not mean that there was a little extra money for the farmers to put into the bank so they can get a new Toyota in a few years, it means that the farmers weren't 'ripped-off'.

So what can you do? Check (or ask) how much fair traded coffee is in the coffee you drink at a coffee shop, or the coffee that's in a tin can from a store, make sure that you drink only the most fair traded coffee you can find, and tell your friends about the wonders of fair trade!

Also on fair trade:

On January 2nd, 2007, there was a very interesting letter to the editor in Saskatoon's Star Phoenix about fair traded chocolate. It's an interesting read.

A Re-Cap

2007-02-21T08:14:00.000-06:00

Quite busy today. For those who don't follow politics too much, here is a brief summary of yesterday in politics:

NDP Motion on the Federal Minimum Wage failed to pass due to the Bloc and the Tories
Finance Minister Flaherty announced that budget day will be March 19th
The BC Budget was announced
The Québec Budget was announced
While not exactly yesterday (or the day before or today), the unofficial Québec election campaign is underway
And finally, I recieved Maclean's magazine, where an article about Sask. Premier Lorne Calvert talked about a two-party federal system, the Conservatives and the NDP

Poll Time

2007-02-20T09:52:00.001-06:00

There was a very descriptive poll released last night by the Strategic Council for CTV and The Globe and Mail. The questions and answers are quite interesting, and are thus worthy of an article. Here are the results for the different categories:

Overall Opinion Poll

(changed based on Dec. 3rd poll)
Conservatives: 34% (+3)
Liberals: 29% (-8)
NDP: 14% (same)
Greens: 12% (+5)
Bloc: 11% (same)

Best Approach to the environment

Liberals: 23%
NDP: 21%
Conservatives: 20%

Who is the most decisive

Harper: 53%
Layton: 20%
Dion: 19%

Meanwhile, when asked which party leader had the clearest vision of where he wants to take the country, Harper showed a significant lead over his rivals

(percentage-point change from a Dec. 3-4 poll in brackets)

Stephen Harper: 50 per cent (+ 18)
Stephane Dion: 22 per cent (- 16 from when Paul Martin was leader)
Jack Layton: 20 per cent (+ 1)
Gilles Duceppe: 8 per cent (- 4)

Here are the results when voters were asked who was the most charismatic

(percentage-point change from a Dec. 3-4 poll in brackets)

Harper: 35 per cent (+ 18)
Dion: 20 per cent (- 9 from when Martin was leader)
Layton: 36 per cent (- 2)
Duceppe: 10 per cent (- 4)

There you have it. Let's look at Jack Layton's achievements in this poll:

Most Charismatic
Second best approach to the Environment
More decisive than Dion

This knowledge is really good to have. While Harper is (for some reason) surpassing everyone in just about everything, the NDP is getting to be a more recognized party. All we need to work on now is the overall opinion of the NDP.

Happy Family Day

2007-02-19T09:34:00.000-06:00

Happy Family Day to those of you in Saskatchewan and Alberta. As I am in Saskatchewan, this is my first Family Day. Another stat, but I am still going to work, and write this blog. But enough about me; let's look at the politics of the Saskatchewan Family Day. Government of Saskatchewan announcement on Family day

This new stat was first announced at the last Sask. Throne Speech (October 26, 2006). As I was attending, I remember the Family Day being mentioned among the flurry of other great things that our NDP government is doing! Ever since that, and especially this February, this Family Day has been mentioned in just about every speech (that I've heard) by Labour Minister David Forbes and Premier Lorne Calvert. Last night at a Chinese New Year concert in Saskatoon, Minister Forbes got up to say a few words, including wishing us a merry Family Day.

So why did the gov. make this new day? While I have not talked to any government officials about this issue, I would guess that it was made to give people a day off. That's the great thing about NDP governments in Canada, they actually care about people, and they won't forfeit to keep the companies happy. Speaking of companies, this will cost them money, of course. It is estimated that this will cost $140 million. But for some reason, the Saskatchewan government has been giving corporate tax cuts (and the Fraser Institute of all things likes our government), to the amount of just about $100 million. This doesn't quite cover it, but everyone knows that the more rest your employees get, the better they can work.

Despite the celebration in the NDP, the Saskatchewan Party has been criticizing this move. They've been saying it is a pre-election tactic to get votes. So anything that is announced half a year or more before an election is a pre-election tactic? It is quite surprising that they are against another day off for working people (who before this didn't have a stat in January or February), especially seeing that even the Conservative Alberta has had this day for several years (which Brad Wall, leader of the Sask Party, said has done many great things for Saskatchewan. Like taking our people away??).

While the holiday isn't really going to affect me, I think that it is great to have another day off for people who really work hard, and for single parents. It would be nice, for a change, to see the Saskatchewan Party supporting working families, not just their wealthy friends.

The Kyoto Bill

2007-02-16T08:45:00.001-06:00

Most people have already heard of the Liberal Private Member's Bill (by Pablo Rodriguez) to force the government to comply with Kyoto. This is a very interesting case. At first, Harper said he would not comply with the bill, but yesterday, he changed his mind (like he changed his mind with climate change).

While there is not consensus from constitutional experts, some do believe that Harper would legally have to comply with this bill, or face court challenges (possibly from the Liberals or environmental groups). For the first while, Harper said that this was just a stunt, and that it would have no real meaning, and he would be prepared for a court challenge, or a non-confidence motion.

This sounds too good to be true: Harper saying he'll meet Kyoto targets. But in fact, it is not too good, there is a catch. Yesterday during Question Period, he said, "I'll just point out that the bill has no plan of action in it; the bill gives the government no authority to spend any money to actually have a plan of action."

Well, Harper at least has good intentions. He said he would comply with the bill, except he can't because it doesn't let him spend money. For those who don't know, a Private Member's Bill cannot deal with or spend money.

The political reasoning behind this (for Harper) is simply: he doesn't want to do Kyoto, some backbencher has a bill that will pass to supposedly make him do Kyoto, people support this bill, Harper doesn't want to look like a party-pooper, Harper says that this bill doesn't let him do anything, now Harper looks as if he has good intentions, and says the bill from the evil Liberals won't let him do anything anyway.

But, as the Liberals (and I think NDP, too) points out, he doesn't have to do anything involving money, he can also set regulations, etc. to help achieve the target.

So while the Conservatives have a good excuse to use publicly for not supporting this future law, and—in the news at least—it is looking a bit pointless now, this still could have some legal binding. If after this someone does decide to sue the government, they will still have a case that the Conservatives are not complying, because it doesn't take money to have more regulations. As I am personally not a lawyer, judge or a constitutional expert, I do not know how far this could possibly go, but I do think that a descent case could be put against the government.

Originally, this bill was designed to embarrass Harper (and make him do something, too), but as most negative campaigns and bills do, it backfired on the sender: the Conservatives say they can't do anything with it, anyway. So while this bill takes the time of Parliamentarians, more time is being wasted while the environment waits. Hopefully the electors can see: Liberals don't do anything for the environment, Conservatives don't do anything for the environment and the Bloc supports Harper's budgets. The only (electable) party left: the NDP (which, by the way, is great at governing provincially, with fairly good environment programs).

Elizabeth May Not Quite as Different as she wants to be

2007-02-15T08:03:00.000-06:00

Today, I'm just going to simply post someone else's blog article, as it is something that, I think, we should all know about. This one is by Eugene Plawiuk on Le Revue Gauche. It is entitled Elizabeth May Closet Liberal. It is about how May is not quite as non-partisan, different and 'get right down to business' as she and her party make her out to be. Seeing it is quite likely that the Green Party is a rising party in Canada, and they are trying (and succeeding) in taking NDP votes, we as New Democrats need to know the merits of May and the Greens.

Elizabeth May Closet Liberal

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, interviewed on CTV's Question Period today spent most of her time attacking Jack Layton. Using Liberal talking points.

Like how the NDP brought down the government last year just when the International Climate Change Conference was happening, why that's straight off Scott Reids talking notes for the 2006 election. A challenge that the Liberals have used for the past year in attacking the NDP.

And how the NDP and Conservatives are collaborating on the Climate Change Accord in order to prop up the Harper government. Straight from the Liberal press clippings.

Clearly she see's Jack Layton and the NDP as her biggest threat.

She admited that the Greens took votes from the NDP and Conservatives in the London byelection. And she is thinking of running again there.

Is there a potential merger here between the Greens and Liberals......since they share the same talking points and share a common opponent; the NDP.

Luckily Jack and the NDP can take credit that they get things done in parliament, something neither Green Party or the Liberals can.

Published Jan. 7, 2007

NDP and Economics

2007-02-14T08:10:00.000-06:00

I wanted to point out Jack Layton's speech to the Ottawa Economics Association outlining his vision for the Canadian economy. He points out 4 "foundations":

Building a bridge to the green economy.
Leveraging private sector investment.
Creating fairness in a trading world.
Strategically investing in social, knowledge and economic infrastructure.

In my opinion, these are a start, but not quite completed. Yes, it is mostly based on the Left views, it is important that we also attract votes from the center-left Bay Street people, too. It has a bit of that (mostly #2), but not far enough on that scale.

Great plan, just needs a bit more thought, and it needs to appeal to the NDPers, but also it needs to show that the NDP can build a prosperous economy.

The Fifth Priority

2007-02-12T08:28:00.000-06:00

Last night, I was watching Talk Politics on CPAC. Ken Rockburn was discussing the Conservative doings in the last year with Paul Wells from Macleans and another columnist from The Globe and Mail. Anyway, they were briefly discussing an interesting story about Harper's "5 Priorities". This is what I got out of what they were saying:

Last summer, Stephen Harper wrote an article (or had an interview with) a Conservative Alberta paper. In it, he tried to change his 5th priorty (remember the priorities? Accountability, GST cut, crime, child care (in some order) and wait times guarantees). You may have noticed that Harper has been struggling with the fith one (wait times guarantee) for some time. So last summer, he tried to change it. In this paper, when talking about the priorities, he named #5 as something like Canada's role in the world. Now this is something Harper can handle! 'Tis would be why he tried to change it. But alas for him, the scheme didn't work. Someone picked up on this new priority, so Harper had to go back to the one he was elected on (if you count 40% of the vote being elected).

And ever since then, he has still not fufiled the misfit in the Tory family: #5.

This is one thing I had to mention. The following is an exerpt about NDP Sask. Health Minister Len Taylor. I can't believe that a New Democrat would try to help cover up the Tories!

Saskatchewan Health Minister Len Taylor sounded a positive note about the conference Friday, saying much is going on behind the scenes.

"A lot of action has taken place," he said. "It's not always clear, it doesn’t hit the front pages of the newspaper or the first item of the radio or television news.

Joke is on Saskatchewan!

2007-02-09T09:15:00.000-06:00

I saw this story in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix today. Our NDP Minister of Industry, Eric Cline, gave a BC radio station a Juno (which is in Saskatoon this year) prize package, in order to promote Saskatchewan. So how are they giving this out, you ask? By seeing who can come up with the best "You know you're in Saskatchewan when …" joke, of course.

Here is the link to the story: The Joke is on Saskatchewan in B.C Juno tickets contest.

Getting The Message Out

2007-02-08T08:47:00.000-06:00

Today, I'm not going to write about an issue. Instead, I will write about the need to get the NDP message out. Anybody who reads the papers, and news magazines, would know that the media is not as NDP-friendly as we may want it to be.

Martensville (SK) By-election

For those Saskatchewan people out there who don't know already, the Martensville by-election has been called for March 5. The NDP candidate out there is John Tzupa, who is a young candidate (24, I think). Please visit his website, and get involved in his campaign.

Yesterday, I got the Macleans magazine. There was an article which, in part, was talking about Jack Layton and Harper. The author was mentioning Jack's speech at the Quebec City convention last year, and how he wanted to form an NDP government. Then, he went on to say that it was the most unpublicized political speech of that year. Now, I cannot say if that was true or not, seeing I was actually there, and thus could not watch the news at that moment. The traditional news media is not the way (it would be a great way, just that they don't like us) to get the NDP message out.

Instead, we need to do it in other ways. I will be the first to admit that it is not easy to 'preach' the 'good news' to friends (especially the Conservative ones). But it is a chore that needs to be done. People do switch their vote (note how we can go from a Liberal majority to a Conservative minority in a few years). People often say to me, "A Conservative can vote Liberal, a Liberal can vote NDP, but a Conservative cannot ever vote NDP". This, of course, is wrong. Provincially in Saskatchewan, the only two elected parties are the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party (a nice name for the Conservative Party). And every election, seats change hands both ways.

So to go to the ways of going about this. Talk to people (who you know and don't know), increase the Blogging Dippers blog roll to the size of the Blogging Tories, donate to the NDP (for advertising), get involved with your NDP executive and have events, and, if you haven't already, BUY AN NDP MEMBERSHIP.

Jack can't do all the work. The grassroots parts (aka us) need to take on a load.

Wow, See Garth Jump

2007-02-07T08:19:00.000-06:00

It's already old news (that's the thing about politics). Garth Turner because a Liberal. Booo; Yahhh. Canadians got it. He was a Conservative (but he will always be a PC), got kicked out because Harper didn't approve of his blog, and the fact that he was a journalist. He sat as an Independent for awhile, did "town hall" meetings with his constituents (none of them suggested he become a Liberal), and he became a Liberal (but as a PC at heart).

Because I am really constrained with time today, I decided that I'd get a summary of the blogosphere about Garth. Here is some of what I got.

Floor Crossing - Another Garth Turner Quote

Why Garth's move to the Liberals may have been smart

A TSUNAMI OF MUNDANITY

Garth the Grit

But seeing this is my blog, I might as well throw in what I think. Well, the NDP did lose its balance of power, unfortunately. For ethics, the NDP, and people in Halton who voted Conservative, this is bad news. But for those PCs there, for PCS across Canada, for the sake of getting this done, and for Garth, it is a good thing. Personally, I agree with the NDP: no floor crossing. I will admit, though, Garth's decision was more justified than, say, Emerson or Khan. The Conservatives did kick him out, and no MP deserves to be homeless.

Ezra Levant on CBC

2007-02-06T10:00:00.001-06:00

If you regularly watch CBC Politics with Don Newman, you would be quite familiar with Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Conservative (note the capital 'C') Western Standard paper. Unfortunately for all that is good in the world, he was once again with Don Newman yesterday, talking about Harper's environment stance. While most people in Canada are almost offended by Harper's environment stance and platform for being too weak, Levant thinks it is too STRONG of all things.

Here is a short, "rough" transcript of some of the things Levant was saying yesterday, from the blog thoughtinterrupted:

We are sympathetic to the Conservatives. We believe, though, that we are keepers of the ideological flame. And if the party we intend to favour strays from that, you’re right. I think your “shot across the bow” analogy is exactly right. I have enough faith that what they are doing is merely a tactical move. It reminds me in a way of when Stephen Harper came out in favour of the idea of the Quebecois as a nation. Holy cow! Is this distinct society, status and all the west was against when the Reform Party was founded? Or was it a short term tactical move to remove a hot potato from the agenda so that he could get down to his real business? I hope - and we would like to encourage - the Conservative government to do some “window dressing” thing like the Liberals did for 10 years, to make some noises, concede the stuff he’ll never win, do some things that won’t damage the economy too much, get this off the table.

The Western Producer also made its latest cover page about this topic. It depicts Harper as the Green Hulk, because he is taking (supposedly) greenness to extremes! It looks like he is tearing apart the Alberta Wild Rose.

This guy is a big shot at a some what major newspaper, and this is what he is saying! He was actually denying climate change, and hoping that Harper actually does nothing. We can only hope that this backfires on Harper.

Canadians Support Bilingualism

2007-02-05T09:18:00.000-06:00

Canadians have finally supported the idea that Canada is and should be a bilingual country. In fact, 81% of the people polled said they supported this idea. This is a great achievement for Canada. French is an integral part of Canada's history and culture, and Canadians have finally recognized that. It has been, for all too long, that the English Canadians thought all Canadians should speak English. Personally, I find it great—not quite fascinating, but great—that when you go into a Government of Canada building in Whoknowswhere-ville, SK, one can get service in French.

While this is an achievement for Canadian culture and language acceptance, it is not quite over. While a vast majority of Canadians support the idea of bilingualism, the vast majority of Canadians are not bilingual. The solution: just give French time.

Voter Turnout

2007-02-02T09:20:00.000-06:00

Democracy is something that is all too often taken for granted in Canada. Even though so many people throughout the world are desperate to live in a democracy, most Canadians have known no other way of life. So what are the effects of taking democracy for granted? Well, for many people, watching the news means watching TSN or reading the sports section, and they don't even listen to the biggest issues that are happening now. Also, people don't think much about how they can get involved in politics. Most voters who have always supported a political party throughout their lives are not active in it, and even the majority of party members are not active. For instance, in Saskatoon Wanuskewin, we have over four hundred members (if not five hundred), but there is (if we're lucky) 30 or 40 people at the Annual General Meeting. This also brings me into the next point, the voter turnout. In the last general election (2006) the voter turnout was 64.7%. Do you see what is wrong with that? Another problem: in the 2000 federal election, the youth (18-24) turnout was 25%, while the average of all ages was 61.2%. I'm not sure if they'll grow out of that habit or not as they get older, but if it were to stay like that, or even just double (50%), we would still have a major problem in the future.

Shortly after the 2000 federal election, Elections Canada had a survey of 2000 people from all age groups. The survey was asking people why they think voter turnout is declining. 68% said it was because of the negativity surrounding politicians and political institutions. Also, 32.5 percent felt that it was due to an impression that it is meaningless to vote for various reasons. So, the best ways according to the people to get a better turnout: a) politicians need to be less negative, and politics overall has to be less negative (and actually work); and b) people have to feel that their vote means something.

Let's start on b in Edmonton—Centre. Pre-January 23, 2006, E-C was the riding where Anne McLellan was MP (she was also the Deputy PM for Paul Martin). In the 2004 election, she won by only 721 votes. In fact, in her first election (1993, Edmonton Northwest, she won by 12 votes. While I do not know the voting turnout in Edmonton Northwest in the '93 election, it probably wasn't 100%. I am sure that there were eligiblevoters who supported the runner-up but didn't bother to vote. I wonder how they felt? That was an election where every vote counted. So what should do about that? We need to talk to everyone we know who doesn't vote (and who would vote for our party!) and tell them examples like this and show them why their vote makes a difference for themselves and the party they support.

Problem a. As there is not much that us average citizens can really do about this, I'll keep it short and talk about what the politicians need to do about this. To put it bluntly, MPs and party leaders (especially the Prime Minister) need to actually get work done. Most people do not care (or want) politics to happen, they want progress and plans to happen.

Democracy is something that all Canadians cherish somewhere deep-down (some very deep-down) in them. All we have to do is show them that.

Making Parliament Work

2007-02-01T09:58:00.000-06:00

Political alliances are something that has been occurring a lot in politics in the last half-century or so, particularly in Europe, where coalition governments are the norm. But this philosophy has not been accepted much in Canada. And when it does happen, it is not in the form of a coalition, but a simple agreement of certain issues. The most recent case of this is right now, with the NDP and the Conservatives. And this is getting a lot of negative feedback from New Democrats and others who are criticizing the NDP.

People from all sides of the political spectrum are being very negative about the so-called environmental alliance between the NDP and the CPC, who have completely different views on the environment. And it is quite funny how this started out. People started framing this situation as the 'NDP in bed with the Conservatives' (kind of link a couple of years ago. Remember 'NDP in bed with the Liberals'?) last fall, when the Conservatives introduced their Clean Air Act, and the NDP pointed out the dozens of flaws in the Clean Air Act. Just to make it simpler, I'll quote a short paragraph by the T.O. Star's Allan Woods in today's paper:
A potential deal between Jack Layton's New Democrats and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tories has been rumoured ever since the two leaders agreed last fall to send the government's Clean Air Act to a special legislative committee to be rewritten.
How can two parties agreeing to send an act to a special committee be a "deal" or an alliance? This is the way a minority Parliament works: the government makes a bill, the opposition doesn't like it (but the principle is agreeable), so they each make sacrifices in what they want so that the bill is acceptable for everyone.

To conclude, I'd like to give a message to all those NDPers out there who are getting upset about this so-called Conservative alliance: this is the way politics works. This is the way that the first ever NDP budget came to be. Jack Layton is only trying to make this Parliament work. With the anti-environment parties out there, like the Liberals and the Conservatives, this bill will never be perfect, but it can be improved. In politics, parties on all sides will make sacrifices, but at least something is being done for the environment.

Fired

2007-01-31T07:57:00.000-06:00

As you have probably heard already, the Environment Commissioner of Canada has been fired by the Auditor General. Johanne Gelinas has been constantly saying that the Government, nor its representatives, has not whatsoever interfered in this. She also has said that she has been talking to the Auditor General about leaving the job herself, and had the intention of doing so in the future. Then she goes on to say that this announcement was "a complete surprise to me."

While this is officially 'non-strange' or suspicious, it does have me thinking that there has been some doings by the government, and even if it was not the government itself, it could have been a senior official. While I may have dismissed this at a different time, it's just that the environment has been such a big issue lately, and that the Conservatives have been criticized for its initiatives, and Gelinas has been one of them. It is also interesting to toss in the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer resigned lately, even though, as I remember, he was to retire (or get his pension) in the near future. So this totals to two mysterious and suspicious departures within a month and two days.

Again, as I have no facts or any knowledge at all (like 99.999% of the population) as to this firing, I just wanted to actually raise the question: was she not doing the job right, or was she not doing the job 'right' (CPC definition: to do something right: to support the Conservative Party if you are a government employee)

Just before I go, let's look at a Tory blog article about this:
Here's one posted when this was just a rumor. They don't say that it would be a good idea. So this person must now think it was wrong.

A 2007 Election & Budget 2007

2007-01-30T09:47:00.000-06:00

Recently, I received a letter from the NDP, and of course, it was asking for donations (this time, Jack wanted $1,100). One interesting thing in the letter, though, was that on the bottom of each page, it said it was from the 2007 NDP campaign office in Ottawa, or something like that. This is even more interesting seeing the NDP holds the balance of power, and they are saying that there will be an election this year.

But it all makes sense. The NDP is constantly being criticized for "being in bed" with the Conservatives. If Jack doesn't support the budget, he isn't really in bed with them, is he? Personally, I would probably not vote for Harper's budget, as it will, like Harper said recently, be a budget full of more tax cuts, and, I would guess, even more money for the military, and bad environment programs.

This, however, does not mean that the government will fall. Remember the 2005 budget? The first NDP budget ever? That was in done in a Liberal government, and in order to make it worthy of the NDP, Paul Martin let Jack tamper with it by canceling billions of dollars for corporate tax cuts, and turned it into more transit, foreign aid, small business tax relief, and lowering the debt at the same time. If this could happen in the 39th Parliament, the NDP would be seen as a party that can get things done, a party that is not in bed with the Conservatives, and will get good programs for Canadians.

But if this dream that came to be in the 38th Parliament won't happen in the 39th Parliament, this won't be the shortest minority government ever. The average minority government in Canada lasts only 1 year, 5 months and 22 days (which would mean that the next election would be July 15, 2007).

Another Free-Trade Agreement?

2007-01-29T09:42:00.000-06:00

House resumes today

The House of Commons will have its first sitting in 2007 today. So as usual, you can catch all of the happenings on CPAC. Question Period is at 1pm CST on both news networks.

I am currently reading a book entitled Sacré Blues, by Taras Grescoe, which is about the culture of Québec. According to this book, 2/3 of Quebecers believe that NAFTA benefited their economy. So seeing Quebecers like free-trade agreements, and that Charest is a bit nervous about an election, it is no surprise that Jean Charest, the premier of Québec, is looking into a Canada-European Union Free-Trade Agreement.

You may have noticed that I put a link above where it says NAFTA. Just for the sake of things, I will put it here again. I invite you to read my NAFTA blog article if you haven't already. It explains how NAFTA did anything but good for Canada, and how it handed a lot of our powers to the U.S. As the E.U. is more powerful and more populous than Canada, I am sure that the E.U. would, like the U.S. in NAFTA, receive a better deal, despite what Charest says.

Unfortunately, Charest has told the press that he has already talked to PM Harper, and the other premiers, and has received a positive response. I hope that you can see the problems with this: Canada's leaders are looking into the future without taking into consideration a similar agreement in recent history that was a disaster for Canada. I would like to know, however, which premiers, and how many, actually supported Charest on this topic.

The following is a quote from the CBC.CA story about Charest's suggestion:
Canadian government data suggests a free trade deal with the European Union would boost Canada's exports by $2.4 billion annually.
I'm wondering if this was data from Canada's New Government or from 13 years of Liberal government, both of which would probably support free-trade agreements. This also reminds me of when NAFTA came in. Brian Mulroney was telling Canadians how much NAFTA would benefit Canada and all Canadians. But, as we know, NAFTA was great for corporations and their CEOs, but terrible for the workers and average Canadians. It's obvious, as I have already stated, why Charest would be pushing for this, I cannot see why or how our (English-Canada's) politicians can support another economic failure.

Attention: Deadbeat Parents

2007-01-26T08:35:00.000-06:00

Are you a "deadbeat" parent? Deadbeat parent: a parent who does not pay child support Do you live in Ontario? If so, you could become an internet celebrity! By February of 2007, the Government of Ontario will have a website set-up to post pictures of deadbeat parents.

So why would a government do this? Well, it is quite simple: if you see someone you know on the site, they are betting that you will report them, and if you are on the site, they're betting that you'll start paying up. I would imagine that being on a deadbeat parent website would be embarrassing, especially if, say, your boss was visiting the site.

Here are a couple of exerpts from the CTV story:

Renate Diorio, founder of Families Against Deadbeats, says they support the move.

The maximum jail time for offenders was recently doubled to 180 days, and the province started suspending driver's licences for non-payment. Since then, the Office says, deadbeats have started paying up in larger numbers.

Moral of the lesson for deadbeat parents: either move from Ontario, or pay up.

Harper and Co. Emission Consulting, Inc.

2007-01-25T08:46:00.000-06:00

Poll by Leger Marketing, Released Jan. 24, 2007

± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20

Conservatives: 35%
Liberals: 32%
NDP: 13%
Greens: 9%

Yesterday, the Canadian Press (CP) conducted an interview with Stephen Harper on the issue of regulating emissions. Here are a few quotes from Harper,
"The government does intend to regulate emissions across all sectors including the automobile sector,''

"(But) we have to consult the industry and ultimately come up with targets that make progress on the environment while being achievable for industry in a way that doesn't jeopardize Canadian jobs,'' This is one of my problems with the Conservatives and the Liberals: so many "consultations".
Maybe it's just the way the government has to work, but with all of the consulting happening in Ottawa, it takes 1 year just for something to really happen. And with the constant elections happening lately, and all the 1-year consultations, it is surprising anything is happening.

Harper said he is considering imposing targets on industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

"We're looking at that,'' he said.

Oh, that's great to know. Our new-old government is looking into imposing targets on industry emissions. Is there any reason to not do that?

But Harper doesn't really care about being lowering the consumption of oil, as Canada is looking into being an energy superpower (with Harper in, it defiantly won't be green power), he said,
"President Bush's speech . . . when he talked about these things was really talking about it in the context primarily of energy security and the United States shortage of energy and their dependence on foreign supplies of energy,''

"That's not a problem here. Canada is an emerging world energy superpower. We have an abundance of all forms of energy. We're an exporter of virtually all forms of energy.''
Okay, we are not heavily relying on foreign oil, but that doesn't mean we should just keep using more and more. It may seem like I'm taking this out of context, I can't see much of a reason to bring up being an energy superpower in an emission-targets interview. While If you buy a house filled with explosives, it doesn't mean you use them. If anyone didn't think he had too many friends in Calgary oil business, this should change that view.

Harper in 2006; Harper in 2007

2007-01-24T15:33:00.000-06:00

Stephen Harper is proud of his government's accomplishments over the past year. It was exactly one year yesterday that Harper ended the "13 years of Liberal government". Since that, things have changed in Ottawa. While I could not defend what the Liberals were doing, I would prefer to have Liberals in power than the Conservatives. Let's now look at what the Conservative government did in the past year, according to Harper:

The Federal Accountability Act
- Which, of course, was quite better with the NDP amendments
All of the tax cuts (incl. GST)
- Which, of course, caused the cut of several key social programs, only to give more money to the wealthy
Universal Child Care Benefit
- Which, of course, is taxed, so that some people only get $200 out of it
Softwood Lumber Deal
- Which of course, caused many people to lose their jobs and have to move away
Crackdown on street racing and money laundering
- What really happened? What did they do?
The rebuilding of the military
- Which, of course, caused more Canadians to be in Afghanistan longer (2 years) so that they can be killed

Now that's a record to be proud of! A record that rewards the rich and punishes the poor. But maybe they will do something good in 2007. Let's now look at what they have in mind:

Senate Reform
- Please see my article An Elected Senate
Fighting Crime
- Resonable enough, but of course it depends on the tactics used. There has to be some form of crime prevention involved
Economic Growth
- Meaning more free-trade with the U.S.? Or digging up some more oil?
Tax Cuts
- Horay! Less social programs! Less healthcare (or private)
A Strong Voice on the world stage
- … like Mr. Bush did with his two wars in one presidency.

Thankfully for Canada, the support for Conservatives is going down. Hopefully, before anymore wild things happen (and if they are low enough in the polls), an election will occur this year.

The cost of homelessness

2007-01-23T08:29:00.001-06:00

Homelessness is not free in our society. Homelessness costs taxpayers, and the homeless person still has no home, nor a livelihood. But for some reason, governments don't seem too intent on doing something about this problem; a problem that is not going away. In an article in The Tyee, Monte Paulsen shows the problems on homelessness, and how much it costs taxpayers. Here are a few excerpts from it, but please go to the main article to read more.

… in Canada, homelessness is on the rise; and in the Vancouver region, the official count of homeless persons almost doubled from 1,121 souls in 2002 to 2,174 in 2005.

Homelessness is not cheap. Provincial taxpayers spend up to $40,000 annually per homeless person, according a 2001 study. That money is spent on police calls, hospital visits and other emergency social services.

Housing them all would cost less than half that much money, and numerous studies show that people who live indoors go to jails and hospitals far less than people who live on the streets. The average Canadian spends only $11,200 a year on housing. Even government-run supportive housing -- where residents get social services, such as counselling -- costs only $28,000 a year.

It's cheaper -- not to mention more humane -- to help people pay their rent rather than rescue them after they fail. The majority of Vancouver's homeless are on welfare.

Welfare pays $510 a month to single, employable adults aged 18 to 64. That's broken down into $325 a month for rent, and $185 a month -- or $6 a day -- for everything else. Those rates have not been adjusted since 1991. But the Vancouver area real estate market has changed dramatically. By 2004, according to a report by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the average market rent for a bachelor apartment in Greater Vancouver was $678 per month.

Equalization Debate

2007-01-22T08:35:00.000-06:00

I have no clue what Stephen Harper is thinking lately. Saskatchewan is one of the two Conservative bases where they always get most of their seats, and now they're going to risk that. It's kind of like gambling, isn't it? Harper takes some of his salary (base) and wants to grow it, so he decides to throw away some of that salary in order to get more (Québec). But I guess I can't really blame him, the Conservatives are down in the Québec polls, and unless Harper does something that will please Québec very much, he will loose a lot of his seats.

Personally, seeing finance isn't really my thing, it is not the biggest deal for me whether he sides with Québec or Saskatchewan. But what does really matter to me is that he promised that non-renewable resources would be out of the spectrum, and now (like so many other promises), it is going down the drain.

For those of you who live in Saskatchewan, you may recall getting one or two small mailings about why non-renewable resources should not be included in equalization, and you would have also seen how much the Sask. government is pushing this, the Sask. government obviously being NDP. I've been wondering why Jack Layton has never really brought up equalization, and I'm sure that others are thinking the same. My guess is the following: NDP wants Saskatchewan and Québec. But, if I were Jack Layton, I would openly side with Lorne Calvert. While I really do want to see a Québec NDP MP, it is far more likely that there will be a Sask. NDP MP sooner.

The NDP is gaining ground in Sask. due to the Wheat Board, so why not add to this growth?

The Prince of the Environment

2007-01-19T08:43:00.000-06:00

Let's say that you won an environmental award (only for actually speaking about climate change a few times) and you live in Britain and the award is in the U.S. Should you go to the U.S., or do the enviro-option via video-link? Well, seeing your government wants you to go to the U.S. to show that Britain supports the environment, you decide you might as well go. Now, do you fly economy, or should you go all the way and take a jumbo jet and 20 other people along?

Unfortunately for the environment and for the sake of non-hypocrisy, Prince Charles decided on the latter option. He will be going to receive a Global Environmental Citizen award because he has, quote (from CBC), "spoken publicly on the threat of climate change". I've told people about climate change, I'm not going to the U.S., neither is Jack Layton or Elizabeth May. Environmental campaigner Joss Garman put it well when he said, "Flying to an environmental award ceremony is a bit like turning up to an Oxfam award ceremony in a stretch limo,".

As I said in the first paragraph, the British government wants Charles to fly there so that he can promote climate change as a key priority for Britain. I have this funny feeling that it is not the top priority for them. Even though Britain has a Labour government, this is one of those times when they are not quite as they should be (for example, the invasion of Iraq).

Why Canada needs Quebec

2007-01-18T08:10:00.000-06:00

Québec has been getting a lot of attention in the media for the past several years, for issues such as the referendums and Québec sovereignty. Most recently, the House of Commons has recognized Québec and the Québecois (nobody, not even Harper, knows who is and is not a Québecois) as a nation. This motion was

One little piece of info

There is a very good column written by Larry Zolf, who is a regular contributor to CBC News Online. This is a very interesting article written last November entitled Harper's Quebec Strategy.

introduced by Prime Minister Harper in November of 2006, and was supported by most Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The motion was to recognize Québec as a nation (I guess kind of like the First Nations) within a unified Canada (a nation within a nation). But there is controversy over the motion. There is a very interesting article from the CBC about this Québec motion. It says that Quebeckers now have another argument for their side: that Canada will try to make us special, but we won't really get anything out of them.

So why does Québec want to separate? To the best of my knowledge, it is because they think (and they are) different from the rest of Canada. So just because you are different, you should separate? In many of the suburb cities of Vancouver (Richmond, etc.), the majority of people are actually immigrants, and the majority of them are from Far East Asia and Southeast Asia. So why don't they separate to make their own country? Just like in Québec, there are still some people who don't fit into this category (meaning English or non-immigrant people), but that can be just pushed off to the side. Finally, just as a little fact, when I was in Québec, all of the Québec government buildings I saw (about 4), and even the National Assembly, only had Québec flags. Every other provincial building or legislature I've been to has a Canadian flag.

Personally, I think Canada would be at a great loss if Québec separated. While I have only been there once for the 2006 NDP convention, it was one of the best places I've been to in Canada. The beauty of it, and the culture, are things that need to be kept in Canada. It is so different than the rest of Canada, and that is something we should all treasure.

How should we keep Québec? We need to show Quebeckers what would actually happen with an independent Québec, and we need to keep a balance on how we treat them: we cannot treat them like royalty, nor like it is just the same as any other province like Saskatchewan. And we need to actually treasure and value the culture and language that one of our oldest provinces brings to us. United we stand, divided we fall. This is the message we need to carry.

Québec is one of our founding provinces; it's capital is just about 400 years old. French culture and the natural beauty of Québec is not something that can be given up just so we don't have to fight the battle of federalism.

Are the Liberals serious?

2007-01-17T08:31:00.000-06:00

Latest Poll (Broadcasted by CTV on Jan. 16, 07; poll by Strategic Council)

Liberal: 35% (down 2%)
Conservative: 31% (same)
NDP: 15% (up 1%)
Bloc: 11% (same)
GPC: 8% (up 1%)

± 3.1% 19 times out of 20

As I always say, polls are often a bit off (seeing they only poll 1,000 people or so), but they show a little something (not who will win, though). As the CTV news story says, by the results of this poll, it is unlikely that there will be an election this spring, because no one is really 'winning'.

A couple good things came out of here: the Liberals are down—meaning Dion isn't that great, and the NDP is slightly up—meaning people are regaining their former belief that Layton is the politician that gets things done.

Most people by now have heard that Stéphan Dion was speaking to a group of Bay Street people yesterday about having a green, money-making economy. He was saying how we can be buckets of money by becoming a world leader in green technologies and the like. While I do not dispute this actual claim that we can and should become world leaders in making green technologies and creating a green economy for ourselves, I question the actual promise to do so, and I have good reason.

Let's have a little game to see if there are any differences between the following two quotes:

"The economic opportunities are enormous. Countries that embrace the environment as a core priority will lead the global economy in the 21st century . . . As an energy superpower, Canada should be a global leader in the research, development, commercialization and export of clean energy and environmental technologies . . . And if Canada is to be a leader in green-based industries, we need a healthy concentration of blackberry-style inventions in industries related to the environment."

"Although Canada has a global reputation as an environmental leader and policy innovator, we have done little so far to benefit from the commercial advantages of this reputation. To do so will require supporting sustainable development initiatives taken by business, adopting strict environmental standards that spur the development of cutting-edge technologies, and funding research and development for green technologies. A Liberal government will make environmental technologies and services a major component of Canada’s strategy for economic growth."

Do you see a difference? Probably not. Let's go to the answer. The first quote is from Dion's speech yesterday in Toronto, and the second quote is from the 1993 Liberal platform (pg. 67; written by Paul Martin, former Liberal environment critic). My point: the Liberals have already promised to do this green-economy thing, but even though they had 13 years to do it, they obviously did not follow through.

If there are any Liberals reading this, you are probably thinking, "Well Stéphane Dion will be and is different. All Canadians can trust him." If you listen to a lot of political speeches, and if you were watching the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention, you would know that Stéphane Dion sometimes talks about the "legacy of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien". So, if Martin and Chrétien did not follow up of their environmental platform, and seeing that Dion is a big environmental guy (who sees the environment as a top priority), you would think the Dion supports their "legacy".

Obviously, the Liberals nor Dion are really serious about a green economy.

5-leader election debate?

2007-01-16T08:31:00.001-06:00

You have probably heard lately that the Green Party is complaining that they are not included in the election debates that are broadcasted on TV, and that they started a website entitled Demand Democratic Debates. Their aim is to get the Green Party and Elizabeth May into the leaders' debates held each election.

When I first head their 'cry' for support, I agreed with them: they got more than 600,000 votes in the last election, so why can't they be in the leaders' debates to showcase their platform to the rest of Canada? And now in the polls, they are looking even better, with about 11% of the support of Canadians. They also had a full slate of candidates in the last election. They have a platform that covers most issues (meaning that they are not a one-issue party). Why can't they be in the debates?

As I said, I supported their cause. But I started to realize lately that we live in a society of rules, and we can't just start making exceptions. It has pretty much always been that you had to have at least one seat in the House of Commons before the election in order to have your leader in the debates. That was and still is the line. You need to have a Member of Parliament. And we can't start making exceptions for everyone. Once an exception has been made, then the Green Party will also be saying, "Where's the line?". In the 2006 election, in Nunavut, the Marijuana Party got 8% of the vote. Can they now participate? If the rules can be bent for the Green Party, why not for the Marijuana Party (who got more a higher percent of the vote in Nunavut than the NDP often gets in certain Québec ridings). Again, we have rules for this debate and exceptions can't start flying around for people who ask for them.

Finally, I have one small remark to make about the GPC's Demand Democratic Debates. If you go to their website, they say, "Your tax dollars finance the Green Party. Wouldn’t you like to hear where we stand on the issues?". I would like to point out that it is not the government or event Elections Canada that holds the debates, but the television stations. TV stations don't have to be accountable, nor do they give a care that tax dollars support the Green, so then they should be on the debates. The rules of the debates are created solely by the TV stations; the party leaders get no input. They alone can decide who will be in the debates.

Green Tax Incentives

2007-01-15T08:30:00.000-06:00

There was a recent poll by Decima Research that found that 51% (based on those people who were polled) said that they'd prefer a hypothetical "Liberal" promise of a $1,000 tax break that rewarded environmentally-friendly purchases (i.e. Energy Star appliances, etc.) or behaviors (i.e. taking transit, bike, etc.) compared to the 28% of people who preferred a hypothetical "Conservative" promise for a $1,000 tax break with "no-strings attached".

Doesn't this say something? Canadians prefer tax breaks to be granted for saving the environment, thus producing less emissions, or using less water, compared to the Conservative philosophy to give random tax breaks to random (but usually middle/high class people) people for random (but usually to get votes) reasons. Quickly, I will just explain why I put Conservative and Liberal in quotation marks in the first paragraph. I first read about this story on the CTV Politics Blog, and there was a comment that said, "Why would they assign party labels to hypotheical policies?", and then a reply, ". . . Good question, especially when the policies in question originated elsewhere in large part."

This results of this poll mean to things:
a) Canadians want environmental action, and believe it is appropriate to offer 'bribes' to get people to help
b) The whole Conservative philosophy that the GST should be cut for no particular reason (except to cut social programs) is not sitting well with Canadians anymore.

Harper and the Conservatives: The Immigrant Party?

2007-01-12T08:34:00.000-06:00

Yesterday (the 11th), you may have known that Stephen Harper was in the GTA doing two things: a) announcing a whopping $2 million to create a database; and b) to rally support for the latest action of Wajid Khan (defection to Conservatives, of course). But probably b) was the most significant.

Stephen Harper was in some building in Mississauga (watch CBC Politics show covering this story) making a speech talking about the things he is doing, and also 'selling' Khan's decision. So what? What's the problem? Politicians are always doing stuff like that.
The problem was that many (possibly most. It's harder to see on TV) people in the audience were immigrants. There is no point on claiming the immigrant vote for the NDP, as the Liberals and the Conservatives are already doing that. So my point is this: for a long time, immigrants have not supported the Conservatives (even in the last election), but now they are, meaning more support for the Conservatives. After the event, many members of the audience who were immigrants were commenting on how much they "trust" Stephen Harper, and support his 'good work'. And it's not just that those people were supporting Stephen Harper, but that it's sending a message to other immigrants and to Canadians, that Stephen Harper is actually gaining support. But alas for Harper, there were protesters at this gathering, mainly protesting the lack of ethics held by Harper and Khan. The problem? They were all white people from Canada, no immigrants.

So there are a couple things that need to be worked on. The NDP has to revive it's immigrant-friendly label by (like it used to) bringing the issues of immigration up in Parliament more often, creating immigration bills, and rallying the immigrants around the NDP. The Conservatives' immigration agenda has to be attacked more, it cannot be ignored any longer. And remember, many immigrants are voters, too, and if they aren't now, they could be someday (or their children).

NDP Picking the Right Strategies

2007-01-11T07:16:00.000-06:00

There was a press release by the NDP on January 10, 2007 that Jack Layton said that climate change and working families "pocketbooks" will be their priorities.

These are probably two of the best things for the NDP to focus on. The environment and climate change are the biggest issues in politics lately (and probably will be for a long time), and it's also the issue people are going to the Liberals and particularly the Green Party over. The environment is something that the NDP needs to keep pushing on to show Canadians that the NDP is the environmental party, NOT the Liberals or the Greens (and especially not the Conservatives!).

The other one: finances. This is also a great thing for the NDP. One of the biggest criticisms of the NDP is that they "tax and spend" and that all they want to do is to drive you broke through taxes. People in Saskatchewan and Manitoba know that's not true, but most Canadians don't, so it's great the Jack Layton is saying that the NDP is the party that helps you "pocketbook" and is socially responsible by investing in Canada.
What a great thing for the NDP to do.

NDP in 2007

2007-01-10T08:31:00.000-06:00

What does 2007 hold for the NDP? Recent polls have said that the NDP is losing support, mainly to the Greens, and the Liberals have a new 'environment' leader.

Results of Dec. 2006 Environics Poll (quoted from CBC Politics, Monday, Jan. 8, 07)

Oct '06 Dec '06
Cons 37 34
Lib 28 32
NDP 18 14
GPC 7 11
BQ 9 8

+/- 2.3% 19 times out of 20

Atlantic
Lib 37 33
Cons 37 32
NDP 21 26
GPC 5 9

+/- 6.1% 19 times out of 20

Quebec
BQ 38 36
Lib 18 24
Cons 24 18
NDP 12 12
GPC 7 8

+/- 4.4% 19 times out of 20

Ontario
Lib 38 39
Cons 35 36
NDP 20 12
GPC 7 12

+/- 4% 19 times out of 20

Manitoba
Cons 53 38
Lib 26 34
NDP 16 19
GPC 4 8

+/- 8.7% 19 times out of 20

Saskatchewan
Cons 50 40
Lib 25 26
NDP 13 23
GPC 9 10

+/- 8.5% 19 times out of 20

Alberta
Cons 61 60
Lib 15 16
GPC 11 14
NDP 10 11

+/- 6.9% 19 times out of 20

BC
Cons 37 36
Lib 25 35
NDP 28 17
GPC 9 11

+/- 6.5% 19 times out of 20

First of all, the polls show less support for the NDP. But as Jack Layton always points out, this is where the NDP was in the polls this time last year, and they went from 18 to 29 seats anyway. He says that while people may say in a poll that they are a 'Greenie' or a Liberal, they start to think at the polls, "Who is actually going to get things done?", and sure enough, they vote NDP.
As I have already posted in the past, I really don't believe what polls say (and I think more people should share this view with me). Most national polls have a margin of error of +/- 3 or 4%. So whatever the poll says, it could be up to 4% off. They are also 19 times out of 20, meaning that 1 time out of 20, the results mean splat. And they poll about 1,100 people or so. What about the other 15 million+ people who are also registered voters? So while polls can often tell if a party will win a majority or not, it really doesn't mean much.

Stéphane Dion, is he really the answer to saving the environment? I highly doubt it. Now I may think otherwise if he used to be the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but he was the Minister of the Environment, and that can usually give a good record of whether someone can truly help the environment. Not to sound like Harper, but after 13 years of Liberal government, what really happened for the environment? As you probably know, Green House Gasses went up. While the Conservatives are worse, the Liberals weren't something to brag about (yet despite their wrongs, they are still proud of PM Martin's "accomplishments").

So what will the NDP do in 2007? The NDP seems quite fixated on bank charges, and, of course, there is the environment, which will be one of the biggest issues in the foreseeable future. Especially with the new balance of power given to the NDP (thanks to Mr. Khan), the NDP should have some good opportunities to amend the Conservative Clean Air Act. And, of course, there will be a lot of political game playing in 2007, with the possibility of an election.

Finally, to the Greens rising. This is something that can seriously hurt the NDP, and therefore should be taken seriously. As New Democrats, we have to show Canadians that the Greens are not as 'holy' as they tell us. Many Canadians think that the Green Party is much different primarily because they say that they don't play political games, and will get stuff done. But they have never been elected, so why would they be different? I am quite sure that when—or if— they ever get a seat, that Canadians will finally see that the Green Party is just another political party, that it is not 'holy', and that they don't get more things done than the NDP. In fact, I doubt that it is possible to do more good than the NDP. The NDP is—and always will be—the political party that: a) gets stuff done; b) supports the environment (and takes the best steps possible to fix that); and c) the NDP is the only party that protects the working family.

What the NDP means to Sean, and probably Canada

2007-01-09T10:15:00.000-06:00

The following is not actually my writing, but I decided to make this my post for today. It is a very interesting and inspirational blog article by Sean in Saskatchewan. Seeing I did not actually write it, if you feel that you want to leave a comment, please do so on the original page.

What the NDP means to me, and probably Canada

It isn't easy being orange these days. What with the rise of the Green Party, supposedly sucking away the vote, the Liberals with a supposed new "green" bent and unsolicited attacks from Conservative and Liberal biased agents (blogs, media, pundits, chat forums), don't you sometime wonder why anyone would hook their wagon to a party who has never grasped that brass ring?

Well I have a confession to make, though I am sure if anyone really cared they could find this out pretty easily, I once was a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I remember taking out the membership during my early political days back in undergrad (oh nine years ago seems so far away) right before the 2000 election. I even volunteered for the campaign of Brenda Chamberlain in Guelph, Ontario.

However, when Martin came into power and started purging the Liberals of anyone with a left-bent I started to get nervous. The final straw was his treatment of Shelia Copps and her nomination fight against Toni Valeri. I tore up my membership card and quietly headed into the political wilderness in search of something new.

I was looking for a party, a candidate that wasn't in "the game" for power, but there to effect real change, and that just isn't something that you get with the Liberals. This idea more then anything is what brought me over to the NDP, slowly but surely.

Unlike the Conservatives or Liberals the Federal NDP has never had a viable chance to form government in this country. To this effect the political bent of the NDP has never been to get into power or stay in power, as these positions inevitably result in party policies and actions that leave a bad taste in your mouth. Instead, the NDP has been allowed to most accurately represent the voice of its "grassroots" on the national stage. Been allowed to push an agenda that doesn't necessarily translate into votes form all sides of an issue.

Granted, this approach never really paid dividends for the party during the past 20 years of majority governments, a system of government not really designed to that effect. However, with the past two minority governments this approach has proven to be quite effective in giving voice to a segment of the population (around 15-20%) that was usually ignored, expect for the odd socially-conscious bone thrown by the governing party of the time in a hopes to increase votes.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the 5.5 billion dollars in spending negotiated in the Liberals 2004 budget (though I must admit I don't know how much of that was ever implemented) and most recently (for better or worse, it is still an open debate) the attempt to re-write the horribly inadequate "Clean Air Act" of the Conservative minority.

The NDP will always be relevant if it chooses the path of being the social and environmental conscious of Canada, a constant thorn in the side of the governing party of the day that they need to remember the plight of the less fortunate of society. Sure you can dismiss the NDP as a "fringe" party, fear-monger by suggesting their policies, if given a chance, would destroy the country, (something I obviously disagree with, but something left for another debate, another day) but if the string of minority governments continues you won't be able to ignore the NDP much longer.

Eventually, the Conservatives and Liberals will have to learn how to work in a minority/coalition style of government, one where they must consensus build on issues instead of ramming their ideology driven measures down the throats of the majority of the country who didn't vote for them. I won't claim that the NDP has been perfect at this style of government over the past 3 years, however, they are at least trying, which is something the Liberals only did so as not to loss their grasp on that ring and something the Conservatives have yet to do.

So, hopefully that gives a little insight to all those out there as to what the NDP means to me and why I have chosen to spend so much of my personal time and energy working for it in my riding. Of course there is a mountain more I could write on cold-hard details, however, that is best saved for another time, another post.

Published Friday, January 5, 2007

Cabinet Shuffle

2007-01-08T09:28:00.000-06:00

As you already know, there was a somewhat major cabinet shuffle on January 4th. As I am quite busy today, I will just write a little bit about some of the highlights.

1. Rona Ambrose
As was expected by everyone who pays attention to this kind of stuff, Ambrose
was booted out of the environment portfolio. I was even thinking she might have been kicked out of cabinet altogether (I think that if it was not for the fact that she is a women, she probably would have been). But she was moved over to intergovernmental affairs, which is probably something that—unless some big catastrophic thing happens—she could handle. She's also the new Minister of Western Economic Development, taking the portfolio from Saskatoon Rosetown Biggar's Carol Skelton (Saskatchewan's only federal minister), who is still the Minister of Revenue.

2. John Baird
He, of course, was moved from President of the Treasury Board to the environment portfolio to replace Ambrose. One of the reasons that has been floating about why Baird was moved out of his previous position (which, by Conservative standards, he did quite well) is because his riding (Ottawa West—Nepean) has a lot of civil servants, and I guess John ticked them off with his spending cuts, so Harper is trying to put a nice, new, environmental face on him.

I have also found a good article entitled John Baird cannot be trusted by Mike on Rational Reasons. It talks about how our new environment minister, when he was President of the Treasury Board, denied funding for an improved rapid transit system in Ottawa (where is own riding is) even when the Departments of Transportation and Infrastructure, Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Baird's own "professional staff" said that is was "well justified". It is a very good read.

3. Gordon O'Connor
Some analysts thought that O'Connor might be 'shuffled-out' of Defense with his somewhat 'ruff-and-tough' approach to things, such as the banning media presence at soldier's funerals and stopping the tradition of lowering Parliament's flag to honor our fallen soldiers. The main controversy surrounding is appointment to defense was that he was a lobbyist for several major defense industry companies. Personally, O'Connor reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld (former Secretary of Defense, USA).

4. Tony Clement
While no one really expected him to be tossed from Health, that wouldn't have been the worst idea. He really hasn't made Canada's health system better. He hasn't appear much in the news, probably because he hasn't really done anything to ruin medicare or exalt it. While his profile would be acceptable in the U.S., where there is very little government involvement in health (especially federally), it is not in Canada, where our whole system revolves around the government and government funding. Finally, his appointment controversy. Clement has a 25% stake in Prudential Chem Inc., a Canadian drug company. He says that he'd love to sell his shares, but they are not tradable on the TSX, and has not yet found a buyer. Okay, we can give him some credit for that, but why would he be appointed Health Minister of all things?

Liberal Floor-Crossing

2007-01-05T10:08:00.000-06:00

I know I said I'd wait 'til Monday to post, but this is something that needs to be posted!

Breaking news on this story.Click here to view it

Last week, there was a very interesting story that a Liberal MP, Wajid Khan (Mississauga Streetsville), would cross the floor to the Conservative benches. As for as I know, the story first originated (on the internet) on Stephen Taylor's blog, who is a Tory. The following is what he wrote:

BREAKING NEWS -- Khan crosses floor -- EXCLUSIVE

I am now reporting that Wajid Khan will join the Conservative ranks tomorrow as a backbench MP. Doing so protects Khan from cynicism of the press and opposition of making such a political move for career advancement, or for monetary considerations. Khan joins the Tories without taking a position in either cabinet or as a Parliamentary secretary.

This move has been a long time coming and I expected to report on this just after the Liberal leadership convention as such a move would have been wise political strategy to deflate the post-convention bounce in the polls that benefitted the Liberal party.

Khan is expected to make a formal announcement tomorrow and will likely describe that he is switching parties because of the "values" that the Prime Minister represents.

Published January 4th, 2007

Stéphane Dion, of course, had to say something about this. It was reported by the CBC that Dion said Khan is a "committed Liberal". He also said that, "in politics you hear many things and to me, Mr. Khan is a colleague. He will be part of the caucus; he will work in a positive way."

But it is interesting to think about the possibility of this happening. What would the reasons be? Taylor says that he was not offered a post as a minister or even as a parliamentary secretary (if this were true, the move would have happened before or at the cabinet shuffle last week). In the polls, the Liberals are currently higher than the Conservatives, too, and many (if not most) political pundits and junkies think that Harper won't win the next election. The reasoning of this possibility is quite interesting.

Breaking News

Jan. 5, 2007: 9:37 AM CST
I guess Stephen Taylor was right (who knows how he knew about it). Mr Khan, Liberal MP for Mississauga Streetsville, has crossed the floor to the Conservatives. Now, the Conservatives have 125 MPs, meaning that they only need 29 MPs to support them to pass something, or the other way around, too. Guess who has 29 MPs. The NDP. Depending on how this is handled by both parties, this is one of those things that will go either very good or very bad for the NDP. I'm quite surprised that Mr. Khan would actually do this. This is the third floor crossing in a few years (Belinda Stronach, David Emerson, and now Wajid Khan). I wonder if he'll get elected next election? But it is possible; the reason nobody thinks Emerson could win again is because he crossed right after the election. But it worked for Stronach when she went to the Liberals when they were in power.

One more update …

While it is quite short, I couldn't help but put this small quote by Bill Doskoch on the CTV Politics blog.

However, if this story is correct, we're not talking about someone who bled Liberal red his whole life before leaving the party. So I'm left wondering if Khan's defection says anything wider about blue Liberals.

Published January 6, 2007. To read the rest of the article, please click here.

Wal-Mart: For the Better or for Worse?

2006-12-22T10:20:00.000-06:00

Wal-Mart is an every growing company. Most recently, in Canada, they opened three "supercentres", which are stores that are even larger than normal Wal-Marts and include more groceries, in London, Stouffville and Ancaster (all in Ontario). In fact, Wal-Mart has 273 stores across Canada, and plans to open 14 more by the end of 2007. Wal-Mart, of course, has also received a lot (in my opinion, they are well deserving of it) criticism about labour and ethics.

So what is the problem with Wal-Mart? There are plenty, some of which I will go through.
1. Labour
Wal-Mart and labour. As you may guess, this is a very lengthy topic, which I can only briefly talk about. If you would like to read more, please go to the very lengthy Wikipedia document: Wal-Mart employee and labor relations.
Some of the allegations against Wal-Mart in respect to labour have included being "forced" to work 'off-the-clock', discriminating against race and gender, and extreme retaliation against unionization, to name a few. I would like to write about its union "problems". According to the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (and by the way I highly recommend it), Wal-Mart has actually bought 'spy-vans' to spy on and follow workers who they think are pro-union. The film also says that they have video cameras in the employee break rooms to monitor union activity. Also with unions, there is actually only one Wal-Mart store in all of North America that is unionized: Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec. There was also a unionized (or attempting to unionize) store in Jonquière, Quebec. But Wal-Mart closed that store, and many believe that was because of its union activity. Luckily for the workers, Québec law makes it so that Wal-Mart must pay all workers the same wage until they are offered similar employment. Finally, the film also brings up the Wal-Mart labour situation in Germany, where they have very tough pro-union laws. The workers get quite good way, they get somewhere between 3 and 6 weeks of vacation, and most importantly, they like their jobs.
2. Small Business
A 1997 study at Iowa State University found that small towns can lose almost half of their retail trade within 10 years of a Wal-Mart opening. Again, I have watch the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, and it tells the story of a few small town stores, and how they had to close because of Wal-Mart taking away all of their business. This is one of the biggest problems with letting Wal-Mart go where ever it wants to, and in unlimited quantities (meaning lots of stores in one city. Saskatoon has about 220,000 people and three Wal-Marts; one is under construction. One company based in Arkansas has almost taken over the retail market worldwide. And it is not like it is nice socially responsible company, either. The CEO (Lee Scott) makes much more money in a week than the 'associates' make in a lifetime. And as the comic to the left depicts, and this happens way too often, many people who have spent their lives and their life savings on a business, which they truly loved, have seen it go bankrupt because of this mega-store. Wal-Mart also likes to take credit for all of the jobs it brings to communities, like all of the people it takes to run a Wal-Mart just didn't have jobs before. They had jobs, in local businesses. But when those shops had to close, they had not other choice but to work for Wal-Mart, and put up with, especially in small communities with a lack of employers, anything Wal-Mart asked of them. Finally, I have a relative in North Battleford, Saskatchewan who is, like me, a New Democrat and anti-Wal-Mart. But she, like many anti-Wal-Marters, must shop there on occasion. The reason is that because many small businesses closed, there are a few things now in North Battleford that must be bought at Wal-Mart, no one else has it anymore. Just another way that Wal-Mart is taking over retail.
3. Sprawl
Having Wal-Marts causes urban sprawl. Again, back to the film with the small towns where businesses closed. Many of the businesses of those small places were downtown, and on Saturdays, downtown 'small place' was quite busy for a small town. But seeing the large size of Wal-Marts, they could not be downtown, they had to be on the outskirts of the town. So when many of the downtown businesses closed, no one had a need to go downtown. And, unfortunately, this same principle happened in many cities, too.

So what is the solution to Wal-Mart. It is obviously not possible to create a law that makes the existence of Wal-Mart illegal in Canada, but there are things that we can do to at the least create a better Wal-Mart. Like what they did in Germany, we can create tougher, more pro-workers labour laws, make tax and zoning laws that encourage very small Wal-Marts (by making it much more costly to have mega-sized stores) which may even make downtown Wal-Marts and create regulations and we can create tax climates which make it easier for small businesses to compete. And lastly, we can do the good old advocacy work to show people why they should not shop at Wal-Mart.

Canada Needs Public Medicare

2006-12-21T07:12:00.000-06:00

Last Monday (Dec. 18), the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think-tank, released a report (How Good is Canadian Health Care?) about how Canada is not getting enough from its publicly funded medicare system, and how we should have private health care. They also say that we're spending "an awful lot of money" on health care, but we're not getting enough value out of it. The report also ranks Canada in things such as infant mortality, years of life lost to disease, etc. Finally, it recommends that Canada allow us to pay for a portion of health care expenses to improve health care delivery.

My first question: Why would we get better value from our health care system if it's private? How can adding corporate profits into the mix make the system more affordable? I do not see how that is possible.

I totally agree that allowing us pay for a portion of health care expenses would make a faster and improved system. All of the people who don't have much money would be out of the system. Only the middle and high income class would be able to access it. But is this where we want to go? Charging people to have access to doctors and nurses? We would become like the U.S., where there are at least 50 million people who don't have health insurance.

My second question: How would infant mortality rates go down with this plan? Well, less children who lived in middle/high-class homes would die, because there wouldn't be as much time to wait (as long as the parents can pay). But what about poor and low-income parents and their children? They would have to wait even longer for care, or have to go very deep into debt (that is if they qualify for a loan) just to pay for health. Health is a right! Nobody should ever be denied health care just because they didn't make it into business or law school. That is one reason we are different from the U.S., because here we actually care about the lower class. The only people who would benefit from private health care would be the corporations which charged the large profits, and those who could pay, because they would get prompter health care. But we don't want a society were the higher class is healthier, they are not better people than the poorest people in Canada.

Many people say that we should have a two-tiered system, where you could wait longer for public, free health care, or pay for a faster service. But there are problems with this:
1. People who cannot afford to pay will have to wait even longer. Most doctors will give preference to people who will pay them personally, as they will make more money. In this situation people who cannot pay will only be granted health care if there is a time slot that they cannot fill with someone who will pay.
2. Less services would be available through public medicare. People who choose to pay for health care out of their own pocket will probably have to pay less taxes, as they are no longer a 'burden on the system'. And because the public system will get less money, they will not be able to buy better facilities and equipment, so those who cannot pay, again, will be second-class citizens.
If you have any other problems that you would like to say about a two-tiered system, please put them in the comments section, and I might add them here

The best way to improve our health care system is to keep it public, and available to everyone, but put more money into it to lower wait times, hire more nurses and doctors, lower medical school tuition, build more facilities, and get better and more equipment. The problem is that Liberal and Conservative governments do not do this, but we need to work hard to ensure that we have better health care, for all!

Canadian Immigration Flaws

2006-12-20T11:48:00.000-06:00

Immigration is something that is needed in Canada. We have a population of 30 million or so, while America has a population of 300 million, and about the same land space as Canada. Even if you take into account the inhabitable parts of the north, we still have a very low population. Also, we have a birth rate of 1.5 children per woman in their life time. Pretend for a moment that we would never have any more immigrants, imagine how much our population would fall within 80 or so years. America has a birth rate of 2 children per women, and if you take the fact that you need a man to have a child, too, their population will be quite stable for a long time to come. But what I'm saying is that we need a decent amount of immigration to keep our economy stable, and even more if we want to grow.

I would like to write about a few problems and things that need to be improved in our immigration system.
1. Process of Immigration
Immigration takes time and money. To become a permanent resident of Canada, it will cost you at least $1000. While this is not terribly expensive, $1000 could be used to pay rent or a month or two. And in Canada, we need immigrants. We should be encouraging people to come here, not telling them how much to pay. The average waiting time for 80% of immigration applications is 46 months, just about 4 years! And this is just for one member of the family to get here, after one is here, it takes at least a year, but more often than not, it takes several years. This waiting time is quite inappropriate for Canada. I do realize that there has to be reference checks, etc. that may take awhile. I think we should hire more people to do these checks, so immigrants can get here faster, and we can lower the unemployment rate!
2. Amount of Immigrants Accepted
According to Statistics Canada, between 1991 and 2001, there has only been 1,830,680 immigrants. That works out to be 183,068 immigrants per year. That is an incredibly low number. There are approximately 230,000 deaths per year in Canada, and about 340,000 births (and babies will take at least 16 years until they start working to grow our economy). We need to accept about 260,000 immigrants a year (that much, as long as they are evenly distributed across Canada, not all in Toronto) to grow our economy.
3. Recognize Foreign Credentials
When immigrants apply for immigration to Canada, they are usually told that their post-secondary education will be recognized in Canada, and they'll find work as a doctor or doing whatever they were trained to do. Unfortunately, it is too often that, when they get here, their degrees aren't recognized by the government, so they have to become a janitor or a taxi driver, even though they are a doctor or an engineer! I think that we should create a test for many different professions (kind of like a final exam) that the immigrants have to pass so that we know they are properly qualified, and if they pass, they are entitled to work in that profession.
4. Equal Rights: Canadians & Immigrants
There is one quick note that I would like to mention about equal rights. I found out that in Canadian Citizenship and Immigration policy, it says: If you were married outside Canada, you cannot apply to sponsor your same-sex partner as a spouse. However, if you are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, you may qualify to sponsor your partner as a common-law or a conjugal partner. So we allow same-sex marriage to be performed in Canada, but if it happens in other countries, it is not valid? What about equal rights? Are Canadians all of the sudden more supreme than others? This is discrimination based on sexual orientation, I thought that wasn't allowed in Canada, especially by the government.

So as you can see, we need to significantly change our immigration policy if we are to even grow our country and our economy and if we want to have an equal country for all.

North American Free Trade Agreement

2006-12-19T10:29:00.000-06:00

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a document that may not directly affect our everyday lives, but is something that has a serious effect on Canada's economy, and yet is not discussed much in the news, so I would like to once more go through this agreement signed by Brian Mulroney (Canadian Conservative Prime Minister, September 17, 1984, to June 25, 1993).

So first of all, what powers does NAFTA give, and to whom does it give the powers to. An initial summary of what I will say is that it gives most economic power to the Americans and their corporations. But, of course, I will explain it further than that. According to an article by Mel Clark in the June 2006 Monitor, a monthly publication from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, some of the powers Mulroney and his Conservatives gave to America are as follows: control over our water, the right to demand that our broadcasting policy be consistent with American interests, and the power to force us to sell them our forests, to name a few. It also gives foreign corporations the right to sue the Canadian government over such issues if we do not do the ridicules things in that agreement. While I do not fully understand how, it is supposedly true that NAFTA has the power to destroy our medicare system if the Americans decide they would like to pursue that course. In an article in the Monitor, Ed Finn says it quite bluntly (which I like): This agreement was not really about trade. It was—is—a legal bill of rights for transnational corporations. To keep this article somewhat brief, I will stop writing about the merits of this deal, but if you would like to read more, please click on one of the two 'NAFTA's to read more: NAFTA1, NAFTA2.

Unless you're the Exxon Mobile CEO, you probably agree that NAFTA is not saving our country. So what are our options to save Canada? Lots of people who see flaws in NAFTA — like the NDP — want to just try to re-negotiate it. But that will only take a lot of time, and seeing there is at the most two sentences in it that benefit Canada, one cannot tweak it; it is a disaster. But there is one thing we can do to fix it: get rid of it. And that is not as hard as it may sound. Article 210-6 of NAFTA states that the agreement may be “terminated by either Party upon six months’ notice to the other Party”—and without paying compensation or meeting any other condition except giving the six months’ notice. Okay, that was easy, but what happens to Canada-U.S. trade? It would take place under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO has already hinted that it is not 'anti-Canada' when it made the decision that our Wheat Board is not illegal, despite extreme opposition from America. Also, by abolishing NAFTA and working with the WTO, the U.S. won't be able to literally make us trade with them. If they start acting like jerks, we are not legally tied in with them. and, we would have full fighting power back, as the insane clauses of NAFTA (i.e. taking our water/timber, destroying medicare, etc.) would be gone.

What benefits do we get out of NAFTA that we couldn't get without it? None, unless you think that having the average wage increase by 8% between 1990 and 2000 and the top .1% of Canadians wages increase 100% is good (which you probably don't). We need to show the world (and people who read blogs) why this deal needs to go down the drain, so that going down the drain is exactly what happens to it.

Canadian Wheat Board must Stand

2006-12-18T10:34:00.000-06:00

A government, and elected representitives, are supposed to do what the people want. In my province, Saskatchewan, there are 14 federal ridings. 12 of these have Conservative MPs. So one may rightfully think that these MPs are supposed to do what the farmers say. As you may know, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) board of directors consists of 15 seats. In the last election of these seats (Dec. 2006), 8 of the seats were filled with people who support the monopsony (supposedly it is technically not a monopoly) of the CWB. Therefore, it is quite clear that the majority of Western grain farmers support the monopsony of the CWB. But yet the majority of Saskatchewan MPs do not. So yet again, Conservatives do not listen to their constituents.

The Conservatives, of course, do not support the current, single-desk system of the CWB. They want to keep the board, but let farmers market their own grain to whomever they want. See, the CWB has pretty much the same system as labour unions do: strength in numbers. I am quite sure that General Mills does not put the best interest of farmers before their profits. If there is no 'union', they can quite easily exploit the farmers. But with there is a 'union', either they can buy Canadian wheat, or they cannot buy Canadian wheat. And if they choose to buy it (and they need to in order to grow sales), they must pay a fair price to farmers. It is a truly wonderful and remarkable system.

In defense of Chuck Strahls' (Minister of Agriculture) schemes to destroy single-desk, they say that they have a "mandate" by Canadians to do so. I have a few points against that. 1. Canada-wide, they only got 36% of the popular vote. 2. In Saskatchewan, they only got 48.9% of the vote (not quite a majority) 3. I am sure farmers do not cast their vote based on one issues 4. When farmers do cast their vote on one issue (CWB election, 2006), they say that they want to keep the current system.

So why are the Conservatives against the Wheat Board? Well, it could be that they just are anti-family farm, don't listen to Canadians, are in a trance that they have a mandate, or, most likely of the four, they favor large, American corporations to individual Canadians. As we all well know, American corporations and the Bush administration have long been foes of the CWB. They have released reports and whatnot, but the World Trade Organization has cleared the CWB from wrong-doing. In other words, the Americans want the destruction the the Board, therefore so do the Conservatives. Do you see what is wrong with this picture? Canadian Wheat Board must be a pretty good organization, even American farmers think that it is a good idea, and they would like the CWB to also have jurisdiction south of the border.

To conclude, I would like to give my full support to those farmers and their coalitions that are fighting to keep the Wheat Board alive. Keep on fighting!

Homelessness and Affordable Housing

2006-12-17T14:41:00.000-06:00

Homelessness is an ever growing crises. According to Human Resources and Social Development Canada, there are currently 150,000 to 250,000 people living on the streets. I probably don't have to explain to you the problems that this brings about, such as crime, and most notably, health problems. There has been at least four homeless people who have died on the streets of Alberta this year alone.

In a book I read awhile ago about affordable housing, there supposedly is a plan out there called the 1% solution. The reason it is called this is simple: the supporters of it want the federal government to give an additional 1% of their budget (about $2 billion) to affordable housing. This probably won't give every single homeless person a place to live, but it would significantly help. And the great part is that it is only 1% more. The book also explains how there used to be (pre - '70s/80s) much more government money for affordable housing, but so many Conservative and Liberal governments cut funding for it. I also remember that (I think under a Liberal government), a plan was created with other governments across Canada (provincial and municipal) to pay for affordable housing. But the problem was that the feds gave little (if any) money for it! They just agreed it was a good idea.

In the last budget, Minister Flaherty announced a higher income tax rate for people who earned less than $36,400. Their tax rate is now 15.5%, .5% higher than before. While this will only cost them about $180 more per year, that money could be used to, say, buy their kids new clothes and Christmas presents. This budget also lowered the GST by 1%. And seeing that necessities like groceries are not taxed, this will not benefit low-income people, it will benefit people who buy things like computers and TVs. In other words, the people who are not homeless, and can always feed their family enough. Do you see how this works? The Conservatives are giving to the rich the money they are taking from the poor. And this does not even take into effect the several other benefits now such as the child fitness tax credit and the 2% drop of corporate taxes.

My point from the above is this: the government is giving so many benefits for people who don't need it, but they are not giving enough to the people who really need it. The cost of all the tax incentives could have been used to pay for social programs (lots of which have been cut by them) and affordable housing. In fact, the GST cut will cost an estimated $3.5 billion this year, and $5.17 billion in the next year. Remember the 1% solution? This could have been easily done if there had not been this GST cut.

In the next election, let's show the Conservatives (and the Liberals) what Canadians believe in, because either they don't know, or they're just missing a little something called compassion.

Income Trusts

2006-12-16T11:34:00.000-06:00

I know that you are probably sick by now of constantly hearing about income trusts, but I found a very good article on a blog that also talks about ethical investing.

http://bluenosesocialist.blogspot.com/2006/11/liberals-are-lost-on-income-trusts.html

For your convianence, if you, after reading this, are intent on buying an ethical mutual fund, check out Ethical Funds.

Spring Election; Liberals Gaining Strength

2006-12-16T10:35:00.000-06:00

There has been a lot of talk about a spring election. Stéphan Dion, the new Liberal Leader, has announced that he and his party are getting ready for a spring election. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, is also considering introducing a non-confidence motion over the war in Afghanistan. So if the Liberals and the Bloc decided that they both want an election, even if the NDP sided with the Conservatives, the government would fall. And as Harper has said many times, he will not help take down his own government.

While I would like to see the Conservatives get kicked out of office, I strongly believe that an election is not wanted whatsoever right now by Canadians. And I predict that whoever were to vote for that potential motion would see a drop in votes. We have had elections in 2004 and 2006, and adding a 2007 election will be anything but good for the nation.

UPDATE: Stéphan Dion has said that he would not support a Bloc motion to take down the government over Afghanistan, and without Liberal support, the motion cannot pass.
Also, Jack Layton (NDP Leader) said in his Dec. 18th press conference that he would like to see this Parliament work for Canadians, giving the impression he does not want an election very soon.

Recent polls have indicated that the Liberal party is on the rise across Canada. Supposedly, they have the support of 35% of voters, while the Conservatives' have 32%, and the NDP 12%. The poll has a margin of error of up to 3.1% (Decima Research Poll, Dec. 7-11, 2006). If you adjust that, the Conservatives could actually be tied with the Liberals, and the NDP could be only .4% lower than the official results of the last election. And it has to be remembered that only 1,025 people were polled, out of the 23 million registered electors. Canadians can see, better than what this poll tells us, what the Conservatives are doing to this country, and they can also see the progress the NDP has made in this session.

Letter to the Editor

2006-12-16T09:03:00.000-06:00

I thought I'd post my Letter to the Editor (The Star Phoenix) that was published December 4th, 2006.

The recent announcement by the Conservative government that they want to fully pay off the national debt by 2021 will not benefit the majority of Canadians.
Of course, I believe that having low or no debt is preferable, but it matters on how you reach that goal. "Canada's New Government" has significantly cut programs in the short time they have been in power, just so they can lower the debt.
These were programs that benefited Canadians quality of life and our economy, because you need educated, healthy people to have a strong economy.
On the Department of Finance's own website, it states that "The Government is committed to keeping the growth of program expenses below the growth of the economy over the medium term." How can we as Canadians accept that our government is "committed" to cutting programs for Canadians, for the only goal of lowering the debt? A parent doesn't cut piano lessons or quality of food for the children so they can pay off their line of credit.
If Minister Flaherty was in Saskatoon, I'd like to tell him one thing: A government is supposed to do what will benefit the vulnerable and average Canadians.